AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fu

June 25, 2006 - July 04, 2006



      >  Any ideas?
      >  
      >  
      >  TIA,
      >  
      >  Gary Liming
      ====================
      Gary:
      
      A couple of questions:
      
      1 - Is the ammeter digital or mechanical?
      I'm guessing DIGITAL!
      
      2 - When you say surge, is it in the positive or negative direction?
      
      3 - The surge, is it a constant reading or does it fluctuate?
      Does it fluctuate with modulation of the Com?
      
      4 - How is the coax routed from the Xmiter to the Antenna?  Does it go near 
      EITHER the ammeter or any of its wiring?
      
      To answer your question: " I am guessing that there is a circuit in there to 
      compensate for a voltage range across the shunt, but I am guessing about that."
      EXACTLY ... By definition that is exactly what a shunt does.  
      Example: It would be very impractical to manufacture an ammeter for EVERY 
      range of current requested.  So an ammeter that reads say 1 amp is made and lets
      
      say you wanted to measure a current of 10 Amps.  Well, a SHUNT is used to 
      shunt, divert the excess current around/away from the 1 amp meter ... 1 Amp goes
      
      through the meter and 9 amps go through the shunt.  WHY?  Because the shunt 
      shows a path of least resistance at ratio of 10 : 1.
      
      Try this ... Get a fully charge Hand Held Com, one with a HIGH output.  Then 
      turn on all items on as you had during the surge.  Start with the rubber ducky
      
      antenna on the hand held (HH).  Transmit, talk and move the HH antenna around 
      the ammeter ... does the meter surge?
      If not then the second thing to try is connect the HH to the coax of the 
      plane's Com.  Transmit with the HH ... Does the ammeter surge?
      If it does, then you have verified that it is RF getting into the ammeter.
      
      Yup!  That is my bet.
      
      What's the cure?  Reroute the wires, keep coax and ammeter wires as far away 
      as possible IF they have to cross, do them at 90 Deg angles.  You could also 
      consider a shield around the ammeter and its wire.
      
      ALSO!!!  If there is a lot of stray RF floating around ... Check the SWR of 
      the antenna. High SWR causes stray radiation.  And lots of radio problems.
      
      
      Barry
      "Chop'd Liver"
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: CB Size requirements?
My icomm also has two pins for power (and two for ground) and calls for those two #18 wires. I assume ;) it is for two reasons. An attempt to provide some tolerance for bad pins or dirty connections with a separate wire for each pin... Not more failure points but rather a bit of redundancy since either wire will carry the load. The first thing that an avionics tech seems to do is to remove and then reseat the unit to see if anything changes. So why aren't all pins doubled - my guess is that the dual power wires help distribute the current between the pins also for an increase in reliability. With one wire to two pins, the current would tend to mostly go through the pin with the lowest resistance. Ken FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 6/24/06 7:21:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jcorner(at)shaw.ca >writes: > > > >>I too will soon be installing a KX 125 and was able to purchase an >> installation manual from AC Spruce. >> >> The manual recommends a 10 amp fuse as deduced below, and shows a max >> transmit power consumption of 6 amps. >> >> It also recommends power wiring to be 2 #18 AWG wires to the circuit >> breaker and also 2 #18 wires to ground. What would be the advantage of >> >> >this > > >> over the 12 and 14 AWG being installed by Barry? More resistance to >> >> >breakage or is there another reason? > > >> >> Jim Corner >> >> >================================== >JIm: > >Thanks for the post. > >This install manual, is it by King or ACS? I would have to really question >that manual. I do not see ANY advantage of using two 18 AWG wires running in >parallel. Maybe it was done for ease of routing and soldering to connectors? >Yes, there is the current carrying capacity but there is also the extra work, >extra weight, extra points to fail ... Now when talking failure points, what >are the possibilities of wire harness failure? Pretty low even on GA aircraft. > Maybe the double runs are for future use? I tend to do double runs for >further expansion. I also will go up one size for expansion or where a voltage >drop might be a problem; such as in alternator and ACU systems. > >18 AWG = 10 Amps >16 AWG = 15 Amps >14 AWG = 20 Amps >12 AWG = 30 Amps > >This circuit/PROBLEM I'm working on was built by someone else. They used >POP-RIVITS to attach wires to CB'ers. They also tied ALL radios [Xponder, 2 Coms >and Audio Panel] to one 10 AMP CB-Switch. I'm just breaking each item out >with their own wiring and CB. > >Barry >"Chop'd Liver" > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Corner <jcorner(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: CB Size requirements?
The manual is by Allied Signal Bendix/King The drawing shows 13.75 volts to pin 1 and pin A which are tied together. Also ground pins 4,5,19 and Z are tied together. Jim On Jun 25, 2006, at 5:44 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/24/06 7:21:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > jcorner(at)shaw.ca > writes: > >> I too will soon be installing a KX 125 and was able to purchase an >> installation manual from AC Spruce. >> >> The manual recommends a 10 amp fuse as deduced below, and shows a >> max >> transmit power consumption of 6 amps. >> >> It also recommends power wiring to be 2 #18 AWG wires to the circuit >> breaker and also 2 #18 wires to ground. What would be the >> advantage of > this >> over the 12 and 14 AWG being installed by Barry? More resistance to > breakage or is there another reason? >> >> Jim Corner > ================================== > JIm: > > Thanks for the post. > > This install manual, is it by King or ACS? I would have to really > question > that manual. I do not see ANY advantage of using two 18 AWG wires > running in > parallel. Maybe it was done for ease of routing and soldering to > connectors? > Yes, there is the current carrying capacity but there is also the > extra work, > extra weight, extra points to fail ... Now when talking failure > points, what > are the possibilities of wire harness failure? Pretty low even on > GA aircraft. > Maybe the double runs are for future use? I tend to do double > runs for > further expansion. I also will go up one size for expansion or > where a voltage > drop might be a problem; such as in alternator and ACU systems. > > 18 AWG = 10 Amps > 16 AWG = 15 Amps > 14 AWG = 20 Amps > 12 AWG = 30 Amps > > This circuit/PROBLEM I'm working on was built by someone else. > They used > POP-RIVITS to attach wires to CB'ers. They also tied ALL radios > [Xponder, 2 Coms > and Audio Panel] to one 10 AMP CB-Switch. I'm just breaking each > item out > with their own wiring and CB. > > Barry > "Chop'd Liver" > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: CB Size requirements?
In a message dated 6/25/06 10:07:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, klehman(at)albedo.net writes: > My icomm also has two pins for power (and two for ground) and calls for > those two #18 wires. ==================== One of the questions that has to be addressed is: What kind of connector does the radio have? Many of the OLD NARCO style radios used edge-card connectors. The pin size was quite large compared to the size of the pins on the DB-9, DB-25, DB-26 or larger computer type connectors of today. So, it does make better sense to run two wires to two pins sets. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: T&B
First, let me say, after having flown since 1948, I cannot understand the argument against the T&B, which I prefer to call "needle, ball". There has never been in my estimation any valid argument against it. It was the first instrument used by the Wright brothers ( a piece of string - the ball) and I used it on the T-33, fifty years later. Try it at altitude where the air is thin and one cannot see the horizon clearly. Flying on the head of a pin is almost impossible without either AI or prime contemplation of the Needle, Ball. It is so basic as to render complaint virtually child-like. Even then, the AI (or A/H it used to be) doesn't tell you you're properly trimmed......... ask any pre-laser air-ground attack driver - if the ball isn't trimmed dead centre, every round will miss. Second, I fully agree with Old Bob in everything he has said on the topic. The difference is just that he says it so much better than I. Third, the discussion regarding John and his spiral to the sea is correctly diagnosed as Complacency - not as the author wrote 'in the cockpit', but complacency in attitude to training to fly. It was his instructor's offhand coverage of THE most critical control - going where you are pointing - that was the basic cause (or perhaps John's lack of respect for what he had learned). Third, until you are going where you are pointing (forget intentional mis-control of rudder), you are not in control. The attempt at comparing an Artificial Horizon to Needle,Ball is gratuitous and is not the topic. The TC is simply a combination indicator for cruising, built to save cost. Just carrying out the taxi test of left turn, right turn should convince everyone of the folly of a banked wing indicator when none is present. Fourth, if ever an instrument should be twinned it is the Needle,Ball. I'll have two, please. I'll shut up now. Ferg Kyle Europa A064 914 Classic ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: PC-680 Revisited
As usual from Brian, a very good description of batteries, easy to understand and learn. Now I know everything I need about that important part of my airplane, thanks to this group and specially Brian Lloyd Carlos ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 2:57 AM > > On Jun 24, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Charles Brame wrote: > >> >> >> My Odyssey PC-680 has been in my non-flying RV for about three years - >> most of the time uncharged. It keeps a charge for months, and after >> topping off, it started a new, cold engine repeatedly with no problems. >> I'm impressed >> >> The nomenclature that came with the PC-680 battery says it as a Dry >> Cell. I remember an AeroElectric discussion a few years back about lead >> acid, sealed lead acid, gel cell, and recombinant gas batteries. >> According to the archives that I found, the PC-680 is described as a >> Recombinant Gas and/or Sealed Lead Acid battery. I wonder if it really >> is a dry cell or if that is just a manufacturer's line? >> >> I recently bought one of the BB17-12 el-cheapo batteries to power an >> electric gate. It is the same size and shape as the PC-680 but it is >> labeled as a valve-regulated, sealed lead acid, rechargeable battery. >> It seems to work flawlessly, though I don't think I would trust it in my >> airplane. > > There are a lot of words used to describe these batteries. Here is some > nomenclature that might help this make sense: > > Lead-acid -- describes the chemistry. Electrical energy is stored as a > chemical change in lead plates using a sulphuric acid electrolyte. All of > the batteries we use in our airplanes are lead-acid unless they are NiCd. > > sealed lead-acid -- you can't add water to it. > > AGM -- absorbed glass mat. The liquid acid electrolyte is held between > the plates by capillary action in a thin fiberglass mat so you don't need > a lot of electrolyte. Since there is no free electrolyte to slosh around > you can use it in any position. (Imagine water held in a paper towel if > you want to get an idea of what I mean.) > > starved electrolyte -- AGM. > > "Dry" lead-acid or "dry cell" -- starved electrolyte or AGM. > > Gel-cell -- the sulphuric acid electrolyte is mixed with a binder that > turns it into something like Jello. This keeps it between the plates and > it can't slosh around. You can use these in any position. > > Recombinant gas or RG -- this means that the excess hydrogen and oxygen > that would be allowed to bubble away at the end of the charge cycle are > made to recombine back into water at the plate. This keeps you from > having to add water as it doesn't escape into the atmosphere like a > typical "wet" battery but stays in the battery. Both AGM and Gel-cell > batteries are RG batteries. > > Valve regulated, valve regulated lead-acid, or VRLA -- If you overcharge > an RG battery it will produce H2 and O2 faster than they can recombine. > The result is excess gas trapped in the cell. If the overcharge is > removed and the battery left to its own devices the H2 and O2 will > eventually recombine. If the overcharge is allowed to continue the > pressure in the cell continues to rise. Each cell has a pop-off valve > that will relieve the pressure before the case bursts. The only problem > is, if this happens the water that is needed inside the battery escapes > into the atmosphere and now you have shortened the life and capacity of > the battery. As far as I have been able to learn, all AGM and gel-cell > batteries are VRLA batteries. > > There are two big differences between AGM and gel-cell batteries: > > 1. They need different charging and float voltages. Gel-cells like about > 13.8V for charge and about 13.4V for float (charger applied all the time > to keep the battery maintained at full charge). Flooded cell batteries > and AGMs like about 14.2V for charge but only about 13.2V for float. > (These numbers are for a temperature of 20C. The voltages need to be > decreased as the temperature rises or increased if the temps are cold.) > > 2. AGMs are *great* for delivering a LOT of current from a relatively > small cell. This makes them great for starting engines. Gel-cells are not > as good for delivering a lot of current but will give you more > charge/discharge cycles in deep cycle usage. In all probability you want > an AGM battery for your airplane but only if you are taking care to > prevent overcharge. > > So you want to know whether the battery is AGM or gel-cell. Just having > someone tell you VRLA or "sealed" doesn't tell you much. > > With regard to overcharge: neither AGMs nor gel-cells will tolerate > overcharge very well. It kills them pretty quickly. One interesting thing > is that you can split the difference between charge and float voltages on > a gel-cell and still get good service but need only one voltage. You > can't do that very well with an AGM battery. > > OTOH flooded cells handle overcharge pretty well. It just makes them > bubble and give off H2 and O2 gas. As long as you don't overheat the > battery with a gross overcharge you fix the overcharge by adding more > water. > > So the "el-cheapo" battery you have and the PC-680 are both "valve > regulated, sealed lead-acid, rechargeable" batteries. In all probability > both are AGMs as well. I am sure your "el-cheap" battery would work just > fine in your airplane too. > > > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way > brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) > > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . > Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout
I think you're on the right track. You might want to consider TruTrak's Pictoral Pilot or ADI Pilot instead of the Digitrack. They give you both an instrument and AP in one unit, and both are IMHO easier to use than either a T&B or TC. You'd have to query Dynon/GRT/TruTrak about their take on failure modes. I don't think there is enough operational experience with any of these units to know what failure modes they will present. Murphy's Law hasn't been repealed, so having to 'arbitrate truth' is always a possibility. I'm planning on a GRT Sport, 2 axis ADI Pilot, ASI, Altimeter, and compass. If the Sport and ADI disagree, I figure the Altimeter, ASI and Compass will help me decide which is correct. Chances of both failing on one flight are so slim I'm not even bothering with a third unit (same philosophy as a traditional six-pack). If you stick with the 2.25 T&B, you'll have a tie breaker. That's my 2 cents... Dennis Glaeser RV7A - Fuselage Hi all, Reading the posting on T&B's vs. TC has prompted me to seek a bit of input on my panel. I have a Europa with a vacuum powered standard 6 pack. It had always been my intention to upgrade to a glass panel once I thought that the technology was mature. Well at 450 hours my vacuum pump is making sad noises so I have to think about doing something soon. My current setup has a vacuum warning light and a Navaids in place of a TC. My initial thought was to purchase either a Grand Rapids or Dynon EFIS D100 and add to my panel a T&B, ASI, Altimeter and a TruTrack wing leveler, but now I am starting to think of being a bit more conventional. My current thinking is to have a standard 6 pac layout with a Dynon D10 in the place of the AH, a 2.25 T&B, a Digitrack in the place of the DG. The ASI, altimeter, and VSI's would be in the conventional places. Design thoughts: - Ebus feeding the D10 & T&B - Dynon battery back up in case a total power failure - TruTrack in case of a D10 failure - T&B, compass in case of failure of the TruTrack - Conventional /familiar panel layout for IMC work Open items: - Is there any failure modes of the D10 that other than "blank screen" - Same for the TruTrack - Is there a failure mode that would force me to arbitrate who is "telling the truth" I know that my thoughts and questions require speculative answers, but I would appreciate some input from the forum Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Thompson" <dave.thompson(at)verizon.net>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Panel layout
Bob & the other Guys, Thank you all for your suggestions. That is exactly why I posted the original question. I agree with the ideas of using glass panels. That is what I really want. However, with my limited funding, I would rather spend the $1k on a good carburetor which will allow safer flying. I need to be frugal with the parts I use and GET IN THE AIR. At the same time I do not want to skimp on the quality. That is why I plan to make removable panels that can be redesigned, upgraded and replaced at a later date. Thank you Barry, the page on AS is exactly what I was looking for. (Page 377, 2003/2004 catalog) I will be going to the Corona AS store next week and will get an updated catalog. I have gotten a response from someone who might host my panel layout Visio templates for download. If anyone is interested, we will post when available. Bob, You did not miss read my post; I did not fully explain my self. Also, I know, I know, the instruments are 3-1/8 inch, not 3-3/8 in. That was a typo error :). Dave Thompson dave.thompson(at)verizon.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Ammeter surge problem
>posted by: Gary Liming >I am helping a friend with his RV and he is experiencing a strange >problem. Take a deep breath, it is no big deal. Let me guess you have a Van's ammeter? Make sure the ammeter wires are ROUTED away from the COM radio wiring and COAX. (also intercom wire separation). Also make sure the shunt is isolated for other wires. Consider twisting the wire PAIR between the shunt and ammeter. You can also consider a shielded pair cable and ground one end of the shield (either end, does not matter). CHECK the Com radios antenna. It must be grounded and check to make sure the coax and connectors are good. Good means good connections and good antenna ground. Consider shielding the back of the gauge or relocating it. Shield with copper tape or make a metal box or cover. Van's knows about this and you can ask, but last I heard they said it was normal. In deed many just ignore it and live with it, getting use to it. Good luck. --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and homemade rate gyro T&B
The compass may not help as a tie-breaker if a wing leveller goes wonky. I picked up a used 28 volt T&B for $20. Had planned to rig up a power supply but it seems to work fine on 12 volts. I had hoped that someone would market a cheap solid state T&B or publish some plans for such. Has anyone played with rate gyros or have a feel for what it would take? An analog meter display is all I'm after. Yup I've got two T&B's too but I am willing to play with a simple light alternative if only for an educational venture. Could such a thing be done easilly? Ken glaesers wrote: > >I think you're on the right track. You might want to consider TruTrak's >Pictoral Pilot or ADI Pilot instead of the Digitrack. They give you both an >instrument and AP in one unit, and both are IMHO easier to use than either a >T&B or TC. > >You'd have to query Dynon/GRT/TruTrak about their take on failure modes. I >don't think there is enough operational experience with any of these units >to know what failure modes they will present. Murphy's Law hasn't been >repealed, so having to 'arbitrate truth' is always a possibility. > >I'm planning on a GRT Sport, 2 axis ADI Pilot, ASI, Altimeter, and compass. >If the Sport and ADI disagree, I figure the Altimeter, ASI and Compass will >help me decide which is correct. Chances of both failing on one flight are >so slim I'm not even bothering with a third unit (same philosophy as a >traditional six-pack). If you stick with the 2.25 T&B, you'll have a tie >breaker. > >That's my 2 cents... > >Dennis Glaeser >RV7A - Fuselage > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: CB Size requirements?
I cannot say for sure for a KX125, but some members of the King equipment line use an edge connector which slides onto a main circuit board. I have been told the thin copper foil on a typical circuit board is marginal to take the full supply current at a single point of contact and so provision is made to transfer the power through two pins of the edge connector. This is to enhance reliability over the long term by avoiding "burning" the PC land. The circuit diagrams will show two pins "bridged" together for this purpose. Same thing applies for the ground as the same amount of current has to "return" though the ground eventually. Whether a single large conductor (connected to two pins) or a pair of small wires (each going to one pin) is used is as much a matter of manufacturing and installation convenience as anything else. Jim Oke Wpg., MB RV-6A C-GKGZ Jim Corner wrote: > > I too will soon be installing a KX 125 and was able to purchase an > installation manual > from AC Spruce. > > The manual recommends a 10 amp fuse as deduced below, and shows a max > transmit > power consumption of 6 amps. > > It also recommends power wiring to be 2 #18 AWG wires to the circuit > breaker > and also 2 #18 wires to ground. What would be the advantage of this > over the 12 and 14 AWG > being installed by Barry? More resistance to breakage or is there > another reason? > > Jim Corner > > Kitfox 5 under construction. > Kitfox 2 flying > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and homemade rate gyro T&B
On Jun 25, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Ken wrote: > > The compass may not help as a tie-breaker if a wing leveller goes > wonky. I picked up a used 28 volt T&B for $20. Had planned to rig > up a power supply but it seems to work fine on 12 volts. I had > hoped that someone would market a cheap solid state T&B or publish > some plans for such. Has anyone played with rate gyros or have a > feel for what it would take? The Gyro House in Auburn, CA, built one. I don't know if they are still selling it. > An analog meter display is all I'm after. Yup I've got two T&B's > too but I am willing to play with a simple light alternative if > only for an educational venture. Could such a thing be done easilly? Check into the cheap Murata gyros they use to stabilize RC model helicopters. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and homemade rate gyro T&B
On Jun 25, 2006, at 6:26 PM, OldBob Siegfried wrote: > There is no doubt that when the wings are level and > the ball is in the middle, you are not likely to be > turning, You can remove the phrase "likely to be" from the previous sentence. > but it is very hard to believe that little > wings level instrument when your mind tells you it is > all wrong. That is one of the things that you have to learn to deal with when flying on instruments. You inner-ear isn't suitable. > > It is my totally unproven hypothesis that our minds > are better able to deal with stopping the turn than > with putting the wing where it is telling us it does > not belong. The thinking part of the brain has to be able to override the feeling part of the brain if you want to stay alive. You just have to do it. But you do have a good point. When all else fails set the trim to something rational, set the throttle according to the airspeed trend, let go of the yoke, and stop the turn with the rudder. It works. > That is true regardless of which way we think is up. > > That is why I believe the T&B to be an advantage over > the TC. There is absolutely no doubt that an > artificial horizon is easier to use than either a TC > or a T&B. The problem is that they do tumble. Not all tumble. A 360 degree free vertical gyro cannot tumble as there are no stops. That is what is in virtually every military aircraft. I used the one in my CJ6 for setting my lines during aerobatics because I didn't have guide lines on the canopy or a wire frame on the wing time. It never tumbled, even when doing snaps or hammerheads. The only problem is if the gyro has some sort of erection mechanism that causes it to drift when you are not flying straight and level. > It has > also not yet been determined just how well the glass > panel units could be used for unusual attitude > recovery. When you are in a spin, or even a grave yard > spiral, it gets very confusing trying to recover using > an artificial horizon, mechanical or electronic. > Stopping the turn is most likely to be the action that > will initiate recovery. Fine. I have several ways to tell I am not turning. If the wings are level I cannot be turning. If the heading indicator isn't changing I am not turning. If the T&B has the needle in the center I am not turning. I have to compare these things to make sure one of them isn't lying to me. (BTW, I agree with you that the T&B is the simplest and most reliable gyro instrument in the panel and least likely to lie to you.) > > A turn can be stopped by using a TC, but not as > positively. The TC shows both roll and yaw. That makes > it difficult to use in a spin recovery. I agree. > > If you are going to design a new instrument that will > tell us when we are turning, why don't you make it > show a picture of an airplane as if you were looking > down on the top of that airplane? You mean like a heading indicator? That is precisely what it shows. > > If our airplane is flying straight ahead, the little > airplane on instrument should have it's nose pointed > at the top of the instrument. If our airplane is > turning, the little airplane in the instrument should > show the nose over toward the side toward which we are > turning. No, it should show the ground turning under us as we are our own frame of reference. The nose of the airplane is always in front of me. It never changes. Only the earth's relationship to me changes. You need that egocentric viewpoint in order to hack seriously unusual attitudes. Another way of looking at it is that, if you normally fly aerobatics, nothing is an unusual attitude. You just want to change from the attitude you are in to another attitude, one that does not have your velocity vector intersecting the plane of the earth. > > Once again, it is my totally unproven thought that our > mind will accept that sort of an indication when it > will fight us as to whether or not the wings are > level. When one is suffering from vertigo one's vestibular sense is lying to them. At that point it doesn't matter what instruments you have, you have to be able to interpret what they are ALL saying in order to deduce the proper response. Wings level, nose up or down, rate of turn, airspeed trend, altitude trend, and heading are all inputs to the thinking part of the brain which then has to generate appropriate control inputs regardless of what the vestibular sense says is going on. Instrument failure -- any instrument failure -- just compounds the problem. It is really hard to relax and say, "gee, which of these is making sense," when you think you are going to die. > We didn't start to have all of these horrible crashes > following a primary instrument failure before the TC > came on the scene. It may have just been a > coincidence, but I think the emphasis on keeping the > wings level rather than stopping the turn is what > precipitated all of the problems. Hmm, maybe. The FAA doesn't want us teaching spins anymore either (I still do). I make my primary students do their hood work at night when there are no other visual clues. (I am SOOO mean they tell me.) I think that it is a lack of practice in recognizing and switching to partial panel flight. It is a lack of understanding about how the instruments work and how they fail. Pilots used to be able to describe all the aircraft's systems and their failure modes. Now it is hard to find a pilot who can describe the basic fuel or electrical system in a C-150. Lots of things have changed. And I suspect we are actually saying many of the same things -- agreeing violently as it were. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and homemade rate gyro T&B
In a message dated 6/25/2006 7:21:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, brian-yak(at)lloyd.com writes: You mean like a heading indicator? That is precisely what it shows. Good Evening Brian, No, there would be no heading information at all. It would be strictly a yaw instrument, just like a T&B, but with a presentation that I hope would be a little more intuitive to a low time aviator. As I said before, I have no way of testing it out and I do not have the technical skills to make a prototype to find out if I am all wet or not. There are a few T&Bs that have the needle hinged in the center of the instrument face. If you were to make a full circle to replace the turn needle and paint a picture of the airplane on that circle, you would have the presentation I am thinking of. Remember, what I want for the instrument is a picture of the top of the airplane as if we were looking down on it from above, not a head on or tail view like a horizon. If the aircraft we were flying was not yawing, the little airplane would be flying straight toward the top of the instrument. (Not moving, but pointing that way). If a yaw or turn developed, it would show the airplane pointing to the left or right just as does a turn needle. For the test version, I would eliminate the inclinometer from the instrument and mount one just below the new presentation. If my idea showed merit, it could be built to include the inclinometer just as is the TC and the T&B. I think it may be a little easier to learn to use than is the T&B, yet not as confusing as the TC. I've been wrong many times before. It would be nothing new if I am wrong on this one! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: CB Size requirements?
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote: > Now here is a follow up question. I don't have much experience with radar, but the Xponder only requires a 5 AMP CB; yet the power output of the unit is 250 Watts. How come such a low CB? > I'm taking a WAG here, does it have to do with the Duty Cycle of the transmission? Yes, the duty cycle of the 21 microsecond pulse train, which depends upon the number of on bits sent. And then figure the number of pulse trains in our reply, a function of distance and parameters of ATC's ATCRBS interrogator, like sweep speed, interrogation rate, and antenna design. Finally, the average number of interrogations we reply to, so the number of ATC sites within range, and volume of TCAS planes lately talking to us. I reckon a mere 100mA worst case might come out of all the math. Can't be much, as the capacitor which stores the typical 1500V so we can put out peak power of 250W+ when an on bit is sent isn't very big. The do have a warning sticker saying don't touch the wire part of that puppy so you don't have a Homer Simpson moment. Fred F. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43009#43009 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and homemade rate gyro
Interesting info on the rate of turn Bob. I never noticed whether mine has one or three doghouses. The unit was labelled oddly though by a factor or 2 as I recall. I never knew why until now. However on 12 volts it seems to be adequate for my purposes. There is a company selling a portable attitude indicator that just uses LED's. A search seems to indicate that there are rate gyros available that would not be difficult to utilize as a T&B. The confusing display was indeed the primary reason that I didn't like a TC even before I knew of the tilted gyro issue. I also always enjoy your postings. Ken OldBob Siegfried wrote: > >Good Afternoon Ken, > >You will want to be a bit careful when using the >twenty-eight volt unit at a lower voltage. The >sensitivity is drastically reduced. One needle width >will result in a much higher rate of turn than the >standard three degrees per second. >snip > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and homemade rate gyro T&B
On Jun 25, 2006, at 9:23 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/25/2006 7:21:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, > brian-yak(at)lloyd.com writes: > You mean like a heading indicator? That is precisely what it shows. > Good Evening Brian, > > No, there would be no heading information at all. It would be > strictly a yaw instrument, just like a T&B, but with a presentation > that I hope would be a little more intuitive to a low time aviator. > > As I said before, I have no way of testing it out and I do not have > the technical skills to make a prototype to find out if I am all > wet or not. And the HI wouldn't work anyway as it *WILL* tumble. I am forever tumbling my heading gyro even tho' the AI works just peachy. > There are a few T&Bs that have the needle hinged in the center of > the instrument face. If you were to make a full circle to replace > the turn needle and paint a picture of the airplane on that circle, > you would have the presentation I am thinking of. > > Remember, what I want for the instrument is a picture of the top of > the airplane as if we were looking down on it from above, not a > head on or tail view like a horizon. You know, you can train your mind to accept any input. For instance, the Russian and Chinese AIs are upside-down in that they show pitch reversed from what we expect. These AIs have the blue on the bottom and brown on top. The horizon line goes up when you climb putting the aircraft symbol in the blue and vice-versa. When flying IFR with these instruments it takes me about 5 minutes to stop reacting backwards in pitch. Still, my mind adapts pretty quickly and I am then ready to go fly an ILS with it. It is from this that I don't worry about the exact presentation as I know *I* can adapt to it with training. > If the aircraft we were flying was not yawing, the little airplane > would be flying straight toward the top of the instrument. (Not > moving, but pointing that way). If a yaw or turn developed, it > would show the airplane pointing to the left or right just as does > a turn needle. Well, the needle probably works just as well. Something like a HITS display would probably work best. > > For the test version, I would eliminate the inclinometer from the > instrument and mount one just below the new presentation. If my > idea showed merit, it could be built to include the inclinometer > just as is the TC and the T&B. > > I think it may be a little easier to learn to use than is the T&B, > yet not as confusing as the TC. > > I've been wrong many times before. It would be nothing new if I am > wrong on this one! I see where you are going but I guess that, for me, I am not sure it would be any better than the T&B. I do agree that the roll sensitivity of the TC can be annoying but it does give quicker feedback that you are departing from wings-level. OTOH the T&B is not so twitchy. You know what would make a lot of sense? Go do some spiral-dive and spin recovery under the hood using the T&B and then the TC to see if one is appreciably easier. Real live test data is probably a lot more useful than endless conjecture. I know I can recover from a spin using the T&B but have never tried using a TC. Hmm, maybe I will go out and do that. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and homemade rate gyro T&B
Bob et al, You might take a look at the pictorial turn & bank here: http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsinstruments.html It's sorta like a turn & bank and a turn co-ord together only the horizon doesn't act backwards to what the horizon does, and all based on an electronic gyro. You can get it combined with a one or two axis AP if you want. See: http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsproducts.html I haven't flown one and so can't comment on the usability compared to iron turn & bank. Pax, Ed Holyoke -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 6:24 PM gyro T&B In a message dated 6/25/2006 7:21:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, brian-yak(at)lloyd.com writes: You mean like a heading indicator? That is precisely what it shows. Good Evening Brian, No, there would be no heading information at all. It would be strictly a yaw instrument, just like a T&B, but with a presentation that I hope would be a little more intuitive to a low time aviator. As I said before, I have no way of testing it out and I do not have the technical skills to make a prototype to find out if I am all wet or not. There are a few T&Bs that have the needle hinged in the center of the instrument face. If you were to make a full circle to replace the turn needle and paint a picture of the airplane on that circle, you would have the presentation I am thinking of. Remember, what I want for the instrument is a picture of the top of the airplane as if we were looking down on it from above, not a head on or tail view like a horizon. If the aircraft we were flying was not yawing, the little airplane would be flying straight toward the top of the instrument. (Not moving, but pointing that way). If a yaw or turn developed, it would show the airplane pointing to the left or right just as does a turn needle. For the test version, I would eliminate the inclinometer from the instrument and mount one just below the new presentation. If my idea showed merit, it could be built to include the inclinometer just as is the TC and the T&B. I think it may be a little easier to learn to use than is the T&B, yet not as confusing as the TC. I've been wrong many times before. It would be nothing new if I am wrong on this one! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: AMP CPC connector help
Im looking around for decent quality connectors to use for the multiple wires that go to the pitch and roll servos on my autopilot - all 22 or 20 awg wires. After a few hours of intense brow furrowing, I finally started making sense of the voluminous choices on the Mouser web site, but a few questions remain. I think I have it narrowed down to either the series 1 or series 2 AMP CPC connectors - see http://www.mouser.com/catalog/626/957.pdf Series 1 is described as having "size 16" contacts, while series 2 has "size 20". Not sure what that means - does it matter? Secondly, which (if any) of the pins and sockets available for the series 1 or series 2 connectors can be crimped using my B&C d-sub crimping tool? Could someone familiar with the AMP CPC connectors steer me in the right direction? thanks Erich Weaver This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Allison <stevea(at)svpal.org>
Date: Jun 25, 2006
Subject: Re: AMP CPC connector help
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com wrote: > Im looking around for decent quality connectors to use for the multiple > wires that go to the pitch and roll servos on my autopilot - all 22 or 20 > awg wires. > > I think I have it narrowed down to either the series 1 > or series 2 AMP CPC connectors > > Series 1 is described as having "size 16" contacts, while series 2 has > "size 20". Not sure what that means - does it matter? Looks like the "size 16" contacts are larger than the "size 20" contacts. Size 20 is described as "high density", meaning more pins per connector than "standard". More pins per connector means they have to be smaller. This translates to lower current carrying capacity in high density connector pins compared connector to standard pins. This may not be a problem in an autopilot system, since the currents are not large (given the 20 and 22 awg wires involved). You can find lots more information by wading through the AMP website, finding the right catalog section, etc. > Secondly, which (if > any) of the pins and sockets available for the series 1 or series 2 > connectors can be crimped using my B&C d-sub crimping tool? Hard to tell without sifting through the appropriate AMP catalog. I would be surprised if they were compatible with the d-sub tool (used mine this weekend...works great). There are as many crimp tools out there as connector contact styles. Few of them are cross compatible, and a compatible tool is required to produce good crimps. Some basic questions: Where in the autopilot system will these connectors be located? Do you need connectors in the system in addition to the ones on the servos and controllers? If additional connectors are required, why not use d-subs? (they are cheap, reliable, and you already have the crimp tool!! :-) ) Steve ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and
Good Morning Ed, That is a possibility! Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It IS the way of the future. Jim has done wonderful things. Have you ever talked to him about the FAA? As I am sure you are aware, he has often stated that he hopes to never deal with a FED again! When he first developed the original version of the TruTrak, I naively aske d him how it worked. His answer: ---- "GOOD!" When I continued to press, he said he didn't care what made it work, all he cared about was that it provided a plus or minus five volts and that was wha t he needed to make his autopilot work. True Genius! I do not mean to infer that Jim does not really know how the accelerometers work, he was just emphasizing the point that I didn't really have to understand it to trust it. Hopefully, his innovations will eventual drift over to certificated aircraf t. Brian mentioned the rate problems which are bothering the FAA. It is awfull y hard to get them to accept anything new. There is no doubt that if I were flying an experimental airplane, I would have one of Jim's autopilots hooked up as a full time aid in much the same manner as Mooney used some thirty years ago. It was on full time and you had to hold down a button to get rid of it. That did not work as well as one might hope it would. I do believe further research is needed to see how best to interface the autopilot and the human pilot. As electronic aids improve, the man/machine interface has to change. Air Bus is trying to make it work. Most of the pilots flying that machine are happy with it, though I do know a few pilots who have bid off because th ey did not feel the pilot had adequate control or they did not care for the man/machine interface. Boeing has taken a different tack, but they claim keeping the interface desired by the pilots has cost them one hundred and seventy pounds of payloa d. That is enough to carry one more passenger. It may be that pilots who truly understand the workings of a computer can accept giving control of their lives to it while pilots who do NOT understa nd computers are hesitant to do so. Since I am strictly a computer and electronics illiterate, I would probably add an ancient T&B "Just In Case!" Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 6/25/2006 11:38:08 P.M. Central Standard Time, bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes: Bob et al, You might take a look at the pictorial turn & bank here: _http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsinstruments.html_ (http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsinstruments.html) It=99s sorta like a turn & bank and a turn co-ord together only the h orizon doesn=99t act backwards to what the horizon does, and all based on an electronic gyro. You can get it combined with a one or two axis AP if you want. See: _http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsproducts.html_ (http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsproducts.html) I haven=99t flown one and so can=99t comment on the usability c ompared to iron turn & bank. Pax, Ed Holyoke ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and
Or it could be exactly the reverse! But that's a different topic for a different place and it is largely a software issue... Ken > It may be that pilots who truly understand the workings of a computer > can accept giving control of their lives to it while pilots who do NOT > understand computers are hesitant to do so. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Honabach" <don.honabach(at)pcperfect.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the single-point grounding system as described in the 'Connection, in particular as it affects devices in the avionics stack. If I understand the core process, you go ahead and bring all power grounds for cockpit related equipment to a single termination point on the firewall (i.e. the fast tab ground plane). What I'm a bit confused about though is that a prior post mentioned that most avionics run an internal ground to their case. For metal planes using metal panels and metal mounts wouldn't this result in a dual ground system (and as such potential result in ground loop issues)? If so, does this mean that I should go ahead and insulate items in the panel that might have a noticeable affect (radios, intercom, etc.) or ??? (Thanks in advance for any help and guidance!) Thanks, Don ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and
I'm hopping in to the middle of this, so apologies if I'm repeating old ground. My thoughts on the human/airplane interface is that computers are better at watching people than the other way around. A computer doesn't mind watching a pilot for hours on end, and is ready in an instant to warn the pilot or take over. From my limited understanding, it seems that in modern airliners, the pilots are expected to watch the computer, but be ready in an instant should the need arise. I would think that a truly innovative approach to avionics in light airplanes would be something similar to what, I understand, some military fighters have had for quite some time. That is, the autopilot takes over if a crash is imminent. It seems that having some solid state (yes, they are rate based) gyros being watched in conjunction with the gps terrain data base would not be that difficult (at least for experimentals). We'd have to have some sort of "Press to Buzz" switch on the stick to override this function:^) Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 762 hours Maple Grove, MN _____ [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 6:12 AM SNIP As electronic aids improve, the man/machine interface has to change. Air Bus is trying to make it work. Most of the pilots flying that machine are happy with it, though I do know a few pilots who have bid off because they did not feel the pilot had adequate control or they did not care for the man/machine interface. Boeing has taken a different tack, but they claim keeping the interface desired by the pilots has cost them one hundred and seventy pounds of payload. That is enough to carry one more passenger. It may be that pilots who truly understand the workings of a computer can accept giving control of their lives to it while pilots who do NOT understand computers are hesitant to do so. Since I am strictly a computer and electronics illiterate, I would probably add an ancient T&B "Just In Case!" Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
On Jun 26, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Don Honabach wrote: > For metal planes using metal panels and metal mounts wouldn=92t this > result in a dual ground system (and as such potential result in > ground loop issues)? If so, does this mean that I should go ahead > and insulate items in the panel that might have a noticeable affect > (radios, intercom, etc.) or ??? Go ahead and ground the cases of your avionics. The issue comes when you are doing signal grounds, mostly mic wiring. There you want to have a single ground point for sure and it should be at your audio panel or intercom. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Glass Panel Layout and
> It may be that pilots who truly understand the workings of a computer > can accept giving control of their lives to it while pilots who do NOT > understand computers are hesitant to do so. Hi Bob, I think I would modify this just a bit. Pilots who *think* they understand computers will trust their lives to them, and pilots who truly *do* understand computers will not. Of course, it's all about risk management. I've been working with computer hardware and software since the 70s, both for fun and food, and I've seen the full range of good and bad programming and hardware design. There are computer systems that I would trust more than the random human, but I would never trust just any ol' computer system with my life. As applied to aviation, computer systems can add a lot of value, and increase safety. Some airplanes require computer systems to fly. A pilot should never blindly *trust* these systems. They should spend time understanding them, learning about their strengths and weaknesses, and learning how to handle their failure modes. This is no different from using mechanical instruments in the cockpit. When we are trained to use gyros, we are taught how to deal with the case where they fail. Computers fail too, people need to be taught how they may fail, how to recognize the failure, and what to do about it. They should not be simply told that they can't fail, and that they should blindly trust them. > Since I am strictly a computer and electronics illiterate, I would > probably add an ancient T&B "Just In Case!" Wise move. Several systems using different technologies from different suppliers will give you the best chance of surviving a failure. We hear about this sound philosophy on this list all the time. Ensure that the failure of any one system will not cause a forced landing - or worse. Where you do have single systems (engine, for example) be extra diligent about maintenance. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: RE: Kitfox Spar Damage
Hi Dave, Not sure what model your Kitfox is........I've got an untouched set of skystar built wings that are rated for a 1,400 lb gross weight. They came with my series 5 in 1995 but I upgraded to the 1,550 lb wings later. They have been hanging from a ceiling or in the shipping box my new wings came in ever since. I am firm at $2,000 + shipping costs. Let me know if you are interested. Grant ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: AMP CPC connector help
Erich - Buy the AMP CPC Type 2. Allied is a good source and they no longer have a min. $ amount per order. Buy the gold plated pins size 20 pins from either Steinmark or B&C and the crimper from B&C. Stein may also carry the crimper. We used this combo on the CPC's for the panel and for the DB9's on the autopilot sevros and DB25 for the Tru Trak box itself. Piece of cake to get good crimps. The pins are good for 20 - 26 AWG and although they are a bit more expensive, they are mil-spec and for avionics, that is what is best. Cheers, John Schroeder Lancair ES - about ready to fly. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: TruTrak
I'll suggest that it's more rudimentary. Success in any endeavor is based on assembling a collection of simple-ideas into an invention that is refined over time and experience while respecting the laws of optimum proportionality to achieve a recipe for success. If we look back over the history of flight, we'll find many examples of shaky technology and process that would scare today's pilots away. History is replete with accounts by early barnstorming pilots who dealt with relatively fragile, life limited, less than optimal features in their airplanes. Repairs were often made with tools carried in the airplane using materials obtained from local merchants. Most repairs were made to correct LIFE-LIMITED features as opposed to damage. Today, our high risk concerns for flight are centered around HOW we operate the airplane. Back then, a much higher percentage of pilots died because some part of the airplane failed. Read Lindbergh's account of how the Spirit of St. Louis came into being. The long pole in his tent was the engine. Recall that his flight was only 23 years after the Wright brothers struggled into the air with an extremely fragile, horribly underpowered airframe with dynamic stability issues designed to bend airplanes and break pilots. Some things evolve faster than others and the rate of evolution is based on individual perceptions of opportunity to address a market. As I've written in other posts, the state of our technical and manufacturing skills today runs far ahead its application in airplanes. Way too much of how we think about flying is rooted in our experience which has been hamstrung with the albatross of regulation teamed with industry's misguided worship of policy and procedure. While computers, automobiles, even toasters and VCRs become more capable, less expensive to build and more reliable every year, on-board systems in our airplanes lag further and further behind. When one speaks of potentially life saving features that could be developed for airplanes exploiting all that mankind knows how to do, there will always be the individual who points a finger a Bill Gates and announces that he'd never put his life in the hands of that man's software. But consider the two missions: Bill's products require millions of lines of code and thousands of programmers to develop an operating system that runs hundreds of applications in hardware he has little direct control over. From our perspective as users of airplanes and developers of hardware to meet market needs, the task of crafting potentially life saving hardware is perhaps 1/10,000 the size of Bill Gate's task. A sold state rate sensor ($30), a GPS engine ($30), a stepper motor ($15), a two gears and a rudimentary gear box combined with a CPU ($2) and a hand-full of jelly-bean parts will run a few dozen lines of assembler code that would offer a pilot 99% of everything he wants a "hands off flight" system to do when thing are turning to crap in the cockpit. The thing that makes this system stand far above Bill's products for reliability is low parts count, low line count in code, low stress levels in components, readily available off-the-shelf components and a SIMPLE SINGLE MINDED TASK for functionality - hold a course. Once this rudimentary "hammer" is crafted and installed, a marketer/user has a means by which a whole lot of features can be added. A palm top could be programmed to do all manner of navigational assist tasks by feeding new course commands to the gps-aided wing leveler. The high risks are all herded into one piece of low cost hardware (the palm top) that can be totally disconnected from the wing-leveler at any time without crippling the wing-leveler's ability to save your life. Under those conditions, perhaps running Bill's software in your airplane becomes less problematic. Installing two such systems powered from separate sources begins to offer hands-off-flight stability with the same order of system reliability as prop bolts. We can debate the sensor-display-interpretation-reaction servo-loop for flying forever but no combination of hardware -AND- pilot will match up to the capabilities of what some simple hardware and yes, even Bill's software, can do for us to avoid top billing on an NTSB accident report. Accidents are unintended consequences over which victims have no control when events stack up beyond some tipping point. Every prudent and insightful designer should be working toward solutions that make tipping points harder to reach. 75 years ago pilots were till very much at-risk of tipping events forced upon them by limits in technology and process; their demise was properly called an "accident". Today, we're subject to tipping events that are NOT products of limits to the best-we-know-how-to-do. They are the unintended consequences of those who say they're keeping us "safe" from ourselves and our airplanes. In fact, they have become the biggest promoters of disasters waiting to happen. If one takes to the race track today with Firestone 500 nylons and asbestos lined brakes, any demise to the car or driver precipitated by the failures of those two systems to perform would not be called and accident. Whether you talking race cars or airplanes, the consequences of not exploiting the best-we-know-how-to-do are not accidents, they're EXPECTED RESULTS of ignorance and failure to exploit man's natural desire to survive and his inherent abilities to improve on that condition if individuals with with airs of authority are not standing in the way saying, "you can't do that". This cannot be laid just at the feet of the regulators. Leaders in the aviation industry have become totally uprooted from the mind set that made Beech, Lear, Cessna, et als. the once-great icons of aviation progress. If there's a bright star on the horizon for little airplanes, it's shining into basements and garages of all you folks who have "disconnected" from the impediments to progress that are killing type certificated aviation. The airplanes with the highest return on investment for safety and utility will be the ones you folks are building. Bob . . . > >Or it could be exactly the reverse! > >But that's a different topic for a different place and it is largely a >software issue... > >Ken > >>It may be that pilots who truly understand the workings of a computer can >>accept giving control of their lives to it while pilots who do NOT >>understand computers are hesitant to do so. >> > > >-- > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > --------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
In a message dated 6/26/06 8:09:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, don.honabach(at)pcperfect.com writes: > For metal planes using metal panels and > metal mounts wouldn't this result in a dual ground system (and as such > potential result in ground loop issues)? If so, does this mean that I > should go ahead and insulate items in the panel that might have a > noticeable affect (radios, intercom, etc.) or ??? > > > > (Thanks in advance for any help and guidance!) > > > > Thanks, > > Don ============================= Don: You bring up one of my pet peeves ... GROUND LOOPS! 99.99% of the electrically involved do not understand ground loops. Due to the Internet, rumors and BS spread at the speed of an electron. A single point ground is a good thing. We ARE talking about DC (Battery) circuits, right? But we are also talking about PLANES. And in Composition Planes you MUST bring your ground to where ever you need it. In metal - aluminum planes there is the possibility of using the plane as a ground. Just like they do with cars. The problem is aluminum is a very poor electrical conductor and a very good developer of corrosion. OK, here are the Questions and the Answers: As you mentioned Radios can use their CASE as the GROUND conductor. Is that the way to go? A: NO! And below are the reasons Is there a problem with that? A: YES - The radio is NOT a solid mechanical connection its movement makes for a POOR Ground. When it moves it creates ware points on the case and tray which remove the anodizing which increase the chance of corrosion. And in return a POORER Ground. Will it create a Ground Loop? A: Well, lets ask the question: What is a Ground Loop? There are TWO different types of Ground Loops ... AC & DC. AC is anything with an Alternating Current that has a Frequency (i.e.: AF - AUDIO and RF - Radio Frequencies. More on this later. DC is Direct Current and does NOT have a frequency or a pulse, Your Planes Battery / Alternator System. A ground Loop in a DC circuit happens when there is a Potential Difference between what should be Common Ground points. Why are they NOT COMMON? A: Because there is some form of resistance that causes the Potential Difference (I.e.: Corrosion or Long Runs of Ground wire of the WRONG SIZE. Can I use a separate Ground? A: HELL YES! The issue is NOT how many grounds you have but the QUALITY of the grounds. If you use a single point ground to say an aluminum firewall and the area under the Nut & Bolt ... You did use a Nut & Bolt? ... Corrodes ALL of your grounds to that tie point are now at risk. To this add a bit of voltage and the corrosion will increase. If it IA an aluminum point the corrosion is Aluminum Oxide and Aluminum Oxide is pretty damn close to an insulator. Should I use an ADDITIONAL separate Ground? A: What do you think after reading the above Q&A? The answer should be YES! Keeping the potential difference on the Ground side of the circuit as low and as uniform as possible should be your goal. It will help in the operation of the equipment and eliminate failure points as well as NOISE. Ok, now onto AC - AF & RF The basic rule is very simple, learn it and don't forget it: With an AF circuit you ONLY GROUND at the Source of the AF. Lets consider intercoms. 99.99% of the noise problem is because someone, somewhere in the installation GROUNDED the SHIELD at BOTH ENDS of the run. It should be grounded where? At the Source ... At the Intercom. NOT at the Mic or Phone jack. Now someone is going to say ... Mine is grounded at both ends and it works fine. Take a close LQQK I'd bet there are plastic mountings around the jacks. Ok, now onto RF The basic rule is very simple, learn it and don't forget it (where have you heard that before): With an RF circuit you GROUND at BOTH ends. Both the Source (Radio) and Load (Antenna). Question: What kind of a device is a STROBE? A: It is both an AF and RF device. The major part of the strobe noise is in the AF range. Long runs of Power Lines to the Strobe and Flash Tube lines help to spread the noise around. Because the expanding and collapsing fields of the strobe the enegery/noise can be transmitted just like an RF signal. Transmitted into other wires and down power lines. This is heard as noise in the headsets. Question: How do you lessen or eliminate this noise? Answer: Since it is both AF & RF you have to experiment. Use Shielded wire for your power (B+) lines. Start by grounding at the source. Leave some shielded ground free at the far end. Use Tolroids (ferrite beads) on the Power and Flash Tube wires. Give it a test ... Try grounding the free end shield. Do Not run strobe lines parallel to other wires or antennas. There are other tricks but these are the basics that handle most of the problems. So, do I believe in Single Point Grounds? Yes, a whole lot of them! So, do I believe in DC Ground Loops? Yes, ONLY if you have POOR GROUNDS! <<<--- Keyword - letter - being 'S' - GROUNDS Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 06/24/06
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote: >The AI NEVER stabilizes there is a slow tumble until I see either nothing but >sky or ground. NEVER STABILIZING! > >Has anyone ever run across this problem and if so what was the cause and cure? > >It has been suggested that I perform two (2) operations: >1 - Upgrade the Software from Ver 2.21 to Ver 2.64 >2 - Hook up the keyboard and do a Warm System reboot from the keyboard > >What are your thoughts? Does this sound like a cure? Of course the software >upgrade is required and will be done. > >Barry >"Chop'd Liver" > > > I work in the software industry as a Quality Assurance Engineer, ie. I test software. I've written a lot of software. I've met a lot of software engineers. I've worked worked for several software companies. There is a wide range of attitudes when it comes to software. At one end of the spectrum is the companies/engineers that treat software and the requisite hardware as an appliance. The software is tied intimately to the hardware, and a breakage in one signifies a breakage in the other. A breakage in either signifies a breakage in the organization. Code is meticulously maintained, and every last detail of the software/hardware combination is tested as much as humanly possible before shipping to the customer. The engineers tend to be very experienced and 'slow moving'. The code is not expected to break when delivered to QA. The best example I have personal experience with is IBM's mainframe networking division. The other end of the spectrum is what I like to call "The Microsoft Generation". Code is whipped out using long tool chains built on top of libraries written by someone else. I meet lots of these engineers building database frontends to generate reports to management. The criteria for these engineers is that they generate a disposable app quickly and move on to the next project. They are conditioned to value a new glitzy widget over solid engineering. Code unit test is an afterthought at best, and if it does happen it consist of being able to generate a report on a couple sets of data at most. These guys deliver stuff to QA with the idea that the test team will tell them what is wrong with the code. I call it the Microsoft Generation, because that company has be the forerunner in preaching that hiring competent, seasoned engineers is uneccessary with their software. Software is complex and should be expected to break, they preach, but their tool set will enable a cheap college grad that will work around the clock for Coke and pizza to spit out polished applications to run the enterprise. Widget, "new features" and just more eye-candy can be added ad nauseum, quickly and easily. The Microsoft Generation is OK for generating reports to management. I'll even abide letting them build a video game or two. But I want real engineers writing any software that I will be letting my butt ride on. I talked to Blue Mountain and Dynon at Sun-n-Fun. The question I had in mind was, "If I were an QA engineer at this company, what would the development team deliver to me for testing?" The Dynon unit booted quickly and showed a simple display. I got the "feel" that the software was written for the hardware, and the hardware was designed for the software. The BMA unit seemed to take for ever to boot up, complete with splash screen to keep the user occupied reading copyright information while it did a digital dance behind the scenes. (BTW, a "splash screen" is a red flag that someone from the Microsoft Generation is behind the scenes. How is it helpful, except to show more eye-candy? And copyright? What am I going to do, run the stuff on my PC?) I got the distinct feeling that BMA engineers would expect me to tell them what was wrong with it, while the Dynon folks would only expect me to verify that it works as they designed it. My thoughts? The fact that the BMA is designed for "quick upgrades" is a glaring red flag. The thing is a limited function device. It should work out of the box. The in-field "quick upgrade" tells me that BMA is using you as a beta tester. The fact that it doesn't work out of the box tells me that either the hardware or software is broken. Being that this is the real world, I can accept hardware being broken. Things break in shipping...not every IC is tested off the assembly line..etc. But the fact that a 'software fix' is available gives me the thought that the development organization needs a fix. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring
Answering my own question here so that others may profit from my research ... I just got off the phone with Scott at RAC and he confirmed that two (or any number) of trim switches can be connected to each input wire of a relay deck. No isolation diodes are used with SPST switches to ground. There is no inherent danger in activating multiple trim switches simultaneously. And grounding both relay deck input wires simultaneously will provide no output to the trim servo, just as if no switch was activated. Note that this information applies to an installation that uses two G305 Stick Grips, two REL-1 Servo Relay Decks, and two T2-7A servos. It does not necessarily apply to *all* RAC trim installations. For example, the RAC website shows a wiring diagram for RS2 Rocker Switches that requires isolation diodes unless the RS2 switches are rewired in some unspecified fashion. See http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionstwoRS2.pdf There's a lot of misinformation floating around. When I spoke with Scott I made a pitch for including real schematic diagrams of their components (rather than a bewildering array of wiring diagrams) so one could properly analyze their operation without spending a lot of effort reverse engineering or making so many assumptions. I don't think he was convinced so I'd urge anyone else who has opportunity to ask RAC a question to make the same request. -- Joe On 10-Jun-06 14:40 Joe Dubner wrote: > Can anyone shed some light on a question about the use of two Ray Allen > Company control stick grips with trim switches, two RAC relay decks, and > RAC servos for aileron and elevator trim? The RAC "Wire schematic" is > attached. > > Do both sets of trim switches (the corresponding switches from grip 1 > and grip 2) connect to the points labeled Switch 1, Switch3, Switch4, > and Switch2? To me the diagram doesn't make this clear. > > Does anyone have a schematic diagram of a complete RAC trim system that > includes relay deck(s) and indicator(s)? The RAC documentation spreads > out the applicable information between the stick grip and the servo > manuals and it is more of a pictorial than a schematic diagram. I'd > particularly like to see what's inside the "relay deck". > > Thanks, > Joe > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Joe Dubner K7JD | 523 Cedar Avenue | users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/ > Long-EZ 821RP | Lewiston, ID 83501 | +1 208 305-2688 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring
Just some very basic information about Ray Allen Servos (or other DC Brush Motors) that if you don't know, you should: The motors used on my T4-5 and whatever model a Europa uses for pitch (with indicator) are simple brush motors. Reverse the polarity of the 2 wires going to the motor, and the motor reverses. If you connect the 2 wires going to the motor to each other, it will act as a brake. In other words if the motor is spinning and you disconnect power, you are relying on the drag from brushes, gears and load to stop the motor. These brush motors are generators if you spin them. They will slow up real quick but only if you put a load on them. Connecting the 2 leads is a good load (generator needs to work with shorted wires, thus there is motor braking). If you draw a schematic of what their reversible switch is doing, things will become very clear. Specialized switch (nice job) that you need relays to duplicate with mini stick switches. When I was studying how to deal with switching control from left stick to right stick for my 3 servo motors (Aileron Ray Allen, Pitch pay Allen and Airmaster Prop) I do see that there are some installs that do not use motor braking. I am incorporating Braking. I went with a multi tier selector switch (will look up info if anyone is interested in busting the budget) and 4 relays. By using a brake, when you let go of switch there is not much in the way of coasting. I think this will be enough control so that I will not need to control motor speed. Another note on controlling speed of a DC brush motor, you can just add resistors, which will drop voltage. The motor will not develop as much torque. Or you can install a pulse proportion electronic speed controller. It will provide full voltage, but depending on selection will limit the on time per second, thus slowing down the motor. Also more efficient. If you fly model electrics you will appreciate this feature, also there is a lot less heat developed in wasted energy (last 2 sentences same thing). If you don't install a speed controller, it can not fail or make noise. Last note while standing on my soap box, do not over drive throw of whatever it is you are trying to drive. If you want 3/16 throw up and down for roll trim tab, and you are getting 1/2 inch, besides being undesirable in event of run away, it is working motor harder than it could, and moves far faster than it could, and is more susceptible to stripping gears if you have "Muppet's" (as Neville would say) bang into your tab. Increase driven control arm, or add a intermediate long arm in, short arm out. Off Box. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
In a message dated 6/26/06 3:06:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lhelming(at)sigecom.net writes: > I am no EE but in A & P school they were quite clear that electrons come from > the negative terminal. That is why the positive is always connected first > and the negative terminal is connected last. ======================== John: If that is what they are teaching then have them grab +500 Volts in the Right Hand and -500 Volts in the Left Hand and turn the switch ON. Plus 500 added to Negative 500 is ZERO and there will be no voltage flow. The instructor should live Right? Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
In a message dated 6/26/06 3:06:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lhelming(at)sigecom.net writes: > Knowing what I know about electronics, I still am not sure if the electrons > flow from negative to positive or the holes left by the jumping electrons. > Let the debate begin. Larry in Indiana ============================== Larry: It does not matter which horse you use to cross the stream. Just don't change horses mid stream. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
In a message dated 6/26/06 8:09:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, don.honabach(at)pcperfect.com writes: > For metal planes using metal panels and > metal mounts wouldn't this result in a dual ground system (and as such > potential result in ground loop issues)? If so, does this mean that I > should go ahead and insulate items in the panel that might have a > noticeable affect (radios, intercom, etc.) or ??? > > > > (Thanks in advance for any help and guidance!) > > > > Thanks, > > Don ============================= Don: You bring up one of my pet peeves ... GROUND LOOPS! 99.99% of the electrically involved do not understand ground loops. Due to the Internet, rumors and BS spread at the speed of an electron. A single point ground is a good thing. We ARE talking about DC (Battery) circuits, right? But we are also talking about PLANES. And in Composition Planes you MUST bring your ground to where ever you need it. In metal - aluminum planes there is the possibility of using the plane as a ground. Just like they do with cars. The problem is aluminum is a very poor electrical conductor and a very good developer of corrosion. OK, here are the Questions and the Answers: As you mentioned Radios can use their CASE as the GROUND conductor. Is that the way to go? A: NO! And below are the reasons Is there a problem with that? A: YES - The radio is NOT a solid mechanical connection its movement makes for a POOR Ground. When it moves it creates ware points on the case and tray which remove the anodizing which increase the chance of corrosion. And in return a POORER Ground. Will it create a Ground Loop? A: Well, lets ask the question: What is a Ground Loop? There are TWO different types of Ground Loops ... AC & DC. AC is anything with an Alternating Current that has a Frequency (i.e.: AF - AUDIO and RF - Radio Frequencies. More on this later. DC is Direct Current and does NOT have a frequency or a pulse, Your Planes Battery / Alternator System. A ground Loop in a DC circuit happens when there is a Potential Difference between what should be Common Ground points. Why are they NOT COMMON? A: Because there is some form of resistance that causes the Potential Difference (I.e.: Corrosion or Long Runs of Ground wire of the WRONG SIZE. Can I use a separate Ground? A: HELL YES! The issue is NOT how many grounds you have but the QUALITY of the grounds. If you use a single point ground to say an aluminum firewall and the area under the Nut & Bolt ... You did use a Nut & Bolt? ... Corrodes ALL of your grounds to that tie point are now at risk. To this add a bit of voltage and the corrosion will increase. If it IA an aluminum point the corrosion is Aluminum Oxide and Aluminum Oxide is pretty damn close to an insulator. Should I use an ADDITIONAL separate Ground? A: What do you think after reading the above Q&A? The answer should be YES! Keeping the potential difference on the Ground side of the circuit as low and as uniform as possible should be your goal. It will help in the operation of the equipment and eliminate failure points as well as NOISE. Ok, now onto AC - AF & RF The basic rule is very simple, learn it and don't forget it: With an AF circuit you ONLY GROUND at the Source of the AF. Lets consider intercoms. 99.99% of the noise problem is because someone, somewhere in the installation GROUNDED the SHIELD at BOTH ENDS of the run. It should be grounded where? At the Source ... At the Intercom. NOT at the Mic or Phone jack. Now someone is going to say ... Mine is grounded at both ends and it works fine. Take a close LQQK I'd bet there are plastic mountings around the jacks. Ok, now onto RF The basic rule is very simple, learn it and don't forget it (where have you heard that before): With an RF circuit you GROUND at BOTH ends. Both the Source (Radio) and Load (Antenna). Question: What kind of a device is a STROBE? A: It is both an AF and RF device. The major part of the strobe noise is in the AF range. Long runs of Power Lines to the Strobe and Flash Tube lines help to spread the noise around. Because the expanding and collapsing fields of the strobe the enegery/noise can be transmitted just like an RF signal. Transmitted into other wires and down power lines. This is heard as noise in the headsets. Question: How do you lessen or eliminate this noise? Answer: Since it is both AF & RF you have to experiment. Use Shielded wire for your power (B+) lines. Start by grounding at the source. Leave some shielded ground free at the far end. Use Tolroids (ferrite beads) on the Power and Flash Tube wires. Give it a test ... Try grounding the free end shield. Do Not run strobe lines parallel to other wires or antennas. There are other tricks but these are the basics that handle most of the problems. So, do I believe in Single Point Grounds? Yes, a whole lot of them! So, do I believe in DC Ground Loops? Yes, ONLY if you have POOR GROUNDS! <<<--- Keyword - letter - being 'S' - GROUNDS Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring
All great stuff - I'm going through this at the moment (yesterday)..... Questions: The Panasonic CF2-12V relay (http://www.naisweb.com/e/relaye/mech_eng/pdf/mech_eng_cf.pdf) is designed for car electric windows and provides a nice twin relay (and motor breaking - I now note), however DigiKey needs 35 as a minimum order..... Any other leads for a similar twin option - otherwise it is 4 singles + diodes..... Speed control: Is it better for a low (regulated) voltage, or 12V pulsed for a the 'slow' speed? Pro / Cons? Thanks, Carl -- ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - finishing? - New Zealand http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/ > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us > Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2006 8:14 a.m. > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring > > > Just some very basic information about Ray Allen Servos (or other DC Brush > Motors) that if you don't know, you should: > > The motors used on my T4-5 and whatever model a Europa uses for pitch > (with indicator) are simple brush motors. > > Reverse the polarity of the 2 wires going to the motor, and the motor > reverses. > > If you connect the 2 wires going to the motor to each other, it will act > as a brake. In other words if the motor is spinning and you disconnect > power, you are relying on the drag from brushes, gears and load to stop > the motor. These brush motors are generators if you spin them. They will > slow up real quick but only if you put a load on them. Connecting the 2 > leads is a good load (generator needs to work with shorted wires, thus > there is motor braking). > > If you draw a schematic of what their reversible switch is doing, things > will become very clear. Specialized switch (nice job) that you need relays > to duplicate with mini stick switches. > > When I was studying how to deal with switching control from left stick to > right stick for my 3 servo motors (Aileron Ray Allen, Pitch pay Allen and > Airmaster Prop) I do see that there are some installs that do not use > motor braking. I am incorporating Braking. > > I went with a multi tier selector switch (will look up info if anyone is > interested in busting the budget) and 4 relays. > > By using a brake, when you let go of switch there is not much in the way > of coasting. I think this will be enough control so that I will not need > to control motor speed. > > Another note on controlling speed of a DC brush motor, you can just add > resistors, which will drop voltage. The motor will not develop as much > torque. Or you can install a pulse proportion electronic speed controller. > It will provide full voltage, but depending on selection will limit the on > time per second, thus slowing down the motor. Also more efficient. If you > fly model electrics you will appreciate this feature, also there is a lot > less heat developed in wasted energy (last 2 sentences same thing). > > If you don't install a speed controller, it can not fail or make noise. > > Last note while standing on my soap box, do not over drive throw of > whatever it is you are trying to drive. If you want 3/16 throw up and down > for roll trim tab, and you are getting 1/2 inch, besides being undesirable > in event of run away, it is working motor harder than it could, and moves > far faster than it could, and is more susceptible to stripping gears if > you have "Muppet's" (as Neville would say) bang into your tab. Increase > driven control arm, or add a intermediate long arm in, short arm out. > > Off Box. > > Ron Parigoris > > -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
This thread is MUCH harder than it needs to be. The avionics trays should be grounded. If they are in an aluminum airplane with an aluminum instrument panel and the panel is bolted or riveted to the airframe somehow, your job is done. If you have some sort of nonconducting panel such that the avionics trays are insulated from the rest of the airframe, run a wire from your avionics tray(s) to your single-point ground. And this has nothing to do with the power ground for the radios. Each radio has a ground or multiple ground pins on its connector. These should be connected to your single point ground independently of the chassis ground. Audio grounds, e.g. headphone, mic, audio inputs, etc., should be isolated and go to a single point ground at the radios. Mic and headphone jacks should be insulated from the airframe and a ground lead from each jack run back to the radio stack where they will ground at the intercom (if you have an intercom), the audio panel (if you have an audio panel without an intercom), or the comm radio (if you have no intercom or audio panel). Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring
On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Carl Morgan wrote: > vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz> > > All great stuff - I'm going through this at the moment > (yesterday)..... > > Questions: > > The Panasonic CF2-12V relay > (http://www.naisweb.com/e/relaye/mech_eng/pdf/mech_eng_cf.pdf) is > designed > for car electric windows and provides a nice twin relay (and motor > breaking - I now note), however DigiKey needs 35 as a minimum > order..... > Any other leads for a similar twin option - otherwise it is 4 > singles + > diodes..... You don't need fancy relays to have motor control with braking. For each trim motor you need two single-pole, double-throw (SPDT) relays. Connect both NC contacts of the relays to ground. Connect both NO contacts of the relays to +12V. Connect the two leads coming from the trim motor to the armature (moving) contacts of the two relays, one wire to each relay. Wire up your trim switches from your yokes/sticks to energize the relay coils. When neither relay is energized, both leads of the trim motor are connected to ground and since they are shorted, the motor will provide dynamic braking. If you energize one relay the motor will run in one direction. If you energize the other relay, the motor will run in the reverse direction. If you inadvertently energize both relays both leads from the motor get tied to +12 which shorts the motor leads together and provides braking. This is fail safe in case one person tries to activate trim in one direction while the other person tries to activate trim in the other direction. The trim motor doesn't run in that case. Fail safe. > > Speed control: Is it better for a low (regulated) voltage, or 12V > pulsed > for a the 'slow' speed? Pro / Cons? Pulse width control for speed control is better but more expensive to do. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring
> >Just some very basic information about Ray Allen Servos (or other DC Brush >Motors) that if you don't know, you should: > >The motors used on my T4-5 and whatever model a Europa uses for pitch >(with indicator) are simple brush motors. > >Reverse the polarity of the 2 wires going to the motor, and the motor >reverses. This is a permanent magnet motor . . . there are other motors that also use brushes that have three or perhaps 4-leads and have different requirements for reversing . . . but the motor you describe is VERY common. >If you connect the 2 wires going to the motor to each other, it will act >as a brake. In other words if the motor is spinning and you disconnect >power, you are relying on the drag from brushes, gears and load to stop >the motor. These brush motors are generators if you spin them. They will >slow up real quick but only if you put a load on them. Connecting the 2 >leads is a good load (generator needs to work with shorted wires, thus >there is motor braking). This is called 'dynamic braking' and is recommended for most situations where motor coast after shut-off is a problem. >If you draw a schematic of what their reversible switch is doing, things >will become very clear. Specialized switch (nice job) that you need relays >to duplicate with mini stick switches. > >When I was studying how to deal with switching control from left stick to >right stick for my 3 servo motors (Aileron Ray Allen, Pitch pay Allen and >Airmaster Prop) I do see that there are some installs that do not use >motor braking. I am incorporating Braking. > >I went with a multi tier selector switch (will look up info if anyone is >interested in busting the budget) and 4 relays. Budget shouldn't be a problem. Relays with mounting feet and push-on spade terminals from Digi-Key. Goto http://digikey.com and search on: G8P-1C2T-F-DC12 These are SPDT relays with mounting feet, fast-on terminals, and cost $4.10 each. They look like this: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704inst.jpg >By using a brake, when you let go of switch there is not much in the way >of coasting. I think this will be enough control so that I will not need >to control motor speed. Controlling motor speed is seldom an issue driven by whether or not the motor stops quickly . . . optimal trim rates are linked to indicated airspeed. Aircraft with wide range (greater than 2:1) difference in IAS for cruise versus over-the-fence generally benefit from adjustable rates for electrically driven trim systems. For the Lears, by the time pitch trim was slowed down sufficiently for optimum operation at cruise, the pilots had do start trimming 10 miles out to get the machine down to approach speeds over the fence. >Another note on controlling speed of a DC brush motor, you can just add >resistors, which will drop voltage. The motor will not develop as much >torque. An un-quantified concern when the neophyte builder hasn't the foggiest notion of exactly how much torque is needed for a given task . . . he tries it and if it "works" then he goes on. > Or you can install a pulse proportion electronic speed controller. >It will provide full voltage, but depending on selection will limit the on >time per second, thus slowing down the motor. Also more efficient. If you >fly model electrics you will appreciate this feature, also there is a lot >less heat developed in wasted energy (last 2 sentences same thing). Trim systems are intermittent duty . . . both wattage and total energy dumped during trim operations is microscopic with compared with all other requirements for electrical energy. Selecting a linear versus duty cycle switching versus switch mode regulators for trim speed control may be an intellectually satisfying exercise but in the final analysis, I'll suggest that max performance (accurate, stable set-point), low parts count, low cost of implementation are high on the list of points to consider irrespective of which control philosophy is being considered. >If you don't install a speed controller, it can not fail or make noise. There are a number of variations on a theme downloadable from . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim but in particular . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/trim6.pdf . . . where you see a two-speed trim system that's automatically set to high speed ops as soon as you extend any flaps. This is how it was switched on the Lear 35. All the part are available from Radio Shack or other sources . . . >Last note while standing on my soap box, do not over drive throw of >whatever it is you are trying to drive. If you want 3/16 throw up and down >for roll trim tab, and you are getting 1/2 inch, besides being undesirable >in event of run away, it is working motor harder than it could, and moves >far faster than it could, and is more susceptible to stripping gears if >you have "Muppet's" (as Neville would say) bang into your tab. Increase >driven control arm, or add a intermediate long arm in, short arm out. Absolutely! Far to many trim systems have way too much authority when allowed to drive to mechanical limits described by the kit or plans. During your fly off, see how much authority is offered by the as-built system and install mechanical stops or otherwise modify geometry of the linkage to limit mechanical travel to what's really needed. I've know several folks bend airplanes pretty badly (one totaled) because trim drove to a limit and surprised the pilot when the tail came up but before he had a lot of aerodynamic authority with controls. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Honabach" <don.honabach(at)pcperfect.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2006
Subject: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
Thanks everyone - lots of great information! I understand from the comments I've received that 1. Grounding the 'power grounds' of the avionics to a firewall single-point system is a good thing. 2. The fact that the avionics have a second power ground available to them via their cases to the plane's core structure (assuming metal panel/plane) is ok to leave as is, and putting in a single-point ground system 'on-top' of this 'poorer' case ground path is preferred. Onward I go so one day I can go upwards... Don -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 4:20 PM This thread is MUCH harder than it needs to be. The avionics trays should be grounded. If they are in an aluminum airplane with an aluminum instrument panel and the panel is bolted or riveted to the airframe somehow, your job is done. If you have some sort of nonconducting panel such that the avionics trays are insulated from the rest of the airframe, run a wire from your avionics tray(s) to your single-point ground. And this has nothing to do with the power ground for the radios. Each radio has a ground or multiple ground pins on its connector. These should be connected to your single point ground independently of the chassis ground. Audio grounds, e.g. headphone, mic, audio inputs, etc., should be isolated and go to a single point ground at the radios. Mic and headphone jacks should be insulated from the airframe and a ground lead from each jack run back to the radio stack where they will ground at the intercom (if you have an intercom), the audio panel (if you have an audio panel without an intercom), or the comm radio (if you have no intercom or audio panel). Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring
Hello Bob Thx. for chiming in. Have a few comments**** >>If you draw a schematic of what their reversible switch is doing, things >>will become clear>> ****Brians post spells out in words and relays exact what ray allen does with switches. I was hoping some who read my post would sit down and draw out and figure out this concept. Once concept is grasped, far easier to exact apply to ones exact application. >>I went with a multi tier selector switch (will look up info if anyone is >>interested break the budget. It was more that $125 but lein busting the budget) and 4 relays. > > Budget shouldn't be a problem. Relays with mounting feet and push-on > spade terminals from Digi-Key. Goto http://digikey.com > and search on: G8P-1C2T-F-DC12 > > These are SPDT relays with mounting feet, fast-on terminals, > and cost $4.10 each. They look like this: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704inst.jpg ****The multi tier selector switch I went with can break the budget, it was more than $125 but less that $150. It is made up of stack-able high reliability gold contact rated DC switched. Work of art with LEDs to indicate Pilot or co-Pilot. I am using 2 relays per side ( 2 for pilot and 2 for co pilot "cheap hardware"). I could have gone with a Relay (cheap) for side selection, but chose to go with the switch. My business is copiers (since 1975) and have seen relays fail in every inconceivable way. I trust my chosen selector switch more than a relay. I am relying on this selector switch in addition to running pitch and roll trim, also prop motor. If 1 side has a problem, switching to other hopeful will cure till on the ground. >>By using a brake, when you let go of switch there is not much in the way >>of coasting. I think this will be enough control so that I will not need >>to control motor speed. > > Controlling motor speed is seldom an issue driven by whether > or not the motor stops quickly . . . optimal trim rates are > linked to indicated airspeed. Aircraft with wide range (greater > than 2:1) difference in IAS for cruise versus over-the-fence > generally benefit from adjustable rates for electrically driven > trim systems. > > For the Lears, by the time pitch trim was slowed down sufficiently > for optimum operation at cruise, the pilots had do start trimming > 10 miles out to get the machine down to approach speeds over the > fence. > > >>Another note on controlling speed of a DC brush motor, you can just add >>resistors, which will drop voltage. The motor will not develop as much >>torque. > > An un-quantified concern when the neophyte builder hasn't the foggiest > notion of exactly how much torque is needed for a given task . . . > he tries it and if it "works" then he goes on. ****Your points are well taken. On a fair performance aeroplane like a Europa, where the Mfg. depicts the servo, and supplies the switch which in fact incorporates dynamic braking and only full motor speed, if one were not aware that dynamic braking was designed into the equation, and builder redesigned without, I suspect that it would be a bit too touchy for ones taste at cruise. I am sure a pulse with modulation circuit, or a resistor may help, but braking on a marginal fast system can be the deciding factor. I have limited time on a europa, but found the pitch trim at cruise lively and desirable. If it overshot just a bit my input, it may be undesirable. I fooled with motor with and without braking during build, braking makes thing awful precise. I will follow kinda sorta your mention as to how to figure if enough torque is available with a dropping resistor to slow motor speed "he tries it and if it "works" then he goes on" I will do the same with Dynamic braking, and if I find that I want slower speed of motor or 2 speeds, then I will install a speed controller. I would not second guess the mfg. of a high performance craft that suggests a 2 or more speed trim at first, if it were me, I would probably build as per mfg. go fly and modify if I felt it was needed. >>Last note while standing on my soap box, do not over drive throw of >>whatever it is you are trying to drive. If you want 3/16 throw up and down >>for roll trim tab, and you are getting 1/2 inch, besides being undesirable >>in event of run away, it is working motor harder than it could, and moves >>far faster than it could, and is more susceptible to stripping gears if >>you have "Muppet's" (as Neville would say) bang into your tab. Increase >>driven control arm, or add a intermediate long arm in, short arm out. > > Absolutely! Far to many trim systems have way too much authority > when allowed to drive to mechanical limits described by the kit or > plans. During your fly off, see how much authority is offered by > the as-built system and install mechanical stops or otherwise modify > geometry of the linkage to limit mechanical travel to what's really > needed. > > I've know several folks bend airplanes pretty badly (one totaled) > because trim drove to a limit and surprised the pilot when the tail > came up but before he had a lot of aerodynamic authority with controls. **** Sorry for boring with this now triple mentioned point, but I think it is important. Will mention benefits as they pertain to models and full size, perhaps if someone who did not yet get it, this may trigger: **If you have too much throw, any play in mechanical linkage will equate to more free play than if you had it set where max. movement of servo was equal to exact throw needed. Exact throw required equates to more precise control. **Too much throw makes trim tab move faster. **Too much throw provides less force to trim tab and requires motor and transmission to work harder compared to exact throws. **Too much throw can grow to way too much throw when the thing runs away and the internal limit switch fails. I suggest ripping apart servo and looking at just what is in there, go ahead and scare yourself. As Bob suggests Mechanical limits or geometry design is prudent. I will make mention that Europa incorporates a friction damper for the T-Bar that controls the Anti servo tab for pitch in the event the servo linkage failed for any number of reasons. The same damper also has mechanical stops. Without the damper amd a linkage failure, I don't want to be the one to find out how much damage the subsequent flutter of the antiservo tabs will do. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
In a message dated 6/27/06 3:09:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch writes: > My intercom (Flightcom 403) has a ground pin and the case is grounded, > and there is continuity between the two. I have not tested any of my > other avionics. I wonder if this is common, or will cause a problem. > > -- > Mickey Coggins > http://www.rv8.ch/ > #82007 finishing =================== Mickey: This depends on if it is an Audio Ground or a Power Ground. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Software in the cockpit
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote: ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ >> Pilots who *think* they understand computers will trust their >> lives to them, and pilots who truly *do* understand computers >> will not. > > >Except for those pilots driving cars less than about twenty years old to the >airport, and who may pull out in front of another car, trusting that the >car's computer will keep shoving gas and spark in! That is an insiduous mistake, Alex. A) My car has mechanically actuated brakes. B) I expect the other car to have mechanically actuated brakes. C) I am able to validate the health of the onboard computer in a very low-risk environment before performing the high-risk maneuver. The engine is running while sitting at the stop light, after all. D) I 'trust' that the engine computer's software is not built on top of a hacked version of DOS3.1 with three different graphic libraries, a widget library, a tftp server, a TCP-IP stack, a general purpose command line interpreter, a Java byte-code interpreter and Perl. Think I sound ridiculous. I've worked on embedded systems built this way. E) Car makers have huge engineering staffs with salaries amortized over thousands if not millions of units. Staffs that are paid well to do the boring and tedious jobs of software validation. This job is boring, thankless (nobody likes the guy that says the software doesn't work), and sucks in general. I wouldn't do it if it didn't allow me to buy so many airplane parts. The point is, software ain't software ain't software, anymore than bolts is bolts is bolts. People who would faint at the idea of using a course thread bolt from the BigBox Hardware store will happily throw a mission critical box in their panel without a thought. Well, actually there is a thought. The thought is, "Those software guys are all so smart. Just look at what Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did in their garages. This new SuperEFIS is all bright and shiny, with cool graphics and lots of buttons, and if it breaks it will phone home through a satellite connection to the Internet and update itself. It's going to make my flying so easy." That thought should receive the same esteem that would be received from the guy walking down the bolt section at Lowe's going, "Ooh! Shiny stuff." Someone asked me if I were endorsing Dynon over BMA. I'm not; though, my current plan is to purchase a Dynon unit. I'm endorsing a set of criteria to choosing what software goes in your cockpit. When evaluating a unit, conisider these questions: 1) Does the level of glitz and functionality correlate with the size of the company and the number of units they expect to sell? There is no free lunch. Software has to be validated, and that's expensive, because it is boring, tedious and no one wants to do it. If the company has three employees, and the unit has more functionality that a Garmin396 at 1/2 the price....you'll probably be a beta tester. 2) Do you get the feeling that the software would be useless without the hardware, or is this something ported from a PC game? General purpose software is just that 'general purpose'. Lots of compromises and obfuscations are made on the way from here to there. The idea that the software is tied to the hardware will mean that the software knows the limits of the hardware and can check that data recieved from the hardware is not out of bounds. The more 'stuff' that is inserted between the hardware and the decision making portion of the software, the more chances there are for things to screw up and the more time the processor spends bookeeping data that has nothing to do with showing you which way is up. Nothing is more fun in a development organization that watching the software side saying a problem is a hardware issue, while the hardware guys say that a software fix is needed. Those issues occur less and less the closer the two are tied together. 3) How often are updates released? 'Update' is an interesting word in the software field. An update used to mean additional code to add functionality for a changing world. It has slowly been morphed by companies not wanting to admit that they have sold you crap-in-a-box. It now means "a self-administered field repair". If your looking at a car that has a history of needing a repair once a month, would you drive off the lot with it? And yet you would call that a 'feature' in a piece of software? A piece of software that you expect to tell you which way is up when you can't see the ground? An EFIS, or any other embedded software, doesn't live in a changing world. It is spec'd to tell up from down. Up is up and down is down. Until those change, an update isn't. It's a field repair. 4) Are the company representatives 'excited' about new technologies? You can leave this one off if you'd like. It's my bias showing. My experience is that older engineers tend to view new software 'methodologies' with a critical eye. The younger guys tend to jump on the latest software fad with exuberence, generally breaking things that were working and needing more hardware horsepower to do boot. I've watched myself get less exuberant and more critical as the years have passed. A representative that is ready to jump in an unproven software technology without careful consideration of the cost/benefit equation is a red flag for me. The experienced guys know that it is the same ol' stuff, with a different set of headaches. I'm not trying to steer anyone away or to a particular unit. I'm just saying that the software in the cockpit deserves the same amount of consideration as any other piece of the airplane. Bob K, I'm going to vehemently disagree with the assertion that we can build a simple autopilot and have it controlled by PocketPC type device that we would not rely on. Humans don't work that way. Once it is discovered that the PocketPC will fly the plane just dandy on a smooth air day, we start to trust it. Still works in minor turbulence, we trust it a little more. We take it into IMC and it starts to get the leans...unfortunately, we trust it as it flies us into cumulous granite. Do not put any software in control of your airplane unless you trust it completely from the outset. I'm not saying a autopilot should not be done, I'm saying that software that can not be fully validated should not be considered. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
In a message dated 6/27/2006 11:41:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes: A) My car has mechanically actuated brakes. B) I expect the other car to have mechanically actuated brakes. C) I am able to validate the health of the onboard computer in a very low-risk environment before performing the high-risk maneuver. The engine is running while sitting at the stop light, after all. D) I 'trust' that the engine computer's software is not built on top of a hacked version of DOS3.1 with three different graphic libraries, a widget library, a tftp server, a TCP-IP stack, a general purpose command line interpreter, a Java byte-code interpreter and Perl. Think I sound ridiculous. I've worked on embedded systems built this way. E) Car makers have huge engineering staffs with salaries amortized over thousands if not millions of units. Staffs that are paid well to do the boring and tedious jobs of software validation ================================================= Ernest: O! Boy! Are you misinformed .... A - Does your car have an ABS breaking system? Then they are computer controlled. A - Again ... When you take your foot off the gas and slam on the break what do you thing tries to keep the engine from stalling? Brakes talking to the computer and then computer talking to the engine. B - The ENTIRE action of the car should be actuated by the BRAIN way before the key hits Start. But obviously that is not happening. As for TRUSTING in other people or their cars... Poor - Bad Idea. C - WHY the HELL are you doing a "high-risk maneuver"? I fly formation, I get close to my #1 BUT the scariest thing I ever do is driving. I KNOW what my #1 is going to do. I have no freeken idea what the other drivers around me are going to do of even if they are SOBER! Just consider your posted response! D - I must agree with your 'D' statement. So why is Bill Gates the richest man in the world? He should be sued! E - As for your 'E' statement ... I guess you never heard of Mandatory Government Recall on cars. Five items are enough to think about. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
>Snipped >Ernest: > >O! Boy! Are you misinformed .... > >A - Does your car have an ABS breaking system? >Then they are computer controlled. > >A - Again ... When you take your foot off the gas and slam on the >break what do you thing tries to keep the engine from >stalling? Brakes talking to the computer and then computer talking >to the engine. > >snipped > >Barry >"Chop'd Liver" Barry, You are "almost" correct here. The ABS system has it's own computer. Upon starting the engine, the computer does a diagnostic test of all parts of the system. If everything is OK , the ABS light on the instrument panel will extinguish after 5-10 seconds. The system will then operate normally. IF there is a problem, the ABS light stays on and the system disables itself. This is the failsafe mode. You now have ab circa 1966 to 1980s brake system. Charlie Kuss ________________________________________________________________________________
From: lee.logan(at)gulfstream.com
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Wire sizes
Oldest question in the book and perhaps heresy on this site, but here goes anyway: Greg Richter "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People" recommends 18 and 22 guage wire for nearly all requirements but presupposes a 24 volt system per his recommendations. I'm at work and looking to order some of the wire for the next steps in my project and don't know what the equivalents would be in a 12 volt system. Do I step up one size or two or is there some other formula that applies? I have The Aeroelectric Connection at the hangar but I need to order some of this from here at work. Any help? Lee... Lee Logan Government Programs and Sales Support Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Savannah, Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail message, including all attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have either received this message in error or through interception, and that any review, use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and is subject to criminal and civil penalties. All personal messages express solely the senders views and not those of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Avionics Stack - Single Point Grounding...
On Jun 27, 2006, at 2:56 AM, Mickey Coggins wrote: > matronics(at)rv8.ch> > >> The avionics trays should be grounded. If they are in an aluminum >> airplane with an aluminum instrument panel and the panel is bolted >> or riveted to the airframe somehow, your job is done. If you have >> some sort of nonconducting panel such that the avionics trays are >> insulated from the rest of the airframe, run a wire from your >> avionics tray(s) to your single-point ground. >> And this has nothing to do with the power ground for the radios. >> Each radio has a ground or multiple ground pins on its connector. >> These should be connected to your single point ground >> independently of the chassis ground. > > My intercom (Flightcom 403) has a ground pin and the case is grounded, > and there is continuity between the two. I have not tested any of my > other avionics. I wonder if this is common, or will cause a problem. It will not cause a problem. The manufacturer designed it that way. Some devices may show a low resistance between case and ground pin (on the order of 10 ohms or so). They use a 10 ohm resistor to get the shielding while the resistance greatly reduces the current in any potential ground loop. The bottom line is that, if it has a metal case the manufacturer expects the case to ground to the airframe through the panel, or at least there is a very good chance that it will. If they don't want the case grounded you will find something about that in the documentation and they will provide the wherewithal to insulate the case. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Wire sizes
Hi Lee, Just figure out the amperage load the wire is going to have to carry and check the distance it has to carry it. Then check Vans construction manual. On the last page in the section called Electrical Wiring Notes there is a wire length versus wire size for any amperage carried figure that will answer your question. Bob --- lee.logan(at)gulfstream.com wrote: > lee.logan(at)gulfstream.com > > Oldest question in the book and perhaps heresy on > this site, but here goes > anyway: Greg Richter "Aircraft Wiring for Smart > People" recommends 18 and > 22 guage wire for nearly all requirements but > presupposes a 24 volt system > per his recommendations. I'm at work and looking to > order some of the wire > for the next steps in my project and don't know what > the equivalents would > be in a 12 volt system. Do I step up one size or > two or is there some > other formula that applies? I have The Aeroelectric > Connection at the > hangar but I need to order some of this from here at > work. Any help? > > Lee... > > Lee Logan > Government Programs and Sales Support > Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation > Savannah, Georgia > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This e-mail message, including all attachments, is > for the sole use of the > intended recipient(s) and may contain legally > privileged and confidential > information. If you are not an intended recipient, > you are hereby notified > that you have either received this message in error > or through > interception, and that any review, use, > distribution, copying or disclosure > of this message or its attachments is strictly > prohibited and is subject to > criminal and civil penalties. All personal messages > express solely the > senders views and not those of Gulfstream > Aerospace Corporation. If you > received this message in error, please contact the > sender by reply e-mail > and destroy all copies of the original message. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
On Jun 27, 2006, at 12:07 PM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/27/2006 11:41:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, > echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes: > A) My car has mechanically actuated brakes. > > B) I expect the other car to have mechanically actuated brakes. > > C) I am able to validate the health of the onboard computer in a > very low-risk environment before performing the high-risk > maneuver. The engine is running while sitting at the stop light, > after all. > > D) I 'trust' that the engine computer's software is not built on > top of a hacked version of DOS3.1 with three different graphic > libraries, a widget library, a tftp server, a TCP-IP stack, a > general purpose command line interpreter, a Java byte-code > interpreter and Perl. Think I sound ridiculous. I've worked on > embedded systems built this way. > > E) Car makers have huge engineering staffs with salaries amortized > over thousands if not millions of units. Staffs that are paid well > to do the boring and tedious jobs of software validation > ======================== ========================= > Ernest: > > O! Boy! Are you misinformed ....'' Well, I don't really think he is. I actually think his point is well taken. I also think that the two of you are approaching this subject orthogonally and not really talking about the same thing. Ernest's points about mission-critical applications (and a PFD is a mission-critical application in my book) are well taken. There are ways to develop software so as to make it more reliable and less prone to undesired interactions between modules. One of the more successful is to ensure that the software is simple enough that you know all the inputs, all the outputs, and all the possible paths through the code. This makes testing a closed-ended process. If you want a new feature, find a way to isolate it from what you already have so that you minimize any possible interaction. Putting it in a separate box with tight controls over what gets in our out is not a bad idea. OTOH, Microsoft bases their development on the proliferation of new features, not on ensuring that the existing features are without error. In fact, Microsoft "fixes" software by layering more software on top to mitigate the behavior of underlying software. (I have been wracking my brain to think of a good mechanical analogy but I can't come up with one because mechanical things just aren't made this way.) It is a pretty scary process that precludes Microsoft from being used in mission-critical applications. OTOH, it is great if you want shiny new flashinlitez every few months. Should we shoot/sue Bill Gates? No. He is making the product that people seem to want. They want features more than they want reliability. Would I fly behind any box that has a Microsoft product running in it? Not on your life. Now on to the point about things like ABS and computerized engine controls. The interesting thing about these two functions is that they are very well defined functions. The automotive industry also puts them in separate boxes so there is as little interaction between them as possible. But software is complex and sometimes errors do get through and need to be dealt with. Yes, there are recalls that require new code or new boxes to be installed. But if you compare the rate of that to the rate of updates to Windows, you will see several orders of magnitude difference. The automotive code is simpler and better tested. Odds are very good it is right. The odds that Microsoft will issue new, bug-free code is about as close to zero as you can get. They are different markets. Now getting back to aviation. People selling low-cost PFDs (that is what we are talking about when we talk about attitude, heading, altitude, and airspeed) face the same problem as Bill Gates. You, the buyer, want as many features as you can get for your dollar. You want it to do all that and be an engine monitor and moving map too. I am with Ernest on this. I want that box to do only what it is supposed to do and have the manufacturer spend a LOT of time ensuring that it does this one, relatively straight-forward feature set flawlessly. You want an engine monitor? Put in another box dedicated to that function. Keep the functions isolated so one can't hose-up the other. Want an example of why this is good? Ask computer geeks who went to MIT in the '70s about a critical mainframe that would crash every 28 days. Someone even figured out that it occurred at precisely the moment when the phase of the moon changed. (I forget whether it was new moon or full moon.) Can you imagine the consternation of the technical staff to learn that their computer was going to crash whenever the moon was full? Shades of the Wolfman! It took months to find the problem. The problem turned out to be a simple little throw-away feature that someone hacked into the real- time clock function of the machine. All the feature did was calculate the phase of the moon. It wasn't documented. It was so simple. It was probably the work of a bored programmer late some night. It is just that the programmer allocated one byte too little for one variable and the software wrote off the end of the variable into someone else's memory causing the operating system to crash. Unfortunately it took things like student registration and payroll with it when it died. So when you build something on top of something someone else has built you inherit all their bugs into your system. Better to simplify and compartmentalize. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Intercom CAD file wanted
Listers, I'm wiring up my Flightcom 403d intercom on my RV-8A project. I'd like to thank Pete Howell for his tips on adding additional aux inputs to this intercom. I called Flightcom's tech support earlier today. I asked if they had a CAD drawing of the wiring schematic (exterior wiring) of this intercom. I was hoping that I could start with their generic drawing and modify it to show my system. Unfortunately, the tech looked on their server but couldn't find a CAD based drawing. Does anyone have a CAD file of their intercom that they would be willing to share? I'd be happy to trade CAD schematics, as I've already diagrammed most of the circuits on my 8A. Charlie Kuss ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Wire sizes
This should help... http://www.aeroelectric.com/CH_8/Ch8_R12.pdf Bret Smith RV-9A (91314) Mineral Bluff, GA www.FlightInnovations.com -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 5:38 PM --> Hi Lee, Just figure out the amperage load the wire is going to have to carry and check the distance it has to carry it. Then check Vans construction manual. On the last page in the section called Electrical Wiring Notes there is a wire length versus wire size for any amperage carried figure that will answer your question. Bob --- lee.logan(at)gulfstream.com wrote: > lee.logan(at)gulfstream.com > > Oldest question in the book and perhaps heresy on this site, but here > goes > anyway: Greg Richter "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People" recommends 18 > and > 22 guage wire for nearly all requirements but presupposes a 24 volt > system per his recommendations. I'm at work and looking to order some > of the wire for the next steps in my project and don't know what the > equivalents would be in a 12 volt system. Do I step up one size or > two or is there some other formula that applies? I have The > Aeroelectric Connection at the hangar but I need to order some of this > from here at work. Any help? > > Lee... > > Lee Logan > Government Programs and Sales Support > Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation > Savannah, Georgia > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This e-mail message, including all attachments, is for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged and > confidential information. If you are not an intended recipient, you > are hereby notified that you have either received this message in > error or through interception, and that any review, use, distribution, > copying or disclosure of this message or its attachments is strictly > prohibited and is subject to criminal and civil penalties. All > personal messages express solely the senders views and not those of > Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. If you received this message in > error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all > copies of the original message. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
Great analysis.. Just a few embedded comments. > On Jun 27, 2006, at 12:07 PM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote: snip > > OTOH, Microsoft bases their development on the proliferation of new > features, not on ensuring that the existing features are without > error. In fact, Microsoft "fixes" software by layering more software > on top to mitigate the behavior of underlying software. (I have been > wracking my brain to think of a good mechanical analogy but I can't > come up with one because mechanical things just aren't made this snip Sure... Lots of things are made this way. How about fuel delivery controlls on cars from about 1974 to about 1990 (year varying by brand and model)? Smog limits were imposed. Manufactures mostly chose to do the minimum bandaid fix to meet the latest standard. This led to labrynths of vacuum lines, some of which seemed to go nowhere.. Instead of doing a complete redesign to manage fuel flow vs. airflow precisely, they said "well, if we mechanically compensate for altitude a little, and add a little bit of exhaust to the intake once in a while, we'll pass the latest criteria." Kept glueing things on until system reliability was really pretty horrible after a few thousand miles. > It took months to find the problem. The problem turned out to be a > simple little throw-away feature that someone hacked into the real- > time clock function of the machine. All the feature did was calculate > the phase of the moon. It wasn't documented. It was so simple. It was > probably the work of a bored programmer late some night. It is just > that the programmer allocated one byte too little for one variable > and the software wrote off the end of the variable into someone > else's memory causing the operating system to crash. Unfortunately it > took things like student registration and payroll with it when it died. > That's a great story.. Before the days where a kernel didn't allow segmentation violations.. Today, we pretty much have to live with software that mallocs, but doesn't free properly, but at least the program can't usually crash the kernel. They system usually just slowly runs out of real memory, then swap.. > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way > brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) > > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . > Antoine de Saint-Exupry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Malcolm Thomson" <mthomson(at)showmeproductions.com>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Software in the cockpit
Very well put. Ex-President, Blue Mountain Avionics! -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest Christley Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:27 AM --> AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote: ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ --> >> Pilots who *think* they understand computers will trust their lives >> to them, and pilots who truly *do* understand computers will not. > > >Except for those pilots driving cars less than about twenty years old >to the airport, and who may pull out in front of another car, trusting >that the car's computer will keep shoving gas and spark in! That is an insiduous mistake, Alex. A) My car has mechanically actuated brakes. B) I expect the other car to have mechanically actuated brakes. C) I am able to validate the health of the onboard computer in a very low-risk environment before performing the high-risk maneuver. The engine is running while sitting at the stop light, after all. D) I 'trust' that the engine computer's software is not built on top of a hacked version of DOS3.1 with three different graphic libraries, a widget library, a tftp server, a TCP-IP stack, a general purpose command line interpreter, a Java byte-code interpreter and Perl. Think I sound ridiculous. I've worked on embedded systems built this way. E) Car makers have huge engineering staffs with salaries amortized over thousands if not millions of units. Staffs that are paid well to do the boring and tedious jobs of software validation. This job is boring, thankless (nobody likes the guy that says the software doesn't work), and sucks in general. I wouldn't do it if it didn't allow me to buy so many airplane parts. The point is, software ain't software ain't software, anymore than bolts is bolts is bolts. People who would faint at the idea of using a course thread bolt from the BigBox Hardware store will happily throw a mission critical box in their panel without a thought. Well, actually there is a thought. The thought is, "Those software guys are all so smart. Just look at what Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did in their garages. This new SuperEFIS is all bright and shiny, with cool graphics and lots of buttons, and if it breaks it will phone home through a satellite connection to the Internet and update itself. It's going to make my flying so easy." That thought should receive the same esteem that would be received from the guy walking down the bolt section at Lowe's going, "Ooh! Shiny stuff." Someone asked me if I were endorsing Dynon over BMA. I'm not; though, my current plan is to purchase a Dynon unit. I'm endorsing a set of criteria to choosing what software goes in your cockpit. When evaluating a unit, conisider these questions: 1) Does the level of glitz and functionality correlate with the size of the company and the number of units they expect to sell? There is no free lunch. Software has to be validated, and that's expensive, because it is boring, tedious and no one wants to do it. If the company has three employees, and the unit has more functionality that a Garmin396 at 1/2 the price....you'll probably be a beta tester. 2) Do you get the feeling that the software would be useless without the hardware, or is this something ported from a PC game? General purpose software is just that 'general purpose'. Lots of compromises and obfuscations are made on the way from here to there. The idea that the software is tied to the hardware will mean that the software knows the limits of the hardware and can check that data recieved from the hardware is not out of bounds. The more 'stuff' that is inserted between the hardware and the decision making portion of the software, the more chances there are for things to screw up and the more time the processor spends bookeeping data that has nothing to do with showing you which way is up. Nothing is more fun in a development organization that watching the software side saying a problem is a hardware issue, while the hardware guys say that a software fix is needed. Those issues occur less and less the closer the two are tied together. 3) How often are updates released? 'Update' is an interesting word in the software field. An update used to mean additional code to add functionality for a changing world. It has slowly been morphed by companies not wanting to admit that they have sold you crap-in-a-box. It now means "a self-administered field repair". If your looking at a car that has a history of needing a repair once a month, would you drive off the lot with it? And yet you would call that a 'feature' in a piece of software? A piece of software that you expect to tell you which way is up when you can't see the ground? An EFIS, or any other embedded software, doesn't live in a changing world. It is spec'd to tell up from down. Up is up and down is down. Until those change, an update isn't. It's a field repair. 4) Are the company representatives 'excited' about new technologies? You can leave this one off if you'd like. It's my bias showing. My experience is that older engineers tend to view new software 'methodologies' with a critical eye. The younger guys tend to jump on the latest software fad with exuberence, generally breaking things that were working and needing more hardware horsepower to do boot. I've watched myself get less exuberant and more critical as the years have passed. A representative that is ready to jump in an unproven software technology without careful consideration of the cost/benefit equation is a red flag for me. The experienced guys know that it is the same ol' stuff, with a different set of headaches. I'm not trying to steer anyone away or to a particular unit. I'm just saying that the software in the cockpit deserves the same amount of consideration as any other piece of the airplane. Bob K, I'm going to vehemently disagree with the assertion that we can build a simple autopilot and have it controlled by PocketPC type device that we would not rely on. Humans don't work that way. Once it is discovered that the PocketPC will fly the plane just dandy on a smooth air day, we start to trust it. Still works in minor turbulence, we trust it a little more. We take it into IMC and it starts to get the leans...unfortunately, we trust it as it flies us into cumulous granite. Do not put any software in control of your airplane unless you trust it completely from the outset. I'm not saying a autopilot should not be done, I'm saying that software that can not be fully validated should not be considered. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Date: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Wire sizes
Lee, I can say after having wired and completed my RV7 last year that you will need lots of 22 AWG wire. I suggest you think of the colors you will use. Something like red for power wire, black for ground, and yellow or white for control. You will need some other size wires and 18 is one of them. You will also need some heavier wire but not great lengths. In the starter and alternator and battery cables you will need 2 and 4 awg wire. But you will mostly need 22 AWG. I originally bought several hundred feet and had to buy more. I wish I could tell you exactly how much of each color you need but I can't with any accuracy. Depends a lot on what your instruments and electrical needs are and type of plane. My system is 12V. Best wishes. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:58 PM > > Oldest question in the book and perhaps heresy on this site, but here goes > anyway: Greg Richter "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People" recommends 18 and > 22 guage wire for nearly all requirements but presupposes a 24 volt system > per his recommendations. I'm at work and looking to order some of the > wire > for the next steps in my project and don't know what the equivalents would > be in a 12 volt system. Do I step up one size or two or is there some > other formula that applies? I have The Aeroelectric Connection at the > hangar but I need to order some of this from here at work. Any help? > > Lee... > > Lee Logan > Government Programs and Sales Support > Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation > Savannah, Georgia > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This e-mail message, including all attachments, is for the sole use of the > intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential > information. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby > notified > that you have either received this message in error or through > interception, and that any review, use, distribution, copying or > disclosure > of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and is subject > to > criminal and civil penalties. All personal messages express solely the > senders views and not those of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. If you > received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail > and destroy all copies of the original message. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Alternator failure. Info provided
After 250 hours my 14684 ND alternator finally gave way. Of course I was a thousand miles from home when it did. Went running around the big city of Denver for hours getting a replacement. Best I could come up with was a 14870 for a 1988 Chevy Sprint. Most auto part shops did not even show the 14684 number. Although the mount ears on the 14870 were in a different location, as was the bat post, I was able to finagle washers and new bolts to get her back up and flying for the ride home. The 14684 alternator I bought from Vans for my RV-8 behaves differently than the new 14870 Im now running. The 14684, once the field was excited, would keep charging as long as the pulley was turning. You could turn off the field and it would keep charging. The new 14870 will shut off when the field is off. I have the OV protection on a contactor. Also sometime during the alternator failure, my Lightspeed ignition blew its 3 amp fuse. Klaus said I should have a 5 amp in there anyway. I took the 14684 to an alternator shop for repair when I got home and he said it looked like the stator was cooked, but he could not get any parts for it. So its now a door stop. Information for the group if you happen to be on the road and cant find the 14684 locally. You can get the 14870 to work on your RV and a lyco mount with new bolts and washers to shim for alignment. Best Mike Stewart ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Derek K Sington" <derek(at)sington.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Wire sizes
Hi Larry, As a fellow '7 builder, how much of the 22AWG that you bought was shielded? Many thanks, Derek Sington. -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryRobertHelming Sent: 28 June 2006 02:46 Lee, I can say after having wired and completed my RV7 last year that you will need lots of 22 AWG wire. I suggest you think of the colors you will use. Something like red for power wire, black for ground, and yellow or white for control. You will need some other size wires and 18 is one of them. You will also need some heavier wire but not great lengths. In the starter and alternator and battery cables you will need 2 and 4 awg wire. But you will mostly need 22 AWG. I originally bought several hundred feet and had to buy more. I wish I could tell you exactly how much of each color you need but I can't with any accuracy. Depends a lot on what your instruments and electrical needs are and type of plane. My system is 12V. Best wishes. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:58 PM > > Oldest question in the book and perhaps heresy on this site, but here goes > anyway: Greg Richter "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People" recommends 18 and > 22 guage wire for nearly all requirements but presupposes a 24 volt system > per his recommendations. I'm at work and looking to order some of the > wire > for the next steps in my project and don't know what the equivalents would > be in a 12 volt system. Do I step up one size or two or is there some > other formula that applies? I have The Aeroelectric Connection at the > hangar but I need to order some of this from here at work. Any help? > > Lee... > > Lee Logan > Government Programs and Sales Support > Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation > Savannah, Georgia > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ > > This e-mail message, including all attachments, is for the sole use of the > intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential > information. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby > notified > that you have either received this message in error or through > interception, and that any review, use, distribution, copying or > disclosure > of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and is subject > to > criminal and civil penalties. All personal messages express solely the > sender's views and not those of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. If you > received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail > and destroy all copies of the original message. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Wire sizes
In a message dated 6/28/06 7:54:25 AM Central Daylight Time, derek(at)sington.net writes: > how much of the 22AWG that you bought was shielded? >>>> Derek, this stuff is great for those runs where you need a feed and return going to the same place and back, such as mic and ptt. by using the shield as the return. I can't think of an application where you might use the shield as a "shield", but there may be. How much you need will depend on location of devices- I might have used less than 50' in my RV-6A. Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Software in the cockpit
> > >Bob K, I'm going to vehemently disagree with the assertion that we can build >a simple autopilot and have it controlled by PocketPC type device that we >would not rely on. Humans don't work that way. Once it is discovered that >the PocketPC will fly the plane just dandy on a smooth air day, we start to >trust it. Still works in minor turbulence, we trust it a little more. We >take it into IMC and it starts to get the leans . . . an aviate issue >...unfortunately, we trust it >as it flies us into cumulous granite. . . . a navigate issue >. Do not put any software in control of >your airplane unless you trust it completely from the outset. I'm not >saying a autopilot should not be done, I'm saying that software that can not >be fully validated should not be considered. When you're relying on any combination of hardware/software, there needs to be a means by which failure to do the intended task can be monitored and annunciated immediately. For the dual, simple a/p to offer a high order of confidence (meaning that you intend never to touch the controls in clouds) then both a/p are powered up and providing course/steering data but only one motor is energized. You take course data from both autopilots and compare with with course data from a third (panel mounted nav) system. When you say "hold course", a $1.00 processor compares three course data values with the stored value of course-to-make-good and lights a light should any course data value vary from preset by some handy number, like +/-5 degrees. You also light a light when there is disagreement between any two sources by more than 5 degrees and finally, light a light should any signal disappear (the most likely failure mode). This level of software sophistication is easy to validate and separates the aviate task from the navigate task. When you plug much more sophisticated software and hardware in to steer one of the autopilots, the light will come on any time the dish-washer makes a course change whereupon you can hit the button to store a new course-to-make good that is watched by the other two sources on the same $1 jelly-bean processor. The same event light tells you when the autopilot-in-command wanders into the weeds. The segmented, fire-walled approach encourages OBAM aircraft world development of convenience while keeping the important hardware/software free of inevitable variability that pops up in any development program. The policy and procedure protocols for software development in certified aviation have fertilized huge organizations that are prone to unintended consequence just because of their size and complexity. Honeywell has become the "microsoft" of GA software. But devout discipleship at the Altar of Validation doesn't keep them from stepping into the occasional gopher hole. I'm not suggesting that "fully validated" software is a bad or unnecessary goal to strive for . . . but in the OBAM aircraft world, it's unlikely that were going to see a DO-178, Level A qualification on ANY offerings. I'll suggest that building a firewall between simple save-your-life and the more complex but convenient, dish-washing-silver-polishing system is easy, prudent and greatly reduces risks. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Alternator failure. Info provided
Yes the new alternator 14870 is a 55amp alternator. So was the old one. It's a ND bought from Autozone in stock, lifetime warrantee whos receipt is now permanently in the plane. The ears were oriented correctly, it was the ear spacing that was off. I run at 12 amps normally. Damn all these alternator problems anyway. In 1800 hours of RV flying in 2 planes, this is my 5th alternator. ARGH! A friend recommended I put the 4" pulley on. Im very tight in the cowl with my 6cyl installation. Not sure if I could get it in there. Mike _____ Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:46 AM Mike Thanks for the report. Could you tell me what brand or what auto parts store you found your alternator at? Are these the 35 amp or 60 amp models? FYI, you can easily "clock" the two case housing halves to get the ears oriented like your original alternator. Many of the various alternator part numbers differ only in how the case halve are oriented to each other, as required by the auto manufacturer's requirements. I'm a firm believer in using parts which are automotive based and readily available. Your 4 hour ordeal is proof of the wisdom of this. I like the starter shown below. It's off of a Toyota pick up truck. See http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Airboat-Starter-forTextron-Lycoming-Engin es-149tfw-NR_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ26439QQihZ002QQitemZ4580254772QQ tcZphoto FYI for maximum alternator life, your nominal current draw from the alternator shouldn't exceed 60% of it's rated output. Forcing a 35 amp unit to produce 25 amps for long periods is a sure route to short life. The rectifier diodes are heat sensitive. These items are the weak link in most alternators. Cheapo rebuilds use cheapo diodes. Real ND, NAPA or other name brand diodes go a long way to ensuring long life. Charlie Kuss After 250 hours my 14684 ND alternator finally gave way. Of course I was a thousand miles from home when it did. Went running around the big city of Denver for hours getting a replacement. Best I could come up with was a 14870 for a 1988 Chevy Sprint. Most auto part shops did not even show the 14684 number. Although the mount ears on the 14870 were in a different location, as was the bat post, I was able to finagle washers and new bolts to get her back up and flying for the ride home. The 14684 alternator I bought from Vans for my RV-8 behaves differently than the new 14870 Im now running. The 14684, once the field was excited, would keep charging as long as the pulley was turning. You could turn off the field and it would keep charging. The new 14870 will shut off when the field is off. I have the OV protection on a contactor. Also sometime during the alternator failure, my Lightspeed ignition blew its 3 amp fuse. Klaus said I should have a 5 amp in there anyway. I took the 14684 to an alternator shop for repair when I got home and he said it looked like the stator was cooked, but he could not get any parts for it. So its now a door stop. Information for the group if you happen to be on the road and cant find the 14684 locally. You can get the 14870 to work on your RV and a lyco mount with new bolts and washers to shim for alignment. Best Mike Stewart ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Alternator failure. Info provided
>Yes the new alternator 14870 is a 55amp alternator. So was the old one. > >It s a ND bought from Autozone in stock, lifetime warrantee whos receipt >is now permanently in the plane. > >The ears were oriented correctly, it was the ear spacing that was off. I >run at 12 amps normally. > >Damn all these alternator problems anyway. In 1800 hours of RV flying in 2 >planes, this is my 5th alternator. ARGH! > >A friend recommended I put the 4 pulley on. Im very tight in the cowl with >my 6cyl installation. Not sure if I could get it in there. Why the 4" pulley? Running an alternator "fast" bears on mechanical wear rate issues. Aside from B&C's conclusion that "fast" alternators were at-risk for vibration induced bearing failures (for which they elected to carefully balance new alternators) there are no issues I'm aware of that warrant slowing the alternator down with a larger pulley. Alternator speed does not bear on electrical failures unless they are aggravated by heating where turning faster moves more air. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
Very well said, Robert. David M. software weenie who is writing his own personal version of FADEC, autopilot, highway-in-the-sky, and etc. :) Of course, it's taking me a very long time. Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >> >> >> Bob K, I'm going to vehemently disagree with the assertion that we can >> build >> a simple autopilot and have it controlled by PocketPC type device that we >> would not rely on. Humans don't work that way. Once it is discovered >> that >> the PocketPC will fly the plane just dandy on a smooth air day, we >> start to >> trust it. Still works in minor turbulence, we trust it a little >> more. We >> take it into IMC and it starts to get the leans > > > . . . an aviate issue > >> ...unfortunately, we trust it >> as it flies us into cumulous granite. > > > . . . a navigate issue > >> . Do not put any software in control of >> your airplane unless you trust it completely from the outset. I'm not >> saying a autopilot should not be done, I'm saying that software that >> can not >> be fully validated should not be considered. > > > When you're relying on any combination of hardware/software, there > needs to be a means by which failure to do the intended task can > be monitored and annunciated immediately. For the dual, simple > a/p to offer a high order of confidence (meaning that you intend > <<>> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
Over the years, I've have terrible luck with Autozone electrical items, alternators, starters, and etc. I won't put them on my cars now. Autozone does make good on the warranty but I hate having to replace things multiple times. On a plane, the risk is high. Get one from a reputable jobber. Cost is about the same. David M. Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > Uh-oh...I have an Autozone 60A (Toyota Camry) alt on my 7a (not flying > yet)...Hope I did'nr make a bad decision here. > > BTW...Autozone have your name in their computer so they can find you by > your phone number if you show up with a dead part a long ways from home. > > Frank > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
AMEN ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:14 PM > > Over the years, I've have terrible luck with Autozone electrical items, > alternators, starters, and etc. I won't put them on my cars now. > Autozone does make good on the warranty but I hate having to replace > things multiple times. On a plane, the risk is high. Get one from a > reputable jobber. Cost is about the same. > > David M. > > > Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > >> Uh-oh...I have an Autozone 60A (Toyota Camry) alt on my 7a (not flying >> yet)...Hope I did'nr make a bad decision here. >> >> BTW...Autozone have your name in their computer so they can find you by >> your phone number if you show up with a dead part a long ways from home. >> >> Frank >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 06/27/06
You guys have all been a great help. Thanks!! Lee... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: regulator per z-13/8
I am in the electrical install planning stage for an RV7A. I will follow the z-13/8 model. Now for the question???The plan suggests using a Ford regulator (VR166) on the main alternator. What has been the good/bad/ugly of this by those that may have used it. Frank @ sgu and slc.........wiring.......... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: regulator per z-13/8
In a message dated 06/28/2006 4:37:03 PM Central Daylight Time, fstringham(at)hotmail.com writes: What has been the good/bad/ugly of this by those that may have used it. >>> My $12 VR166 type regulator from Advance Auto Parts has worked perfectly for 3 years and 335 hours on my Z-11 RV-6A with B&C L-40 alternator, separate LVWM and Bob's OVP. You can see the installation here: http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=7264 It's mounted on the battery holddown strap so it's near battery temp, and painted in red crinkle paint to match the valve covers- (oooooo!) Mark Phillips N51PW "Mojo" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: 3ag panel mount fuse holder
Ive been looking for a panel mount fuse holder 3ag that will mount from the rear of the panel like switches do. Any one know of such an animal? Mfgr and or part #? Thanks Bill S ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
On Jun 28, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Scott Lewis wrote: > > Brian Lloyd wrote: >> Should we shoot/sue Bill Gates? No. He is making the product that >> people seem to want. They want features more than they want >> reliability. Would I fly behind any box that has a Microsoft >> product running in it? Not on your life. > > I agree completely. > > You DO realise than the Garmin MX20 runs on a Windows NT Kernel, > don't you?! ;-) Damn. No chance of buying one of those then. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
Mike: Have a look at the new Plane Power alternators. http://www.plane-power.com/ I have one for the 10, nice piece of work and dirt simply to wire as well as a bolt on for the 540. Integrated regulator and overvoltage protection. Frogman ----- Original Message ----- From: Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:38 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator failure. Info provided After 250 hours my 14684 ND alternator finally gave way. Of course I was a thousand miles from home when it did. Went running around the big city of Denver for hours getting a replacement. Best I could come up with was a 14870 for a 1988 Chevy Sprint. Most auto part shops did not even show the 14684 number. Although the mount ears on the 14870 were in a different location, as was the bat post, I was able to finagle washers and new bolts to get her back up and flying for the ride home. The 14684 alternator I bought from Vans for my RV-8 behaves differently than the new 14870 Im now running. The 14684, once the field was excited, would keep charging as long as the pulley was turning. You could turn off the field and it would keep charging. The new 14870 will shut off when the field is off. I have the OV protection on a contactor. Also sometime during the alternator failure, my Lightspeed ignition blew its 3 amp fuse. Klaus said I should have a 5 amp in there anyway. I took the 14684 to an alternator shop for repair when I got home and he said it looked like the stator was cooked, but he could not get any parts for it. So its now a door stop. Information for the group if you happen to be on the road and cant find the 14684 locally. You can get the 14870 to work on your RV and a lyco mount with new bolts and washers to shim for alignment. Best Mike Stewart ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote: > No. > > First 3 were the old vans 35 amp alt. . 79 Honda Civic was the > application as I recall. > > Next 2 were the 14684 ND ones. So, in terms of time and trouble, do you think that maybe the B&C alternator and controller would be cheaper in the long run? Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jun 28, 2006
Subject: Re: 3ag panel mount fuse holder
Bill, Check out this new fuse block from Bussman. It is physically the same size as the older 10 fuse units, but holds 20 fuses. It mounts from the rear with 4 #8 screws. All the wiring exits the rear as well. It comes with a nice cover and it is of a "split bus" design, so you can use one block for both main and essential buses. See attached photos for comparison. I bought mine from MIH. He gives you the block, an assortment of connectors and the connector removal tool. Great guy to deal with. http://www.mihdirect.biz/ Charlie Kuss RV-8A cockpit wiring > > Ive been looking for a panel mount fuse holder 3ag that will mount > from the rear of the panel like switches do. Any one know of such > an animal? Mfgr and or part #? Thanks Bill S ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
It's true, but it is the Windows Kernel only without any gimmicks like Windows and not overloaded with all this 1 million function which have bugs to the end of the road. The kernel (I thinks it's even 3.51) is quite stable as it has only basic functionality and it is tested out also very well as well as used in many other processor driven parts. What is full of bugs is the overhead put on top, so I would (even if I'm not a Gates fan) trust on that product, as well as it was done from Apollo which have a very good reputation. br Werner (however only my 0.02$) Brian Lloyd wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Scott Lewis wrote: > >> > >> >> Brian Lloyd wrote: >> >>> Should we shoot/sue Bill Gates? No. He is making the product that >>> people seem to want. They want features more than they want >>> reliability. Would I fly behind any box that has a Microsoft product >>> running in it? Not on your life. >> >> >> I agree completely. >> >> You DO realise than the Garmin MX20 runs on a Windows NT Kernel, >> don't you?! ;-) > > > Damn. No chance of buying one of those then. > > > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way > brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) > > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . > Antoine de Saint-Exupry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Software in the cockpit
While I agree that software can be made more robust and less "risky" using DO-178B level A style processes, software is still software, there are just too many variables in all but the most simple systems for there not to be defects present when they shoot the engineers and go into production. That doesn't necessarily mean the software is unsafe but it's not like the "good old days" of mechanical analog equipment that could be characterized completely with every nuance documented (software defects crop up over time and it often takes a specific "line up" of the planets before the problem rears its ugly head:-). In the instrument panel I built for my RV-6A I installed a Dynon EFIS D-10 as my primary instrument with old style steam gauge Airspeed, Turn Coordinator and Altimeter for backup and cross check. My philosophy on this panel was to add some basic steam gauges as back-up because I want to be able to fly the bird IFR in a pinch and am not totally comfortable relying on a software driven instrument exclusively. As a software safety engineer with a major aerospace company, I can tell you the kinds of things that go haywire in software systems are numerous. No matter how much attention you pay to development and coding or how much testing you do, things still show up long after certification when you least expect. My boss found that out first hand a few months ago when he turned the key on his Mercedes SLK 320 sports car and the software controlled throttle immediately went to wide open. The car jumped 15 feet and then the computer shut down the whole works, after which the car would not run at all. Luckily it was after hours in the company parking lot and there were no cars or people near by but he just cringes at the thought of this happening on a busy street or a mall parking lot. Needless to say, he traded the car in almost immediately. NEVER, EVER buy a car with a computer controlled throttle. I think the car companies that embrace this set up (likely just for the "Gee Whiz" factor and bragging rights) are going to be very, very sorry, no matter how much DO-178B Level A development they do. Their trial lawyers are going to be very busy defending that decision for decades.) Dean Psiropoulos RV-6A N197DM Wiring the "beast" _________________________Original Message _____________________________ Ernest's points about mission-critical applications (and a PFD is a mission-critical application in my book) are well taken. There are ways to develop software so as to make it more reliable and less prone to undesired interactions between modules. One of the more successful is to ensure that the software is simple enough that you know all the inputs, all the outputs, and all the possible paths through the code. This makes testing a closed-ended process. If you want a new feature, find a way to isolate it from what you already have so that you minimize any possible interaction. Putting it in a separate box with tight controls over what gets in our out is not a bad idea. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > It's true, > > but it is the Windows Kernel only without any gimmicks like Windows > and not overloaded with all this 1 million function which have bugs > to the end of the road. I suspected that was probably the case. Windows NT had a lot of promise in the beginning. (It was originally written by IBM and not Microsoft. Originally it was called OS2.) The basic microkernel architecture is a good one in that it embodies the concept I was espousing -- small, simple, and testable modules that have well defined interfaces with little interaction. I have worked with several and prefer them to monolithic kernels like Linux. But any good thing can be made bad as Windows XP demonstrates. > The kernel (I thinks it's even 3.51) is quite stable as it has only > basic functionality and it is tested out also very well as well as > used in many other processor driven parts. What is full of bugs is > the overhead put on top, so I would (even if I'm not a Gates fan) > trust on that product, as well as it was done from Apollo which > have a very good reputation. I agree. I was just joking about the MX-20. (I should have put in a smilie in my original post.) It seems to be a reliable device. It is interesting to see that the kind of problem we were talking about, i.e. "creeping featurism" increasing complexity and reducing reliability, has struck the certified EFIS world. The Garmin 1000 has been struck with a plethora of software updates reminiscent of Windows. A couple of avionics shops I have spoken/dealt with have complained to me of the problems they have had with that unit. This brings us back to the original discussion about the desirability of dedicated devices with clearly defined and straightforward functionality. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
I know that it is really a bummer to have alternator problems. Almost all of these problems are due to excessive temperature. Even a 35 amp alternator would last a lot longer (probably at least a 1000 hours) if it had a decent cooling fan. Even one turning the wrong direction would be a lot better than none at all. Alternators are only about 50 percent efficient so there is a lot of heat to get rid of. If you're going to count on only the blast tube, make a good shroud for the back of the alternator. There is a lot of this information in the archives, so do not archive. Dan Hopper Walton, IN RV-7A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
On Jun 29, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote: > Hmm. Good ? > > I would say its about a wash at this point. Since Im measuring > against 2 planes and since I do not know what the failure rates are > on the B&C. > > Lets suppose this. Lets suppose I only care about the money, which > practically speaking I do. > > Lets say the the B&C should last as long as an automotive device > should. If I were to assume the average car today made it 100,000 > miles on an alternator (which I think is low ball since I have 2 > cars with combined 300,000 miles with no alternator change). And I > assume average 36mph(that=92s what my car says I average). That=92s > 2777 hours of operation before failure. My MTBF of the 4 > replacements has been 500 hours. That means I would be by buying > 5.5 units to make 2777 hours of operation. @$118 per unit that=92s > $650 worth of alternators to make the 2777 hours. > > > I really need the failure rate of the B&C now to make a comparison. If Bill Bainbridge of B&C is to be believed, the failure rate of B&C alternators is very close to zero. When I first talked to him 7-8 years ago he claimed that the only failures had been the result of misinstallation and not from outright mechanical or electrical failure. I am sure there have been some failures but barring the customer doing something wrong with it, there have been precious few. (And before I really stick my foot in my mouth I have to state again that my conversation with Bill on this is many years old and could very well be wrong. OTOH, I have never heard anyone complain about B&C alternators failing, only that they cost a lot of money.) So you are at a wash on cost for the alternator but what about time and any costs incurred by being caught out somewhere else while fixing it, e.g. hotel room, taxi or car rental, restaurant, etc.? It is amazing how much the total cost of even a simple failure while on the road can add up. There are pretty much three options for the CJ6A: the stock Russian or Chinese generator, a Delco truck alternator with a modifed shaft and adaptor plate, or a B&C alternator. I am going to go with a B&C alternator. I prefer flying to fixing and anything I can do to make the airplane more reliable is what I am going to do. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Chalmers" <David(at)ChalmersFamily.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Software in the cockpit
This has nothing to do with electrics but I worked on both OS/2 and Windows NT at Microsoft and Windows NT was not based on OS/2 and not written by IBM. Windows NT was new code - a clean sheet design and very stable. Of course they later slapped all the old Windows code on top of it which dragged it down. Dave Chalmers -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:28 AM On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: glastar(at)gmx.net> It's true, but it is the Windows Kernel only without any gimmicks like Windows and not overloaded with all this 1 million function which have bugs to the end of the road. I suspected that was probably the case. Windows NT had a lot of promise in the beginning. (It was originally written by IBM and not Microsoft. Originally it was called OS2.) The basic microkernel architecture is a good one in that it embodies the concept I was espousing -- small, simple, and testable modules that have well defined interfaces with little interaction. I have worked with several and prefer them to monolithic kernels like Linux. But any good thing can be made bad as Windows XP demonstrates. The kernel (I thinks it's even 3.51) is quite stable as it has only basic functionality and it is tested out also very well as well as used in many other processor driven parts. What is full of bugs is the overhead put on top, so I would (even if I'm not a Gates fan) trust on that product, as well as it was done from Apollo which have a very good reputation. I agree. I was just joking about the MX-20. (I should have put in a smilie in my original post.) It seems to be a reliable device. It is interesting to see that the kind of problem we were talking about, i.e. "creeping featurism" increasing complexity and reducing reliability, has struck the certified EFIS world. The Garmin 1000 has been struck with a plethora of software updates reminiscent of Windows. A couple of avionics shops I have spoken/dealt with have complained to me of the problems they have had with that unit. This brings us back to the original discussion about the desirability of dedicated devices with clearly defined and straightforward functionality. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: regulator per z-13/8
An earlier version of Z-13/8 included the B&C regulator with built-in OVP, and warning lights. Not sure why the change - perhaps to provide a less expensive option, and/or to avoid appearances of B&C favoritism? Regardless, the B&C regulator is an option worth considering. Erich Weaver ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:32 AM, Eric Ekberg wrote: > It is possible to make a software system safe. Major avionics > companies do it all the time. There are software assurance > standards as well for "how safe" it needs to be. The safter the > software needs to be the more expensive it is to make. I agree with all your points. > Same goes for the ground and space based navaids. Ever flown an > ILS approach in IMC? If you did, chances are you just trusted your > life to a computer. The FAA evaluates all safety critical navaids > for what is called Hazardous Misleading Information (HMI). HMI is > when the ILS tells your plane that it is 500 AGL when it is really > 200 AGL and about to fly into a hill. The beauty of ILS is that the LOC and GS signals are generated by their respective antennas. (Phased array.) The transmitters are very simple continuous-wave, AM modulated (basically 1930's radio technology) and either work or they don't. There is no computer and no software involved. That is why ILS is so reliable. About the worst thing that can happen is if the pilot inadvertently intercepts the GS too high and tries to follow a side lobe. This is pretty obvious because it happens way too high but I understand that people have done it. I suppose someone could cut one of the feedlines to the antenna array but I suspect that without one or the other of the two tones the receiver uses to determine whether you are in the blue or yellow sector, the receiver would flag the signal. Again, no computer involved. (Well, there is the DSP in my SL-30 which I dearly love.) > I love the experimental EFIS's out there and plan on having a few > in my plane. However, I don't trust these companies or their > products any farther than I can throw them. Just assume that the > device is going give you HMI, and have backups (more than one) that > you can use to validate the device in IMC. I actually expect to trust my PFD at least as much as I trust my iron gyros. I know that it has the potential to be much more reliable (several orders of magnitude), modulo the quality of the software. Think about it -- while we are talking about how bad the software can be, I think most of us who have flown significant IFR have had to fly with a failed gyro. That said, I think that I will have an ASI, an altimeter, and an electromechanical T&B in the panel too. But then there is that neat little instrument from Tru-Trak ... Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 06/28/06
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote: > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Software in the cockpit > > > > > I'm not suggesting that "fully validated" software > is a bad or unnecessary goal to strive for . . . but > in the OBAM aircraft world, it's unlikely that were going to see > a DO-178, Level A qualification on ANY offerings. > I'll suggest that building a firewall between simple > save-your-life and the more complex but convenient, > dish-washing-silver-polishing system is easy, prudent > and greatly reduces risks. > > Bob . . . > Good design direction, Bob. You isolate the piece that is actually manipulating controls into a tiny box that will need only a few hundred lines of code. An easily verifiable amount of code. More importantly, you strictly limit the numbers of inputs to be guarded and sanity checked. But I don't believe it to be the best that we can do. Let me suggest the simple idea that the autopilot be allowed to talk to the glitzy, high-res PocketPC, but not the other way around. There is no way humanly possible to verify all the code in that thing, and the people wouldn't let you see their code is it were possible. Don't give it the chance to whisper in your autopilot's ear without you being in the loop. You work around that requirement with multiple autopilots watching over one another, but that can get really complicated, really fast. How about the PC listens to the autopilot and tells the real pilot when it is time to turn. The pilot will then have to validate it with other instruments, but he is much more likely to do the validation BEFORE the turn is started. Let the PC listen and make all sorts of pretty pictures, but don't give it a modicum of control. With the autopilot to keep the plane straight and level, the pilot should have plenty of resources to watch multiple instruments and point the ship in the proper direction. The PocketPC as a control element becomes an unecessary (but potentially dangerous) convenience. At this point, we're getting close to counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. My earlier post concerned how I would select a company to provide an EFIS. The simple ideas I have today are for how to write software code for a cockpit: - keep the code short enough that every path can be mapped - keep the number of inputs extremely limited (making it possible to map every path). - guard EVERY input such that it is limited to pre-declared limits (making it possible to map every path). - have the code reviewed by a disinterest 'coder'. If it takes him/her more than a 1/2 hour to understand the flow...rewrite it. If it isn't clear and obvious to them, it won't be clear and obvious to you three weeks from now. Having 'inherited' codebases that had passed through many hands, let me testify that code that must be maintained but isn't well understood gets badly munged really fast. As for the comments made by others about suing Bill Gates...that is silly and irrelevant. I use Linux and before that I used OS/2, after having found Windows to be an unstable toy on top of an unstable operating system. I only work with Microsoft products when forced to through Microsoft foisting so many proprietary and incompatible file formats on the world. People seem to like spending their money on that marginally useful stuff because it has lots of glitz and widgets, and sometimes I choose to interact with those people. Thanks to OpenOffice, I rarely must do that any more. Personally, I prefer to spend my money on things that bring me value. BUT NOBODY CARES!! It has nothing to do with what should be in the cockpit. I would not care to fly behind a PFD that was based on Windows, any more than one based on Workplace Shell, KDE or Gnome. NONE of them are appropriate. The question is not "What operating system is best?", the question is "What design philosophy is best for a limited function, life-critical software system?" -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Software in the cockpit
Was not the original NT largely based on the Unix code rather than a clean sheet? Quoting David Chalmers : > This has nothing to do with electrics but I worked on both OS/2 and > Windows NT at Microsoft and Windows NT was not based on OS/2 and not > written by IBM. Windows NT was new code - a clean sheet design and > very stable. Of course they later slapped all the old Windows code > on top of it which dragged it down. > > Dave Chalmers > > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:28 AM > > > On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > It's true, > > > but it is the Windows Kernel only without any gimmicks like Windows > and not overloaded with all this 1 million function which have bugs > to the end of the road. > > > I suspected that was probably the case. Windows NT had a lot of > promise in the beginning. (It was originally written by IBM and not > Microsoft. Originally it was called OS2.) The basic microkernel > architecture is a good one in that it embodies the concept I was > espousing -- small, simple, and testable modules that have well > defined interfaces with little interaction. I have worked with > several and prefer them to monolithic kernels like Linux. But any > good thing can be made bad as Windows XP demonstrates. > > > The kernel (I thinks it's even 3.51) is quite stable as it has only > basic functionality and it is tested out also very well as well as > used in many other processor driven parts. What is full of bugs is > the overhead put on top, so I would (even if I'm not a Gates fan) > trust on that product, as well as it was done from Apollo which have > a very good reputation. > > > I agree. I was just joking about the MX-20. (I should have put in a > smilie in my original post.) It seems to be a reliable device. > > > It is interesting to see that the kind of problem we were talking > about, i.e. "creeping featurism" increasing complexity and reducing > reliability, has struck the certified EFIS world. The Garmin 1000 > has been struck with a plethora of software updates reminiscent of > Windows. A couple of avionics shops I have spoken/dealt with have > complained to me of the problems they have had with that unit. This > brings us back to the original discussion about the desirability of > dedicated devices with clearly defined and straightforward > functionality. > > > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way > brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) > > > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . > ? Antoine de Saint-Exupry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
Right. The FAA simply installs a monitoring receiver at a fixed location from the transmitter, and as long as the signal gives a result within tolerance on an analog type meter, the ILS stays on-line. If it doesn't get a good signal, it trips an alarm at the monitoring facility...usually the tower cab, and they can flip a switch to shut down the transmitter. They are sensitive enough that snow of a certain depth in front of the transmit antenna, espec glide slope will cause the system to alarm. Ex-tower controller Quoting Brian Lloyd : > On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:32 AM, Eric Ekberg wrote: > >> It is possible to make a software system safe. Major avionics >> companies do it all the time. There are software assurance >> standards as well for "how safe" it needs to be. The safter the >> software needs to be the more expensive it is to make. > > I agree with all your points. > >> Same goes for the ground and space based navaids. Ever flown an >> ILS approach in IMC? If you did, chances are you just trusted your >> life to a computer. The FAA evaluates all safety critical >> navaids for what is called Hazardous Misleading Information >> (HMI). HMI is when the ILS tells your plane that it is 500 AGL >> when it is really 200 AGL and about to fly into a hill. > > The beauty of ILS is that the LOC and GS signals are generated by > their respective antennas. (Phased array.) The transmitters are very > simple continuous-wave, AM modulated (basically 1930's radio > technology) and either work or they don't. There is no computer and no > software involved. That is why ILS is so reliable. About the worst > thing that can happen is if the pilot inadvertently intercepts the GS > too high and tries to follow a side lobe. This is pretty obvious > because it happens way too high but I understand that people have done > it. > > I suppose someone could cut one of the feedlines to the antenna array > but I suspect that without one or the other of the two tones the > receiver uses to determine whether you are in the blue or yellow > sector, the receiver would flag the signal. Again, no computer > involved. (Well, there is the DSP in my SL-30 which I dearly love.) > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dsvs(at)comcast.net
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Unswitched Inputs to Audio Panel
Listeners, My audio panel (Garmine) has three (3) unswitched inputs. I have five (5) devices that I would like to attach to these inputs. Is it a simple case of paralelling two sets or will I need to do anything else for this to work? Thanks in advance. Don Content-Type: Multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:32 AM, Eric Ekberg wrote:

It is possible to make a software system safe.- Major avionics companies do it all the time.- There are software assurance standards as well for "how safe" it needs to be.- The safter the software needs to be the more expensive it is to make.

I agree with all your points.

Same goes for the ground and space based navaids.- Ever flown an ILS approach in IMC?- If you did, chances are you just trusted your life to a computer.- The FAA evaluates all safety critical navaids for what is called Hazardous Misleading Information (HMI).- HMI is when the ILS tells your plane that it is 500-AGL when it is really 200 AGL and about to fly into a hill.

The beauty of ILS is that the LOC and GS signals are generated by their respective antennas. (Phased array.) The transmitters are very simple continuous-wave, AM modulated (basically 1930's radio technology) and either work or they don't. There is no computer and no software involved. That is why ILS is so reliable. About the worst thing that can happen is if the pilot inadvertently intercepts the GS too high and tries to follow a side lobe. This is pretty obvious because it happens way too high but I understand that people have done it.

I suppose someone could cut one of the feedlines to the antenna array but I suspect that without one or the other of the two tones the receiver uses to determine whether you are in the blue or yellow sector, the receiver would flag the signal. Again, no computer involved. (Well, there is the DSP in my SL-30 which I dearly love.)

I love the experimental EFIS's out there and plan on having a few in my plane.- However, I don't trust these companies or their products any farther than I can throw them.- Just assume that the device is going give you HMI, and have backups (more than one)-that you can use to validate the device in IMC.

I actually expect to trust my PFD at least as much as I trust my iron gyros. I know that it has the potential to be much more reliable (several orders of magnitude), modulo the quality of the software. Think about it -- while we are talking about how bad the software can be, I think most of us who have flown significant IFR have had to fly with a failed gyro. That said, I think that I will have an ASI, an altimeter, and an electromechanical T&B in the panel too. But then there is that neat little instrument from Tru-Trak ... <sigh>
-
Brian Lloyd-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com - -- -- -Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice)-- - - - - --+1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry



--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dsvs(at)comcast.net
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Unswitched Inputs to Audio Panel
-------------- Original message ---------------------- > Listeners, > My audio panel (Garmine) has three (3) unswitched inputs. I have five (5) > devices that I would like to attach to these inputs. Is it a simple case of > paralelling two sets or will I need to do anything else for this to work? > Thanks in advance. Don > That should read 3 unswitched and one aux audio inputs. Content-Type: Multipart/mixed; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27547_1151613850_1" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27547_1151613850_1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Type: Multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:32 AM, Eric Ekberg wrote:

It is possible to make a software system safe.- Major avionics companies do it all the time.- There are software assurance standards as well for "how safe" it needs to be.- The safter the software needs to be the more expensive it is to make.

I agree with all your points.

Same goes for the ground and space based navaids.- Ever flown an ILS approach in IMC?- If you did, chances are you just trusted your life to a computer.- The FAA evaluates all safety critical navaids for what is called Hazardous Misleading Information (HMI).- HMI is when the ILS tells your plane that it is 500-AGL when it is really 200 AGL and about to fly into a hill.

The beauty of ILS is that the LOC and GS signals are generated by their respective antennas. (Phased array.) The transmitters are very simple continuous-wave, AM modulated (basically 1930's radio technology) and either work or they don't. There is no computer and no software involved. That is why ILS is so reliable. About the worst thing that can happen is if the pilot inadvertently intercepts the GS too high and tries to follow a side lobe. This is pretty obvious because it happens way too high but I understand that people have done it.

I suppose someone could cut one of the feedlines to the antenna array but I suspect that without one or the other of the two tones the receiver uses to determine whether you are in the blue or yellow sector, the receiver would flag the signal. Again, no computer involved. (Well, there is the DSP in my SL-30 which I dearly love.)

I love the experimental EFIS's out there and plan on having a few in my plane.- However, I don't trust these companies or their products any farther than I can throw them.- Just assume that the device is going give you HMI, and have backups (more than one)-that you can use to validate the device in IMC.

I actually expect to trust my PFD at least as much as I trust my iron gyros. I know that it has the potential to be much more reliable (several orders of magnitude), modulo the quality of the software. Think about it -- while we are talking about how bad the software can be, I think most of us who have flown significant IFR have had to fly with a failed gyro. That said, I think that I will have an ASI, an altimeter, and an electromechanical T&B in the panel too. But then there is that neat little instrument from Tru-Trak ... <sigh>
-
Brian Lloyd-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com - -- -- -Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice)-- - - - - --+1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry



--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1-- --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27547_1151613850_1-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Is there a color code convention for intercom wiring?
Listers, I am preparing to wire up my FlightCom 403d intercom. This is a stereo unit which requires 3 leads to both the headphone jacks and microphone jacks. I am using 22500 22AWG shielded wire for these connections. I have wire with two different color codes. One style of wire contains red/blue/yellow leads. The other style uses white/white with blue/white with orange color coded leads. I was wondering if there is an accepted color code convention for wiring these jacks? I had planned to use one color style to wire the microphone jacks and the other color style to wire the headphone jacks. I feel that this will aid in avoiding confusion for future troubleshooting. Charlie Kuss ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (stop)
>From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> >After 250 hours my 14684 ND alternator finally gave way. Well you got some questionable advice for professionals? 14684 is a standard Lester number everyone knows. A quick search or auto part store web sites like Rockauto.com and others sites the 14684. It is common on the 1988-87) Chevrolet Sprint 1.0L (1995-86) Suzuki Samurai 1.3L (1989) Suzuki Sidekick 1.3L 14870? I might believe a #14937 as an alternator but what is a 14870? As far as finding parts for a 14684, parts are available, however I would not let them work on it. To be honest you are better trading it in and getting another unit. It does have core value. Local rebuilds by local shops I have found in my experience are not to great. You can't beat a lifetime warranty from the parts store on a rebuild. You can get it rebuilt (by a shop that knows how to buy parts) but I would get an estimate and good guarantee. By the time a local auto electrics buys the part, marks it up 2 or 4 times and charges labor, it will be cheaper and better to get a rebuild from Pop Boys or Auto Zone. Not all rebuilds from auto stores are good either. I would suggest investing in a Plane Power alternator ($375) Don't feel bad about finding a replacement on the road. You should have much less problem but it is worse with a B&C unit for example. That can not be field replace or repaired, since it is a custom unit. I am surprised the stator is fried, what ever that means. ***FIELD WIRE IS NOT ON YOUR UNIT*** ALSO, Please don't cycle the ALT switch (power to the IGN wire) On and Off on the alternator while it is spinning, i.e., making power. Field Wires are for alternators with external voltage regulators, period. FIELD refers to changing the voltage of the field to provide control of the output voltage. The field is the rotor windings. So the more voltage in the rotor winding to more output. THIS IS not how the internal regulator control wire works in a ND alternator. The wire on a ND with I-VR is an on off signal only. You do have a field but it is all internal to the unit. The ND alternator does not have FIELD wire, it's a IGN wire. The function is to tell the alternative to wake up, to go to work or go to sleep after you turn the engine off. IT'S NOT made to turn it ON and OFF while under load. Does you car have a ALT switch? NO. You will burn the regulator out eventually if you keep that operation up. The IGN lead is a low current ON and OFF signal and nothing more. The current is low, unlike a true field wire which might have 5 amps or more going thru it. You do have a field but it is all internal to the unit. There is no reason cycle the alternator ON/OFF. MASTER and ALT on one DPST switch is a good idea so you are not tempted to do this. Since you IGN wire (which only needs well under 1 amp) is protected with a pull-able CB (or should be), you can pull the CB if you need to for a non-normal situation where you want to remove power from the IGN wire with the MASTER ON. Again alternator on before engine start and remains on until the engine stops turning. Here are the Niagara instructions which will help. As I said make the CB's pull-able. The Niagara unit is a similar ND alternator. http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf Cheers George M. --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Is there a color code convention for intercom
Hi, Charlie. Casting my mind back to my audio technician life, most stereo headphones use black, red, and white as the three conductors. Black is ground, red is right channel, and white is left channel. In real life, however, electrons really don't care what color the insulation around the conductor is. I'd vote for red=right, yellow=left, and blue=ground which is pretty close... Rick chaztuna(at)adelphia.net wrote: > >Listers, > I am preparing to wire up my FlightCom 403d intercom. This is a stereo unit which requires 3 leads to both the headphone jacks and microphone jacks. I am using 22500 22AWG shielded wire for these connections. I have wire with two different color codes. One style of wire contains red/blue/yellow leads. The other style uses white/white with blue/white with orange color coded leads. > I was wondering if there is an accepted color code convention for wiring these jacks? I had planned to use one color style to wire the microphone jacks and the other color style to wire the headphone jacks. I feel that this will aid in avoiding confusion for future troubleshooting. >Charlie Kuss > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (stop)
Hi George, After reading your post I was left wondering why bother having a field switch at all in this type of alternator. Is there a reason to have a field switch? Bob Sultzbach --- gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote: > >From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" > > >After 250 hours my 14684 ND alternator finally gave > way. > > > Well you got some questionable advice for > professionals? > > 14684 is a standard Lester number everyone knows. > > A quick search or auto part store web sites like > Rockauto.com and others sites the 14684. > > It is common on the > 1988-87) Chevrolet Sprint 1.0L > (1995-86) Suzuki Samurai 1.3L > (1989) Suzuki Sidekick 1.3L > > 14870? I might believe a #14937 as an alternator but > what > is a 14870? > > As far as finding parts for a 14684, parts are > available, however > I would not let them work on it. To be honest you > are better > trading it in and getting another unit. It does have > core value. > > Local rebuilds by local shops I have found in my > experience are > not to great. You can't beat a lifetime warranty > from the parts > store on a rebuild. You can get it rebuilt (by a > shop that knows > how to buy parts) but I would get an estimate and > good guarantee. > > By the time a local auto electrics buys the part, > marks it up > 2 or 4 times and charges labor, it will be cheaper > and better > to get a rebuild from Pop Boys or Auto Zone. Not all > rebuilds > from auto stores are good either. I would suggest > investing > in a Plane Power alternator ($375) > > Don't feel bad about finding a replacement on the > road. You > should have much less problem but it is worse with a > B&C > unit for example. That can not be field replace or > repaired, > since it is a custom unit. > > I am surprised the stator is fried, what ever that > means. > > > ***FIELD WIRE IS NOT ON YOUR UNIT*** > > ALSO, Please don't cycle the ALT switch (power to > the > IGN wire) On and Off on the alternator while it is > spinning, > i.e., making power. > > Field Wires are for alternators with external > voltage regulators, > period. FIELD refers to changing the voltage of the > field to provide > control of the output voltage. The field is the > rotor windings. So > the more voltage in the rotor winding to more > output. THIS IS > not how the internal regulator control wire works in > a ND alternator. > > The wire on a ND with I-VR is an on off signal > only. > > You do have a field but it is all internal to the > unit. > > > The ND alternator does not have FIELD wire, it's a > IGN wire. The > function is to tell the alternative to wake up, to > go to work or > go to sleep after you turn the engine off. IT'S NOT > made to turn it > ON and OFF while under load. Does you car have a ALT > switch? > > > NO. You will burn the regulator out eventually if > you keep that > operation up. The IGN lead is a low current ON and > OFF signal > and nothing more. The current is low, unlike a true > field wire > which might have 5 amps or more going thru it. > > You do have a field but it is all internal to the > unit. > > There is no reason cycle the alternator ON/OFF. > MASTER > and ALT on one DPST switch is a good idea so you > are not > tempted to do this. > > > Since you IGN wire (which only needs well under 1 > amp) is > protected with a pull-able CB (or should be), you > can pull the > CB if you need to for a non-normal situation where > you want > to remove power from the IGN wire with the MASTER > ON. > > Again alternator on before engine start and > remains on until > the engine stops turning. > > Here are the Niagara instructions which will help. > As I said > make the CB's pull-able. The Niagara unit is a > similar ND > alternator. > > http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf > > > Cheers George M. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small > Business. __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (stop)
On Jun 29, 2006, at 6:30 PM, wrote: > By the time a local auto electrics buys the part, marks it up > 2 or 4 times and charges labor, it will be cheaper and better > to get a rebuild from Pop Boys or Auto Zone. Not all rebuilds > from auto stores are good either. I would suggest investing > in a Plane Power alternator ($375) > > Don't feel bad about finding a replacement on the road. You > should have much less problem but it is worse with a B&C > unit for example. That can not be field replace or repaired, > since it is a custom unit. But the point is moot if the B&C unit doesn't fail. > > I am surprised the stator is fried, what ever that means. Fried means "burned up". I have seen many fried stators. Most alternators will burn themselves up if operated at or near their ratings for any length of time. The stator overheats because it really isn't designed to deliver 100% output. (Sustained output greater than about 50% seems to do in most automotive-type alternators.) The result is that the insulation melts/burns and the stator windings short to the case. This is a very common failure mode. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Test
Test ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James Clark" <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Software in the cockpit
Comment below ... On 6/29/06, Brian Lloyd wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > <> > > I suspected that was probably the case. Windows NT had a lot of promise in > the beginning. (It was originally written by IBM and not Microsoft. > Originally it was called OS2.) > <> NT ("New Technology") and OS/2 are/were very different. As I recall :-) ... NT was influenced/designed/developed more so by Microsoft people from DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation for the young bloods) than from IBM. THe IBM product was **competition**!!!!. I won't try to go into the history here. James ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
In a message dated 6/29/06 7:08:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mstewart(at)iss.net writes: > > I really need the failure rate of the B&C now to make a comparison. > > Mike =================================== Mike: No, what you really need to do is stop being a bean counting manager and become an engineer and look at the installation. The variable in the equation is NOT the alternator but the installation. Alternators come off the assembly line much faster, for more planes and with much tighter tolerances than the planes do. LQQK at what is failing and why. The problems I see and I have seen a lot, way more than 2 planes; is the install. Belts too tight Belts too loose Alignment of the alternator sheave to the ring gear out of whack Wrong Belts being used - There is a difference in 'V' grove between aviation and automotive. Belts not seating properly in the sheave Alternator not mounted secure - Too much vibration Cracked alternator mounts Cracked alternator tension brackets Improper nuts & bolts used - Course thread Vs fine thread Ridiculous stacking of washers in attempts to align alternator with ring gear Bracket mounting bolts not torque correctly No safety tabs on mounting bolts No safety wire on tension bracket bolts Safety wire installed incorrectly OVER torquing of Field and B+ nuts No securing method on alternator bells Improper wire length and No service loop on alternator wires POOR electrical grounds on the entire engine and plane So, you can see, you have to LQQK at the entire picture and not micro manage one device. Barry "Chop'd Liver" QA/QA Manager SPC Q1 ISO 9001 Tech Sales Engineering A&P ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Is there a color code convention for intercom wiring?
In a message dated 6/29/06 5:35:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, chaztuna(at)adelphia.net writes: > I had planned to use one color style to wire the microphone jacks and the > other color style to wire the headphone jacks. I feel that this will aid in > avoiding confusion for future troubleshooting. > Charlie Kuss ========================== Charlie: The colors are your choice. But, the Mic cable should have 3 wires and a shield and the Phone cable should have 2 wires and a shield. Kind of hard to mix that up. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator Field Switch
In a message dated 6/29/06 7:23:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, endspeed(at)yahoo.com writes: > Is there a reason to have a field switch? > > > Bob Sultzbach ============================ Bob: There are two reasons for a Field Switch: 1 - To isolate the alternator from the electrical system. This is helpful in diagnosing a problem and when the ACU goes off line and you want it to cool and reset. 2 - In case of an electrical fire. There are also some not as relevant reasons: Voltage spikes when starting Reducing load on the starting of the engine Control of the alternator or alternators Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
On Jun 30, 2006, at 3:59 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/29/06 7:08:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > mstewart(at)iss.net > writes: > >> >> I really need the failure rate of the B&C now to make a comparison. >> >> Mike > ======================== =========== > Mike: > > No, what you really need to do is stop being a bean counting > manager and > become an engineer and look at the installation. The variable in > the equation is > NOT the alternator but the installation. Alternators come off the > assembly > line much faster, for more planes and with much tighter tolerances > than the > planes do. Your points about installation are well taken and should be heeded by all those using automotive alternators. OTOH, what Mike said was that the stator was fried. That is what happens to an alternator operated too close to its maximum current rating. Automotive alternators, unless they are "hot rated", cannot operate anywhere near their ratings without self-destructing. This is a failure mode that occurs all the time with boats where the alternator is called upon too recharge the deep-cycle battery bank. It also happens all the time in cars that have megawatt stereo systems that draw huge amounts of power from the electrical system. How do I know about this? Well, I became really good friends with the guy who rebuilds alternators in the Virgin Islands as I was a member of the "stator of the month" club. He was very up front about not providing a warrantee on rebuilt automotive alternators to boats with big battery banks (me) or people with big stereos in their cars. In fact, I keep a couple of stators in my spares kit. (I got so I could change a stator in about an hour including removal and reinstallation of the alternator on the engine.) I learned to be careful to monitor current output and alternator temperature to minimize failure. The solution is simple: if you are using an automotive alternator that is not explicitly designed to operate near its rated output (hot rated), make sure your average current consumption is below 50% of the rated output of the alternator. 50A alternator? Don't design your electrical system to require more than 25A under normal, continuous operation. Intermittent loads like landing lights (unless you leave them on all the time), gear retraction systems, comm radios while transmitting, etc., are not the problem as you only use them for short periods of time. Everything else that gets turned on and left on counts. I know that Bob recommends keeping the load on the alternator below 80% of max rating but IMHO that is not conservative enough for most automotive alternators. (Maybe it is if you have really good cooling.) The bottom line is that, regardless of proper installation, alternators can and will self destruct if operated at their rated output. Only those that are "hot rated", i.e. have their output specified at a higher operating temperature, usually something like 100C, will be able to deliver their max output under continuous load conditions. Oh, and hot-rated alternators cost more. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator Field Switch
On Jun 30, 2006, at 4:38 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote: > There are also some not as relevant reasons: > Voltage spikes when starting > Reducing load on the starting of the engine > Control of the alternator or alternators I don't really want to pick a fight but these wives' tales seem to persist: voltage "spikes" and engine load when starting. I have certainly seen low voltage caused by starter load but I just don't know where voltage "spikes" would come from. Likewise, the load from the alternator on an engine turning at 150-200 RPM during cranking is inconsequential as the alternator is not turning fast enough to produce an output above battery voltage so it is delivering no current and hence placing no load on the engine. The only load the alternator places are frictional loads, and those exist whether the field is active or not, and the slightly extra battery drain of 2 or 3 amps to excite the field. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Software in the cockpit
I know this is way off list parameters, but from an operators standpoint, having had pretty much everything since the Commodore 64 in the mid 80s, I just don't understand all this about the problems with Windows. Even though it's a bit bulky, XP has operated flawlessly for me since it first hit the streets. What exactly is it about it that's so bad? No, I'm not a dealer, geek, nor even a loyalist. Just curious. Thanks, Deke I suspected that was probably the case. Windows NT had a lot of promise in the beginning. (It was originally written by IBM and not Microsoft. Originally it was called OS2.) The basic microkernel architecture is a good one in that it embodies the concept I was espousing -- small, simple, and testable modules that have well defined interfaces with little interaction. I have worked with several and prefer them to monolithic kernels like Linux. But any good thing can be made bad as Windows XP demonstrates. > The kernel (I thinks it's even 3.51) is quite stable as it has only > basic functionality and it is tested out also very well as well as > used in many other processor driven parts. What is full of bugs is > the overhead put on top, so I would (even if I'm not a Gates fan) > trust on that product, as well as it was done from Apollo which > have a very good reputation. I agree. I was just joking about the MX-20. (I should have put in a smilie in my original post.) It seems to be a reliable device. It is interesting to see that the kind of problem we were talking about, i.e. "creeping featurism" increasing complexity and reducing reliability, has struck the certified EFIS world. The Garmin 1000 has been struck with a plethora of software updates reminiscent of Windows. A couple of avionics shops I have spoken/dealt with have complained to me of the problems they have had with that unit. This brings us back to the original discussion about the desirability of dedicated devices with clearly defined and straightforward functionality. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
In a message dated 6/30/06 5:57:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, brian-yak(at)lloyd.com writes: > OTOH, what Mike said was that the stator was fried. That is what > happens to an alternator operated too close to its maximum current > rating. Automotive alternators, unless they are "hot rated", cannot > operate anywhere near their ratings without self-destructing. ==================================== Brian: Someone is feeding you a bunch of bunk! DON'T SPREAD THE BUNK! Hot rated ... MADE UP NONSENSE! The same companies that make automotive alternators make aircraft alternators. For example: 1972 Ford Pickup with A/C (61 amp), as this is what the DOFF-xxxxx P/N crosses to in the Ford books. DOFF-10300J AL12-F60 <- FULL P/N The ONLY difference is the NAME PLATE. I have taken both plane and car alternators, disconnected the regulator and ran them with a variable load and up to 5000 RPM. I was able to get 107 Amps out of a 60 Amp Alternator. Sure it got hot, but it did not fail. ALL alternators are under rated. They have to be if you expect them to work. Keeping the LOAD at 80% of the source is just GOOD design practices. Just because a wire can handle 15 Amps does not mean you run it at 15 Amps. What is common between plane and boats is VIBRATION. How does a Stator fail? From Vibration. The stator is basically a SOLID unit. It does not fail ... The bearings and the bell fail Because of Vibration, which causes the stator to go off center and usually destroying the brushes and field coil. I have NEVER seen a stator fail that did not involve the bearings or bell. As far as auto Vs plane alternators ... Give me a NEW auto type any day. They keep up with technology. Don't believe it? Look at the smaller size and higher output that we have today. Other than big business using data such as MTBF to set up a warranty program ... YES, they reduce the quality of the components to keep operational times just a farts breath longer than the warranty period. THAT is why I do not rebuild with OEM parts. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
In a message dated 6/30/06 8:00:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, densing(at)carolina.rr.com writes: > No securing method on alternator bells > > What are alternator bells? > Dale ============================== Dale: Good question, you are the only one to ask. Motors, alternators and even starters have bells. They are also called END BELL. They are the front and rear housing that support the bearings. They got their name from the old steel motors. When they are removed from the rest of the housing and struck with a hammer they RING like a bell. Today aluminum has replaced the steel end bells, both for lightness and heat transfer, as well as production cost. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi" <jlinga(at)mchsi.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Instrument lighting
Hey Guys, I have a simple problem that most likely has a simple solution. The solution, however, eludes me. I have an internally lit g-meter on my instrument panel (Don't ask me why :-)). The g-meter's lighting is internal to the instrument, i.e. it's not a lighting tray that is screwed to the top. The instrument would have to be opened up to get to the lamp. I purchased the g-meter from Chief a while back ago, and when I received it, I realized it was a 5v unit. Chief didn't have any other lighting option listed or available. I thought about dropping the voltage with a resistor. Before doing this I called the manufacturer Wultrad (aka Falcon Gauge). They said they had a 12v unit in stock that they could swap for mine. I thought... "great problem solved." They shipped me one back with a 12v label over the original label. In testing my instrument panel lighting, I discovered that the g-meter is considerably brighter than the other instruments to the point it would be annoying at night. The interesting thing is the light is nice and white and very uniform though out the face of the instrument. Anyway, I thought... "gee I'm back to putting in a resistor to dim the light!" "OK, no problem. I'll figure out what size resistor I need and move on," I thought. The problem is the resistance of any incandescent lamp changes whether it hot or cold. The lamp is drawing 0.56 A at 12.0 v. Seem's like a lot to me. From that I deduced the lamp's resistance at 21.3 ohm. The problem is that when I figure out what size resistor I need to get say a 7 or 8 v voltage drop across the lamp and add that resistor to the circuit, the current changes and so does the resistance of the lamp. So how does one figure this stuff out? I decided to purchase a potentiometer and install it in my circuit, adjust it 'till I got the brightness I wanted and then measure the resistance of the pot. In doing this I began to smell smoke, the little pot was beginning to glow red as I dimmed down the light in the instrument. I went back and purchased a heavier pot. This did the trick. I decided a 20 ohm resistor in series would be perfect. I purchased a 22 ohm, 2 W resistor, temporarily installed it, and the light was perfect. The problem was I was still smelling that familiar acrid smell. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor and a .34 A current giving me 2.5 W to dissipate. I later tried two 10 ohm, 2 W resistors in series. Still, they got too hot. I purchased a ceramic 22 ohm, 5 W resistor and it still got too hot to touch. The small battery I was using for testing was putting out 12.2 v under the load. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor, So I deduced I must be getting a 4.8 v drop across the lamp. The light was just right. I wonder if I still have a 5v lamp inside the instrument! I measured 0.34 A in the circuit. The 5 W resistor ought to be handling the 2.5 W I need to dissipate just fine. Something is wrong. Do any of you smart guys know what I'm doing wrong? Jerry "Smelling smoke in Georgia" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Instrument lighting
Hi Jerry I'd say you did it all correctly but you are just surprised at how much the 2.5 watts heats up a resistor. A 5 watt bulb is about what incandescent children's night lights are and does seem ridiculous for an instrument so I agree that is is the wrong bulb. I would leave it as is with your resistor. Second choice would be change the bulb to one that is really 12 volts. Third choice is a variable duty cycle circuit that pulses short 12 volt pulses to the lamp so that it averages the same power as running it on 5 volts. That avoids heating up a resistor and dumping the 2.5 watts but I doubt it is worth the trouble. Fourth choice is kind of silly but if you had another similar instrument you could wire them is series... Ken Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi wrote: > Hey Guys, > I have a simple problem that most likely has a simple solution. > The solution, however, eludes me. I have an internally lit g-meter on > my instrument panel (Don't ask me why :-)). The g-meter's lighting is > internal to the instrument, i.e. it's not a lighting tray that is > screwed to the top. The instrument would have to be opened up to get > to the lamp. > > I purchased the g-meter from Chief a while back ago, and when I > received it, I realized it was a 5v unit. Chief didn't have any other > lighting option listed or available. I thought about dropping the > voltage with a resistor. Before doing this I called the manufacturer > Wultrad (aka Falcon Gauge). They said they had a 12v unit in stock > that they could swap for mine. I thought... "great problem solved." > They shipped me one back with a 12v label over the original label. In > testing my instrument panel lighting, I discovered that the g-meter is > considerably brighter than the other instruments to the point it would > be annoying at night. The interesting thing is the light is nice and > white and very uniform though out the face of the instrument. Anyway, > I thought... "gee I'm back to putting in a resistor to dim the light!" > > "OK, no problem. I'll figure out what size resistor I need and > move on," I thought. The problem is the resistance of any > incandescent lamp changes whether it hot or cold. The lamp is drawing > 0.56 A at 12.0 v. Seem's like a lot to me. From that I deduced the > lamp's resistance at 21.3 ohm. The problem is that when I figure out > what size resistor I need to get say a 7 or 8 v voltage drop across > the lamp and add that resistor to the circuit, the current changes and > so does the resistance of the lamp. So how does one figure this stuff > out? I decided to purchase a potentiometer and install it in my > circuit, adjust it 'till I got the brightness I wanted and then > measure the resistance of the pot. In doing this I began to smell > smoke, the little pot was beginning to glow red as I dimmed down the > light in the instrument. I went back and purchased a heavier pot. > This did the trick. I decided a 20 ohm resistor in series would be > perfect. I purchased a 22 ohm, 2 W resistor, temporarily installed > it, and the light was perfect. The problem was I was still smelling > that familiar acrid smell. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor and > a .34 A current giving me 2.5 W to dissipate. I later tried two 10 > ohm, 2 W resistors in series. Still, they got too hot. I purchased a > ceramic 22 ohm, 5 W resistor and it still got too hot to touch. The > small battery I was using for testing was putting out 12.2 v under the > load. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor, So I deduced I must be > getting a 4.8 v drop across the lamp. The light was just right. I > wonder if I still have a 5v lamp inside the instrument! I measured > 0.34 A in the circuit. The 5 W resistor ought to be handling the 2.5 > W I need to dissipate just fine. Something is wrong. Do any of you > smart guys know what I'm doing wrong? > > Jerry > "Smelling smoke in Georgia" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
Barry, Your list of failure modes is certainly extensive and all are installation related, and I agree with each and every one. However, I noticed that none of the failures that you have seen were caused by overheating. Even if the installation is perfect in every respect and there is not enough cooling air brought to the alternator, it will certainly fail. A fan is very desirable, if not essential. It is possible that a properly installed blast tube could do the job, but keep in mind that it should provide as much airflow as the fan originally did. I worked with alternators back in the sixties. Actually I was on the design team that built the first regulators that were put inside the alternator. The first application was the 1968 Pontiac Gran Prix (when the Gran Prix was the top of the line). I learned then that alternators can run at 100 percent output for hours on end at underhood temperatures (125 degrees C or 257 degrees F ambient) -- with a fan. The current output is higher at first when the stator winding is cool, and then drops off to the rated current as it heats up. Increasing the voltage causes the current to go up due to increased field current. At that time at least, alternators were rated conservatively and a 65 amp alternator (twice the output of a typical generator of the time) would self limit at 65 amps -- plus or minus a few percent depending on the exact temperature and voltage. But it would never destroy itself. Exceptions to this would be if the cooling air were blocked off or if the fan were not present. Any copper wire will fry (burn up the insulation) if it gets too hot. Blow some air on it and it will run cooler at the same current. Almost any failure mode will be less at a lower temperature. Dan Hopper RV-7A In a message dated 6/30/2006 4:13:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com writes: LQQK at what is failing and why. The problems I see and I have seen a lot, way more than 2 planes; is the install. Belts too tight Belts too loose Alignment of the alternator sheave to the ring gear out of whack Wrong Belts being used - There is a difference in 'V' grove between aviation and automotive. Belts not seating properly in the sheave Alternator not mounted secure - Too much vibration Cracked alternator mounts Cracked alternator tension brackets Improper nuts & bolts used - Course thread Vs fine thread Ridiculous stacking of washers in attempts to align alternator with ring gear Bracket mounting bolts not torque correctly No safety tabs on mounting bolts No safety wire on tension bracket bolts Safety wire installed incorrectly OVER torquing of Field and B+ nuts No securing method on alternator bells Improper wire length and No service loop on alternator wires POOR electrical grounds on the entire engine and plane So, you can see, you have to LQQK at the entire picture and not micro manage one device. Barry "Chop'd Liver" QA/QA Manager SPC Q1 ISO 9001 Tech Sales Engineering A&P ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Is there a color code convention for
> > I had planned to use one color style to wire the microphone jacks and the > > other color style to wire the headphone jacks. I feel that this > will aid in > > avoiding confusion for future troubleshooting. > > Charlie Kuss >========================== >Charlie: > >The colors are your choice. >But, the Mic cable should have 3 wires and a shield and the Phone cable >should have 2 wires and a shield. Kind of hard to mix that up. > >Barry >"Chop'd Liver" Barry, For a mono intercom, you are correct. However, I clearly stated that this is a STEREO intercom. (You snipped this part of my original post out of your reply) . The headphone jacks also have 3 wires. (Pilot & Co-Pilot mics have 3 wires. Passenger mics have 2 wires) I like Rick Lindstrom's idea of using the "Red is Right" rule. This is a common convention with home and car stereo equipment. Blue is closer to Black (normal ground color) than yellow or red, so that seems like a good color for ground. Yellow, being odd man out, gets to be the left channel. I'll use this color coding unless someone knows of a definitive aviation convention. Charlie Kuss ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
>snipped >Brian: > >Someone is feeding you a bunch of bunk! >DON'T SPREAD THE BUNK! >Hot rated ... MADE UP NONSENSE! >snipped >As far as auto Vs plane alternators ... Give me a NEW auto type any day. >They keep up with technology. >Don't believe it? Look at the smaller size and higher output that we have >today. Other than big business using data such as MTBF to set up a warranty >program ... YES, they reduce the quality of the components to keep >operational >times just a farts breath longer than the warranty period. THAT is >why I do not >rebuild with OEM parts. Barry, I work on auto electrical systems every day. I take exception with your opinion that OEM parts are all junk. Some manufacturers have cut back on parts quality. They are used in by only certain manufacturers. They are the ones you hear being on the verge of bankruptcy on the TV news. Nippon Denso is not one of them. ND electrical parts are extremely reliable, as are ND factory remanufactured. My experience is that the re-mans sold by discount auto stores like Advance Auto Parts and Pep Boys use much lower quality components in their remanufactured parts. Sure, they offer life time warranties. What do they care? Their unit costs are very low (thanks to using cheap parts and labor). In addition, they aren't the ones doing the labor twice (or more). As a professional auto mechanic, using poor quality parts is bad business for me. I only get paid once. My customer wants the repair done correctly the first time. If the repair fails, I get to fix it again for free the second time. Add to that, customer ill will, and it adds up to a losing proposition for me. Having an electrical component fail away from home gets expensive for all of us, as aircraft owners. Loss of time gets expensive, if you have to pay for overnight shipping, or worse, a rental car and a motel room. Buy B&C Specialties or purchase from an auto parts source. Just make sure you get high quality parts. You can't go wrong with genuine ND parts. Charlie Kuss ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
In a message dated 6/30/06 9:41:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com writes: > Blow > some air on it and it will run cooler at the same current. Almost any > failure mode will be less at a lower temperature. > > Dan Hopper > RV-7A ================================= Dan: You are 100% correct. Cooling is very essential and I did forget to mention that. AND I should have know better, just last year a new alternator (Nippon) in an RV-6A failed for lack of cooling. I added a blast tube and haven't had a problem since. Thanks for adding to the list. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
On Jun 30, 2006, at 8:18 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote: > Brian: > > Someone is feeding you a bunch of bunk! Uh, no. > DON'T SPREAD THE BUNK! > Hot rated ... MADE UP NONSENSE! Uh, no. Please do your homework. I have. > The same companies that make automotive alternators make aircraft > alternators. For example: > 1972 Ford Pickup with A/C (61 amp), as this is what the DOFF-xxxxx P/N > crosses to in the Ford books. > DOFF-10300J AL12-F60 <- FULL P/N > > The ONLY difference is the NAME PLATE. Perhaps. Having taken a few apart to fix them I have seen differences. But in general I agree that there really aren't many differences between automotive and aviation alternators. Where you do see differences is when you get to alternators that have been designed to operate at higher output and higher temperatures. These are not alternators that you normally find in automotive or aviation use. Sometimes they use the same case but usually they have high-temp bearings, better cooling fans, and radically different stators. The big difference is in the stator. I have seen two approaches to high-output and hot-rated stators. One approach is to triple-wind the stator where each stator winding actually consists of three windings in parallel on the same core. The other approach is to just use much larger wire in the stator. Both approaches reduce I*R losses and its concomitant temperature rise. > I have taken both plane and car alternators, disconnected the > regulator and > ran them with a variable load and up to 5000 RPM. I was able to > get 107 Amps > out of a 60 Amp Alternator. Sure it got hot, but it did not fail. > ALL > alternators are under rated. They have to be if you expect them to > work. Keeping > the LOAD at 80% of the source is just GOOD design practices. Just > because a > wire can handle 15 Amps does not mean you run it at 15 Amps. Sure you can get a lot of output out of them for a little while. But you have massive I*R losses in the stator. It gets HOT! If you continue to pull a lot of amps from the alternator the stator gets hot enough to burn through its insulation. At that point the stator fails and the point is moot. As someone who has personally repaired many alternators with fried stators I can attest to what is happening. I speak from multiple occurrences of personal experience -- the standard automotive alternator is incapable of sustained operation at its "rated" output without burning up its stator. You can increase the life with better cooling (good idea) or you can reduce the I*R losses so that less of the current is turned into heat in the alternator. > What is common between plane and boats is VIBRATION. How does a > Stator fail? > =46rom Vibration. The stator is basically a SOLID unit. It does not > fail ... You bet your sweet patootie it fails. Burns right up. Insulation is ash. Smells bad too. > The bearings and the bell fail Because of Vibration, which causes > the stator > to go off center and usually destroying the brushes and field > coil. I have > NEVER seen a stator fail that did not involve the bearings or bell. I have. Many times. It is a common occurrence. I have fixed them. I spent hours looking at failed alternators in an alternator repair shop to try to figure out ways to make them not fail. One interesting way to do it is what I ended up doing on my boat. My regulator has a duty-cycle limit for the field. The field current is either on or off and the alternator output is controlled by the duty cycle of the field, i.e. on vs. off time of the field current. When more output is needed the field current stays on a longer proportion of the time. (BTW, this is how all internally-regulated alternators ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
In a message dated 6/30/06 10:09:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, chaztuna(at)adelphia.net writes: > Barry, > I work on auto electrical systems every day. I take exception with > your opinion that OEM parts are all junk. Some manufacturers have cut > back on parts quality. They are used in by only certain > manufacturers. They are the ones you hear being on the verge of > bankruptcy on the TV news. ================================= Charlie: You are correct, I use to do QA/QC & SPC for the manufacture you are talking about. And I can give you a case in point: As an auto mechanic have you ever noticed that the ORIGINAL sepertine Belt or the ORIGINAL timing belts always last longer? They tell you to replace them at 60,000 miles but many original belts go 80,000 to 90,000 miles! That is original FACTORY installed equipment. Not necessarily OEM that is sold over the counter at dealers. So, when you purchase the Dealer OEM you never seem to get the same life? Remember FORD with the Dual Spark Plugs per cylinder; just like our planes? Well, they have SPECIAL FACTORY spark plugs. You would get the life and gas milage with the Factory installed ones, but not with the Dealer OEM. It was done this way to meet warrenty and government requirements. Yet the requirements only had to last untill the warrenty was up. The saying on the wall was: "If you can't design in controlled failure, you have to design out longevity." Why do you think MTBF became important? Barry "Chop'd Liver" o you get a smooth output. What happens when you have a really big load at the limit of the alternator's capacity is that the field goes on and stays on. Now the output of the alternator is limited by the I*R losses in the stator. My regulator has a maximum duty cycle adjustment. If I set it for 80% it won't let the field current stay on more than 80% of the time. Since I dropped the duty cycle to a maximum of 60% and improved alternator cooling I haven't had to replace a stator. Now this is not really apropos to aviation because you are rarely trying to charge a 1000 amp-hour battery bank like I am on my boat. When that battery is low it can sink hundreds of amps during charge. (I limit my charge current to 100A but then it will take most of the day to charge if the battery bank is really low.) The alternator is running at 100% output for long periods of time. It will burn itself up if it isn't really designed to handle 100% output. You are right about vibration. It happens. You can improve things by balancing the rotor and putting in beefier bearings (preferably ones with a higher temperature rating too). BTW, the bearings also fail from the heat. > As far as auto Vs plane alternators ... Give me a NEW auto type any > day. > They keep up with technology. > Don't believe it? Look at the smaller size and higher output that > we have > today. Other than big business using data such as MTBF to set up a > warranty > program ... YES, they reduce the quality of the components to keep > operational > times just a farts breath longer than the warranty period. THAT is > why I do not > rebuild with OEM parts. I suggest you look at hot-rated alternators from various sources. I recommend looking at Ample Power, Balmar, etc. to see what they do to make the alternator a true 100% duty-cycle device. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Instrument lighting
Jerry, I think that Ken's third suggestion is the best for your problem. A nice, inexpensive circuit for accomplishing this can be purchased below. FYI, this unit can be used to control a defroster fan motor, slow down electric trim servos or act as you wish to use it, to dim lights. http://www.mpja.com/productview.asp?product=4057+MD For your purpose, the reversing slide switch can be eliminated. I've built a number of these units. I'm using them for defrost fan speed control, MAC trim servo speed reducers and for panel light dimming. They are a lot cheaper than other items sold for these purposes. In addition, if I carry one spare unit, I can use it to replace a number of failed control devices. Heck, if it fails, I can simply go to Radio Shack and buy a replacement diode/resistor/capacitor to repair it. Charlie Kuss >Hey Guys, > I have a simple problem that most likely has a simple > solution. The solution, however, eludes me. I have an internally > lit g-meter on my instrument panel (Don't ask me why :-)). The > g-meter's lighting is internal to the instrument, i.e. it's not a > lighting tray that is screwed to the top. The instrument would > have to be opened up to get to the lamp. > > I purchased the g-meter from Chief a while back ago, and when I > received it, I realized it was a 5v unit. Chief didn't have any > other lighting option listed or available. I thought about > dropping the voltage with a resistor. Before doing this I called > the manufacturer Wultrad (aka Falcon Gauge). They said they had a > 12v unit in stock that they could swap for mine. I thought... > "great problem solved." They shipped me one back with a 12v label > over the original label. In testing my instrument panel lighting, > I discovered that the g-meter is considerably brighter than the > other instruments to the point it would be annoying at night. The > interesting thing is the light is nice and white and very uniform > though out the face of the instrument. Anyway, I thought... "gee > I'm back to putting in a resistor to dim the light!" > > "OK, no problem. I'll figure out what size resistor I need and > move on," I thought. The problem is the resistance of any > incandescent lamp changes whether it hot or cold. The lamp is > drawing 0.56 A at 12.0 v. Seem's like a lot to me. From that I > deduced the lamp's resistance at 21.3 ohm. The problem is that > when I figure out what size resistor I need to get say a 7 or 8 v > voltage drop across the lamp and add that resistor to the circuit, > the current changes and so does the resistance of the lamp. So how > does one figure this stuff out? I decided to purchase a > potentiometer and install it in my circuit, adjust it 'till I got > the brightness I wanted and then measure the resistance of the > pot. In doing this I began to smell smoke, the little pot was > beginning to glow red as I dimmed down the light in the > instrument. I went back and purchased a heavier pot. This did the > trick. I decided a 20 ohm resistor in series would be perfect. I > purchased a 22 ohm, 2 W resistor, temporarily installed it, and the > light was perfect. The problem was I was still smelling that > familiar acrid smell. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor and a > .34 A current giving me 2.5 W to dissipate. I later tried two 10 > ohm, 2 W resistors in series. Still, they got too hot. I > purchased a ceramic 22 ohm, 5 W resistor and it still got too hot > to touch. The small battery I was using for testing was putting > out 12.2 v under the load. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor, > So I deduced I must be getting a 4.8 v drop across the lamp. The > light was just right. I wonder if I still have a 5v lamp inside > the instrument! I measured 0.34 A in the circuit. The 5 W > resistor ought to be handling the 2.5 W I need to dissipate just > fine. Something is wrong. Do any of you smart guys know what I'm doing wrong? > >Jerry >"Smelling smoke in Georgia" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
Well said Charlie! I have a B&C 40 Amp unit and regulator on my RV6-A which has operated flawlessly. It is small, light and well engineered even though it is rather expensive I wouldn't use anything else. I am building a stable mate for the RV at this time and the F1 Rocket will have the same B&C Combo. Tom in Ohio ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:02 AM > > > >>snipped >>Brian: >> >>Someone is feeding you a bunch of bunk! >>DON'T SPREAD THE BUNK! >>Hot rated ... MADE UP NONSENSE! >>snipped >>As far as auto Vs plane alternators ... Give me a NEW auto type any day. >>They keep up with technology. >>Don't believe it? Look at the smaller size and higher output that we have >>today. Other than big business using data such as MTBF to set up a >>warranty >>program ... YES, they reduce the quality of the components to keep >>operational >>times just a farts breath longer than the warranty period. THAT is why I >>do not >>rebuild with OEM parts. > > Barry, > I work on auto electrical systems every day. I take exception with your > opinion that OEM parts are all junk. Some manufacturers have cut back on > parts quality. They are used in by only certain manufacturers. They are > the ones you hear being on the verge of bankruptcy on the TV news. > Nippon Denso is not one of them. ND electrical parts are extremely > reliable, as are ND factory remanufactured. My experience is that the > re-mans sold by discount auto stores like Advance Auto Parts and Pep Boys > use much lower quality components in their remanufactured parts. Sure, > they offer life time warranties. What do they care? Their unit costs are > very low (thanks to using cheap parts and labor). In addition, they aren't > the ones doing the labor twice (or more). > As a professional auto mechanic, using poor quality parts is bad business > for me. I only get paid once. My customer wants the repair done correctly > the first time. If the repair fails, I get to fix it again for free the > second time. Add to that, customer ill will, and it adds up to a losing > proposition for me. Having an electrical component fail away from home > gets expensive for all of us, as aircraft owners. Loss of time gets > expensive, if you have to pay for overnight shipping, or worse, a rental > car and a motel room. > Buy B&C Specialties or purchase from an auto parts source. Just make sure > you get high quality parts. You can't go wrong with genuine ND parts. > Charlie Kuss > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
Excuse my ignorance, but would someone please explain blast tube ? I have it in my mind an opening in the front of the cowling with baffling specific for the alternator. Randy ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:15 AM > > In a message dated 6/30/06 9:41:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Hopperdhh(at)aol.com writes: > >> Blow >> some air on it and it will run cooler at the same current. Almost any >> failure mode will be less at a lower temperature. >> >> Dan Hopper >> RV-7A > ================================= > Dan: > > You are 100% correct. Cooling is very essential and I did forget to > mention > that. AND I should have know better, just last year a new alternator > (Nippon) > in an RV-6A failed for lack of cooling. I added a blast tube and haven't > had > a problem since. > Thanks for adding to the list. > > > Barry > "Chop'd Liver" > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
On Jun 30, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Brinker wrote: > internet.com> > > Excuse my ignorance, but would someone please > explain blast tube ? I have it in my mind an opening in the front > of the cowling with baffling specific for the alternator. A blast tube is a piece of rigid tubing that comes out of the high- pressure side of the cooling air plenum and directs cool air at any device that needs cooling. You will often find a blast tube providing cooling air to a magneto, a fuel pump, and/or an alternator. I have seen alternators with cooling shrouds and with a port to allow the cooling air to be piped right inside the alternator. The latter is much better than a blast tube. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
Robert: You are right with a ND alternator you DON'T need an ALT switch at all. That is why I suggest combining the MASTER switch (which we do have) and the ALT switch together in one DPST switch, but we could take that a step further. You could just run the alternator direct to the main buss with no switch which is OK, but......... I do believe in having a way to remove power to the IGN wire (the wake/sleep signal) for NON NORMAL circumstances or conditions, it's goodness. A PULL-ABLE circuit breaker would do the job of emergency power disconnect nicely. You could also use a split Cessna style switch and a fuse. I don't care for the Cessna switch because there is a chance the pilot will mess with it or accidentally leave the alternator off inadvertantly, at least if they don't have a good low volt warning.** I guess I am a victim of convention and following some standardization of wiring. I like the idea of having the ALT go thru a discrete switch of some kind, although as you point out, it can be left off and is not doing much, especially if you have the pull-able CB. What cars have is an ignition switch, which is their combined MASTER and ALT and STARTER switch all in one. You could copy that concept. After all the alternator in question was designed to work in a car. It has microprocessor control to work with out the operator to manually bring it on line or control an OV or what ever. They do fail but it is usually benign. On the other hand a car can pull over to the shoulder. We can't park on a cloud to fix things, so I suggest a way to at least attempt to shut it down if it fails in flight. ** As far as LOW voltage all these ND's have a low volt fault light that should be wired into the aircraft. Many builders do not use it from many reasons. Van who sells many ND units in there accessory catalog does not show that PIN wired and therefore many follow that omission. Hope that answers your question. >posted by: Robert Sultzbach >Hi George, >After reading your post I was left wondering why >bother having a field switch at all in this type of >alternator. Is there a reason to have a field switch? --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator Field Switch
On that note, just got my new Sport Aviation magazine, and the technical counselor article is all about needing an avionics master switch to protect your electronics from spikes caused by "inductive kicks". That'll probably be enough to keep these OWTs going stronger than ever. Argh. William Slaughter -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 5:05 AM On Jun 30, 2006, at 4:38 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote: There are also some not as relevant reasons: Voltage spikes when starting Reducing load on the starting of the engine Control of the alternator or alternators I don't really want to pick a fight but these wives' tales seem to persist: voltage "spikes" and engine load when starting. I have certainly seen low voltage caused by starter load but I just don't know where voltage "spikes" would come from. Likewise, the load from the alternator on an engine turning at 150-200 RPM during cranking is inconsequential as the alternator is not turning fast enough to produce an output above battery voltage so it is delivering no current and hence placing no load on the engine. The only load the alternator places are frictional loads, and those exist whether the field is active or not, and the slightly extra battery drain of 2 or 3 amps to excite the field. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value, reliability?)
I am sure B&C sells a nice product. I think B&C might(?) achieve better reliability, but........ There is NO DATA to back that up any claim that B&C has superior reliability. I know B&C and Bob N. have a strong opinions but no real data. To say ZERO failures is disingenuous at best, with all do respect to B&C, but when you sell a product that cost 3 or 4 times as much I guess you have to distinguish yourself. However you have to be intellectually honest and admit that things fail and there is NO guarantee, regardless of the price paid. I know of several B&C products to fail both first hand and second hand, just check the archives. There are many B&C failures that don't make news, web fourms or even get reported to B&C. They are experimental and these is no tracking of reliability. I am sure B&C is aware of failures and Bob N. has been somewhat forthright with problems regarding the voltage regulator that has lead to improvements. There are still issues. You have to include the alternator and regulator as a whole system when comparing it to a ND unit with integral Voltage regulator. B&C alternators are made 98% from ND parts or clone aftermarket ND parts. They DO anodize and claim to balance it within a hair on Nat's bee-hind, but the benifit of this blue printing is a raging debate to be had another time. I can imagine there's a positive, but how much affect on reliability I don't know. I can say if any alternator is bolted to a wild shaking Lycoming, producing endless vibrations and 50 G shaking at start and shut down like a wet dog, it's going for a WILD RIDE anyway. It is like measuring it with a microscope and cutting with an AX. Same with balance, does it matter? May Be? Stock alternators are NOT without some balance. There are million and millions of ND alternators (stock) running 24 hours, 7 days, year after year WORLD wide in cars and industrial equip with extreme reliability under demanding conditons. Both my Acura's have ND alternators. One is at 130K with no issue and the other 185K, with a combined +24 years of combined use. The issue with many ND alternators builders use is the fact they came from a supplier selling less than great aftermarket NON nippondenso units. As this 15-18 year old design gets older, you will only find aftermarket alternators. The good news is there are good aftermarket parts. The bad news is there are BAD ones as well. Aftermarket ND parts are make in Taiwan and China by 4 or more big companies. Not all are of the same quality. Not all aftermarket parts are the same. The same applies to re-builds at the Auto Zone or Pep-Boys. At least many offer a good warranty. The bad news is that chain of auto parts store may not be in your area when doing a cross country and it fails. If you can't go to the same store, you can't take advantage of the warranty replacement. I suspect if Auto-Parts-R-Us gets wind its on a plane, they may protest and deny your warranty claim anyway. If a B&C regulator or alternator fails, it is a custom alternator that only B&C can really work on. There is something to be said with over the counter auto parts. I am sure B&C is good, but not as great as their hype. If you read B&C's web site it is full of hyperbole and rhetoric. I read the B&C sales pitch and it is so strongly worded, like a novel, One dark and stormy night stories, they just turn me off. It plays on emotion not facts. I got a cold sweat and thought I was going to die of an electrical failure sitting in my office in front to my PC. It's a great sales pitch but it's overstated. The owner or B&C is a super nice guy and think he believes in his product. This is just my opinion about what I think of sale's pitches that play on emotion not the product. On a cost to benefit analysis I doubt you will see a cost benifit from the B&C in your or anyone's lifetime. My only gripe with B&C is the outrageous price they charge. If you want an alternator kit check out Plane Power. I think if you buy a good quality after-market stock ND alternator and install and operate it properly, you can achieve the same reliability as any DESIGNER brand alternator. Proper operation is don't cycle the ALT switch with the engine turning and don't overload it. Proper installation is install the warning light and provide heat shield and cooling air. Both Plane Power and B&C offer value but I think of the two, Plane Power has the value edge: - High Altitude brushes - Proper Fan cooling direction - Additional O/V protection (elegant**) - High Quality installation hardware ($375) (** additional OV is integrated not an ADD on B-lead relay) >From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> >If Bill Bainbridge of B&C is to be believed, the failure >rate of B&C alternators is very close to zero. --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Carter" <dcarter11(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Instrument lighting
I can't resist: "And what are you doing at night that you need a g-meter for?" . . . How about not connecting a wire to the g-meter light? David ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 6:06 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Instrument lighting Hey Guys, I have a simple problem that most likely has a simple solution. The solution, however, eludes me. I have an internally lit g-meter on my instrument panel (Don't ask me why :-)). The g-meter's lighting is internal to the instrument, i.e. it's not a lighting tray that is screwed to the top. The instrument would have to be opened up to get to the lamp. I purchased the g-meter from Chief a while back ago, and when I received it, I realized it was a 5v unit. Chief didn't have any other lighting option listed or available. I thought about dropping the voltage with a resistor. Before doing this I called the manufacturer Wultrad (aka Falcon Gauge). They said they had a 12v unit in stock that they could swap for mine. I thought... "great problem solved." They shipped me one back with a 12v label over the original label. In testing my instrument panel lighting, I discovered that the g-meter is considerably brighter than the other instruments to the point it would be annoying at night. The interesting thing is the light is nice and white and very uniform though out the face of the instrument. Anyway, I thought... "gee I'm back to putting in a resistor to dim the light!" "OK, no problem. I'll figure out what size resistor I need and move on," I thought. The problem is the resistance of any incandescent lamp changes whether it hot or cold. The lamp is drawing 0.56 A at 12.0 v. Seem's like a lot to me. From that I deduced the lamp's resistance at 21.3 ohm. The problem is that when I figure out what size resistor I need to get say a 7 or 8 v voltage drop across the lamp and add that resistor to the circuit, the current changes and so does the resistance of the lamp. So how does one figure this stuff out? I decided to purchase a potentiometer and install it in my circuit, adjust it 'till I got the brightness I wanted and then measure the resistance of the pot. In doing this I began to smell smoke, the little pot was beginning to glow red as I dimmed down the light in the instrument. I went back and purchased a heavier pot. This did the trick. I decided a 20 ohm resistor in series would be perfect. I purchased a 22 ohm, 2 W resistor, temporarily installed it, and the light was perfect. The problem was I was still smelling that familiar acrid smell. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor and a .34 A current giving me 2.5 W to dissipate. I later tried two 10 ohm, 2 W resistors in series. Still, they got too hot. I purchased a ceramic 22 ohm, 5 W resistor and it still got too hot to touch. The small battery I was using for testing was putting out 12.2 v under the load. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor, So I deduced I must be getting a 4.8 v drop across the lamp. The light was just right. I wonder if I still have a 5v lamp inside the instrument! I measured 0.34 A in the circuit. The 5 W resistor ought to be handling the 2.5 W I need to dissipate just fine. Something is wrong. Do any of you smart guys know what I'm doing wrong? Jerry "Smelling smoke in Georgia" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value,
reliability?) On 30 Jun 2006, at 20:00, wrote: > I am sure B&C sells a nice product. > > > I think B&C might(?) achieve better reliability, > but........ > > There is NO DATA to back that up any claim > that B&C has superior reliability. I know B&C > and Bob N. have a strong opinions but no > real data. We've read about a number of failures of converted automotive alternators on this list. But I don't recall reading about any failures of B&C alternators. That seems to suggest that the failure rate must be fairly low. I have seen a number of posts from people who are using B&C main alternators, so I know they are selling a few. Kevin Horton Ottawa, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value,
reliability?) George, you could save us a lot of time and yourself a lot of words by just coming up with the name and circumstances of someone who has had a B&C alternator failure. Could it be that NO DATA really means no failures? Terry _____ There is NO DATA to back that up any claim that B&C has superior reliability. I know B&C and Bob N. have a strong opinions but no real data. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net>
Date: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Instrument lighting
Since David cant resist neither can I. How about a little piece of electrical tape over the meter at night? Like is used to cover the idiot light in a car that says, ''service vehicle soon''.! bob noffs ----- Original Message ----- From: David Carter To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 7:37 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument lighting I can't resist: "And what are you doing at night that you need a g-meter for?" . . . How about not connecting a wire to the g-meter light? David ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 6:06 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Instrument lighting Hey Guys, I have a simple problem that most likely has a simple solution. The solution, however, eludes me. I have an internally lit g-meter on my instrument panel (Don't ask me why :-)). The g-meter's lighting is internal to the instrument, i.e. it's not a lighting tray that is screwed to the top. The instrument would have to be opened up to get to the lamp. I purchased the g-meter from Chief a while back ago, and when I received it, I realized it was a 5v unit. Chief didn't have any other lighting option listed or available. I thought about dropping the voltage with a resistor. Before doing this I called the manufacturer Wultrad (aka Falcon Gauge). They said they had a 12v unit in stock that they could swap for mine. I thought... "great problem solved." They shipped me one back with a 12v label over the original label. In testing my instrument panel lighting, I discovered that the g-meter is considerably brighter than the other instruments to the point it would be annoying at night. The interesting thing is the light is nice and white and very uniform though out the face of the instrument. Anyway, I thought... "gee I'm back to putting in a resistor to dim the light!" "OK, no problem. I'll figure out what size resistor I need and move on," I thought. The problem is the resistance of any incandescent lamp changes whether it hot or cold. The lamp is drawing 0.56 A at 12.0 v. Seem's like a lot to me. From that I deduced the lamp's resistance at 21.3 ohm. The problem is that when I figure out what size resistor I need to get say a 7 or 8 v voltage drop across the lamp and add that resistor to the circuit, the current changes and so does the resistance of the lamp. So how does one figure this stuff out? I decided to purchase a potentiometer and install it in my circuit, adjust it 'till I got the brightness I wanted and then measure the resistance of the pot. In doing this I began to smell smoke, the little pot was beginning to glow red as I dimmed down the light in the instrument. I went back and purchased a heavier pot. This did the trick. I decided a 20 ohm resistor in series would be perfect. I purchased a 22 ohm, 2 W resistor, temporarily installed it, and the light was perfect. The problem was I was still smelling that familiar acrid smell. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor and a .34 A current giving me 2.5 W to dissipate. I later tried two 10 ohm, 2 W resistors in series. Still, they got too hot. I purchased a ceramic 22 ohm, 5 W resistor and it still got too hot to touch. The small battery I was using for testing was putting out 12.2 v under the load. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor, So I deduced I must be getting a 4.8 v drop across the lamp. The light was just right. I wonder if I still have a 5v lamp inside the instrument! I measured 0.34 A in the circuit. The 5 W resistor ought to be handling the 2.5 W I need to dissipate just fine. Something is wrong. Do any of you smart guys know what I'm doing wrong? Jerry "Smelling smoke in Georgia" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability)
There have been many many many B&C alternator and voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just check these archives. It happens. I already wrote that there are failures in my post. In fact one acquaintance got tired of the B&C voltage regulator that burned out and replaced it with a $9.00 Ford VR. I can point to 1000's of other ND's sold by Van's aircraft and Niagara that have gone and are still are going for over a 1000 hours with out problems. Mike and his multi failures is a mystery and don't know any details. What alternator? Where did he buy it? How is it installed? Wiring? Belt? Does he cycle the alternator on and off under load? Does he have cooling air going to it? Did he use the warning light Is the battery in good condition? This is not going to be productive. You are just two people which is not a statistically meaningful sample, BUT it is a data point and you and MIKE have two differnt outcomes that we might make a conclusion. However I bet there are several 1000 more stock ND's flying than B&C's. Even if we hear from the Mike's less than good results there are many more that have the bragging rights you have. However for the $600-$700 you would expect it to be better by a factor of 3 or 4. I will concede that quality of some ND aftermarket and rebuilt Alts is an issue. I do think the vendor Van had used in the past was not the best. Well now they changed their product. The #14684 is a new aftermarket unit of a differnt (better?) brand. I think the quality issue will get better. They also added the Plane Power units as well. To be fair to Van's a/c, builders do some not so smart things with their alternator and incorrectly wire them. The classic was the O/V module (crow bar) and b-lead relay that people intentionally tripped while the alternator was running. Many of the Alts where fried. They are not designed to be disconnected from the battery while running. The same with cycling the ALT switch, which as you know I have said many times is a bad idea. I guess you can say your B&C is more tolerant of mis use? Nothing against B&C, except the price. Again B&C is great but to claim near perfection is just silly. I think B&C is being miss quoted. I know if you ask pointed questions they will tell you the reasons parts have come back in the past. However if you had a product and reputation you would protect that. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com > >OK, George- here's some data: >I have had NO failures on my B&C and Mike's had FIVE >on his whatever else- Not opinion, FACT. Maybe not a big >sample, but I've yet to hear of a B&C alternator failure on >this forum or anywhere else for that matter. Have YOU? --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
<brinker@cox-internet.com> Excuse my ignorance, but would someone please explain blast tube ? I have it in my mind an opening in the front of the cowling with baffling specific for the alternator. A blast tube is a piece of rigid tubing that comes out of the high-pressure side of the cooling air plenum and directs cool air at any device that needs cooling. You will often find a blast tube providing cooling air to a magneto, a fuel pump, and/or an alternator. I have seen alternators with cooling shrouds and with a port to allow the cooling air to be piped right inside the alternator. The latter is much better than a blast tube. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) You can use a flexible tube also and insert some sort of stiff wire type shaft inside it to bend it into the shape and direction you want so it blows right where needed. Larry in Indiana ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
Well, I am ready to present a question that I have not seen presented and wonder just why the great minds of aero-elec have not asked it already. With all the concern about shutting down a runaway alternator and the fact that IR alts. cannot be controlled in that way, why couldn't we setup a switch (heavy duty one mind you) that we could throw in the event of the OV that would just ground the alt. output to the plane's frame or ground or have some tremendus load present like a hundred light bulbs that got switched on to absorb the over load of electrons. I suppose we could also consider a knife that could be moved out into the path of the alt. belt to cut it off to cause the alt. to quit spinning. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- I do believe in having a way to remove power to the IGN wire (the wake/sleep signal) for NON NORMAL circumstances or conditions, it's goodness. A PULL-ABLE circuit breaker would do the job of emergency power disconnect nicely. You could also use a split Cessna style switch and a fuse. I don't care for the Cessna switch because there is a chance the pilot will mess with it or accidentally leave the alternator off inadvertantly, at least if they don't have a good low volt warning.** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
Good Morning Larry, Along that line, but maybe just a bit easier to implement than a big knife, why not an electric clutch on the drive? Such clutches are available now for use with standby alternators. They tend to be used to activate rather than deactivate the device, but who knows!!!???? It may have possibilities! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 7/1/2006 6:51:09 A.M. Central Standard Time, lhelming(at)sigecom.net writes: With all the concern about shutting down a runaway alternator and the fact that IR alts. cannot be controlled in that way, why couldn't we setup a switch (heavy duty one mind you) that we could throw in the event of the OV that would just ground the alt. output to the plane's frame or ground or have some tremendus load present like a hundred light bulbs that got switched on to absorb the over load of electrons. I suppose we could also consider a knife that could be moved out into the path of the alt. belt to cut it off to cause the alt. to quit spinning. Larry in Indiana ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
The electric clutches are heavy, use a fair bit of power, and are usually too large diameter for use on the alternator. The issue of loading excess output has been discussed at least once 3 or 4 years ago. You need the space to put something like a killowatt of heaters and the end result is likely a burnt up alternator fairly quickly anyway except now you also have high current and heat to consider. Bob K. did not recommend this approach. You still might need to disconnect the alternaor from the battery or expect the battery to blow the B lead fuse to make sure the battery was not pulled down as well. I concluded that a OVP cutoff and a second small alternator made more sense, was simpler, and more versatile. A search for "stall the alternator" might bring something up. Ken BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > Good Morning Larry, > > Along that line, but maybe just a bit easier to implement than a big > knife, why not an electric clutch on the drive? > > Such clutches are available now for use with standby alternators. They > tend to be used to activate rather than deactivate the device, but who > knows!!!???? > > It may have possibilities! > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 > > In a message dated 7/1/2006 6:51:09 A.M. Central Standard Time, > lhelming(at)sigecom.net writes: > > With all the concern about shutting down a runaway alternator and > the fact that IR alts. cannot be controlled in that way, why > couldn't we setup a switch (heavy duty one mind you) that we could > throw in the event of the OV that would just ground the alt. > output to the plane's frame or ground or have some tremendus load > present like a hundred light bulbs that got switched on to absorb > the over load of electrons. I suppose we could also consider a > knife that could be moved out into the path of the alt. belt to > cut it off to cause the alt. to quit spinning. Larry in Indiana > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Edwards" <gary21sn(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Is there a color code convention for intercom wiring
> > I had planned to use one color style to wire the microphone jacks and the > > other color style to wire the headphone jacks. I feel that this > will aid in > > avoiding confusion for future troubleshooting. > > Charlie Kuss >======================== = >Charlie: > >The colors are your choice. >But, the Mic cable should have 3 wires and a shield and the Phone cable >should have 2 wires and a shield. Kind of hard to mix that up. > >Barry >"Chop'd Liver" Barry, For a mono intercom, you are correct. However, I clearly stated that this is a STEREO intercom. (You snipped this part of my original post out of your reply) . The headphone jacks also have 3 wires. (Pilot & Co-Pilot mics have 3 wires. Passenger mics have 2 wires) I like Rick Lindstrom's idea of using the "Red is Right" rule. This is a common convention with home and car stereo equipment. Blue is closer to Black (normal ground color) than yellow or red, so that seems like a good color for ground. Yellow, being odd man out, gets to be the left channel. I'll use this color coding unless someone knows of a definitive aviation convention. Charlie Kuss Charlie, An aviation A&P, A&I related to me a line to remember when wiring jacks and plugs, which I utilized when wiring my Lancair and several RV's is: White, Right, Ring Obviously white is the wire color; right is the right channel for copilot or stereo or earcup or whatever; ring if which terminal on the jack or plug. Gary Edwards LNC2 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value
reliability) On Jul 1, 2006, at 5:22 AM, wrote: > There have been many many many B&C alternator and > voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just > check these archives. It happens. Sure, everything fails. Some things just take a really long time to do so. And I don't think there have been "many many many" failures. > Nothing against B&C, except the price. Have you ever looked at a B&C alternator? Their castings and machinings are quite nice -- first rate. They take pains to use good bearings and balance the rotor. It is a precision piece of hardware. I would expect to pay more for it. I would also expect it to go to TBO without a failure. > Again B&C is great but to claim near perfection > is just silly. I think B&C is being miss quoted. I > know if you ask pointed questions they will tell > you the reasons parts have come back in the past. > However if you had a product and reputation you > would protect that. Bill has always been up-front about how he builds things and about how things work. I suspect he would be happy to provide people with a list of failures and reasons. I suspect he can tell you how many he has sold, how many are in service, how many have failed, and why they have failed. Good solid information is how you convince people to trust you. Building a product that is as good as it can be doesn't hurt either. I think everyone knows that B&C produces a first-class product. None of us know the real failure numbers so any argument is pointless. I am convinced in my own mind that they make the best alternator product out there but that is only my opinion. I know it is expensive but if it just works and doesn't fail, it is worth the extra money to me. Your mileage may vary. If someone wants to know the exact failure numbers they should go ask Bill Bainbridge. If someone does and he answers, perhaps they will be so good as to post the information here. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value
reliability) You are trying to change the subject, George. The subject (see subject line above) was ALTERNATOR failures; specifically failure (or lack thereof) of B&C alternators. So now you say "There have been many many many B&C alternator and voltage regulator failures," and go on to talk about voltage regulators. You claim there have been many, and that they are in the archives. I have been reading the Aeroelectric List since it was created and I don't recall ever seeing a report of a B&C alternator failure. I just spent some time searching the archives under "alternator failure" and "B&C Alternators" and couldn't find any hint of a failure of a B&C alternator. I did find mention of B&C voltage regulator design changes because of some problem, but nothing about B&C alternator failures. You are the one making the claim, George. Give us some evidence, or give it up. Terry _____ [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:22 AM reliability) There have been many many many B&C alternator and voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just check these archives. It happens. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- >From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com > >OK, George- here's some data: >I have had NO failures on my B&C and Mike's had FIVE >on his whatever else- Not opinion, FACT. Maybe not a big >sample, but I've yet to hear of a B&C alternator failure on >this forum or anywhere else for that matter. Have YOU? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
On Jul 1, 2006, at 7:45 AM, LarryRobertHelming wrote: > Well, I am ready to present a question that I have not seen > presented and wonder just why the great minds of aero-elec have not > asked it already. > > With all the concern about shutting down a runaway alternator and > the fact that IR alts. cannot be controlled in that way, why > couldn't we setup a switch (heavy duty one mind you) that we could > throw in the event of the OV that would just ground the alt. output > to the plane's frame or ground or have some tremendus load present > like a hundred light bulbs that got switched on to absorb the over > load of electrons. I suppose we could also consider a knife that > could be moved out into the path of the alt. belt to cut it off to > cause the alt. to quit spinning. Larry in Indiana There has been a lot of discussion of this. The long and short of it is that you turn off an alternator by de-energizing the field. This is easy to do with an external regulator as you just put a switch between the bus and the power input to the regulator. The problem comes with internally regulated alternators. They have their own set of diodes that power the regulator and field. Once the alternator comes on-line, it continues to make its own power. Some IR alternators have an input that is an on/off signal to turn the alternator off but if the on/off circuit in the internal regulator fails you may not be able to turn off the field current and thus turn off the alternator. But this is the OBAM world. There is nothing preventing anyone from creating a fail-safe way to turn off an IR alternator. In the boating world we convert IR alternators into ER alternators all the time so we can use better, smarter regulators. It would be almost as easy to provide absolute control over the internal regulator and field supply. Inside the IR alternator there is something called the diode trio. It is a small set of diodes that take their output from the stator and provide DC to the internal regulator. That is where it gets its power. All you have to do is remove the diode trio and bring the power input to the regulator to an external terminal. When you want to turn the alternator on you connect this terminal to the main bus. When you want to absolutely turn the alternator off, remove power from this terminal. Simple. Now your IR alternator operates as if it were an ER alternator. If the alternator has an "I" (ignition) terminal, rewire to use that. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
At 12:08 PM 7/1/2006, you wrote: >On Jul 1, 2006, at 7:45 AM, LarryRobertHelming wrote: > >>Well, I am ready to present a question that I have not seen >>presented and wonder just why the great minds of aero-elec have not >>asked it already. >> >>With all the concern about shutting down a runaway alternator and >>the fact that IR alts. cannot be controlled in that way, why >>couldn't we setup a switch (heavy duty one mind you) that we could >>throw in the event of the OV that would just ground the alt. output >>to the plane's frame or ground or have some tremendus load present >>like a hundred light bulbs that got switched on to absorb the over >>load of electrons. I suppose we could also consider a knife that >>could be moved out into the path of the alt. belt to cut it off to >>cause the alt. to quit spinning. Larry in Indiana > >There has been a lot of discussion of this. The long and short of it >is that you turn off an alternator by de-energizing the field. This >is easy to do with an external regulator as you just put a switch >between the bus and the power input to the regulator. > >The problem comes with internally regulated alternators. They have >their own set of diodes that power the regulator and field. Once the >alternator comes on-line, it continues to make its own power. Some >IR alternators have an input that is an on/off signal to turn the >alternator off but if the on/off circuit in the internal regulator >fails you may not be able to turn off the field current and thus >turn off the alternator. > >But this is the OBAM world. There is nothing preventing anyone from >creating a fail-safe way to turn off an IR alternator. In the >boating world we convert IR alternators into ER alternators all the >time so we can use better, smarter regulators. It would be almost as >easy to provide absolute control over the internal regulator and field supply. > >Inside the IR alternator there is something called the diode trio. >It is a small set of diodes that take their output from the stator >and provide DC to the internal regulator. That is where it gets its >power. All you have to do is remove the diode trio and bring the >power input to the regulator to an external terminal. When you want >to turn the alternator on you connect this terminal to the main bus. >When you want to absolutely turn the alternator off, remove power >from this terminal. Simple. Now your IR alternator operates as if it >were an ER alternator. > >If the alternator has an "I" (ignition) terminal, rewire to use that. > >Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way >brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 >+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) Brian, I have a copy of the article that Paul Messinger wrote in CONTACT magazine some years ago, that details how to convert a ND internally regulated alternator to external regulation. Essentially, it describes how solder jumper wires which will bypass the internal regulator. A conventional external regulator is then added to the system for rotor field control. If I understand your post correctly, what you describe retains the stock regulator, but allows external manual control if it. This sounds great. However, I have to wonder, if it really is this simple, why haven't Paul M or Bob N proposed it before? I'm not knocking what you propose. I'm just wondering why this took so long to appear on this list? Do you have a schematic or photos of how to achieve this? Does this modification require the use of certain model(s) of ND alternator to function properly? Charlie Kuss ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C
Hear hear!!! Many of us would like the FACTS!!! RHDudley Terry Watson wrote: > You are trying to change the subject, George. The subject (see subject > line above) was ALTERNATOR failures; specifically failure (or lack > thereof) of B&C alternators. So now you say "There have been many many > many B&C alternator and voltage regulator failures," and go on to talk > about voltage regulators. > > > > You claim there have been many, and that they are in the archives. I > have been reading the Aeroelectric List since it was created and I > don't recall ever seeing a report of a B&C alternator failure. I just > spent some time searching the archives under "alternator failure" and > "B&C Alternators" and couldn't find any hint of a failure of a B&C > alternator. I did find mention of B&C voltage regulator design changes > because of some problem, but nothing about B&C alternator failures. > > > > You are the one making the claim, George. Give us some evidence, or > give it up. > > > > Terry > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:22 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C > value reliability) > > > > There have been many many many B&C alternator and > voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just > check these archives. It happens. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com <mailto:Fiveonepw(at)aol.com> >> >>OK, George- here's some data: >>I have had NO failures on my B&C and Mike's had FIVE >>on his whatever else- Not opinion, FACT. Maybe not a big >>sample, but I've yet to hear of a B&C alternator failure on >>this forum or anywhere else for that matter. Have YOU? > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
On Jul 1, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote: > Brian, > I have a copy of the article that Paul Messinger wrote in CONTACT > magazine some years ago, that details how to convert a ND > internally regulated alternator to external regulation. > Essentially, it describes how solder jumper wires which will bypass > the internal regulator. A conventional external regulator is then > added to the system for rotor field control. Right. That is what I have done so my alternators on the boat -- more or less. In my case there is a kit that drops in place of the existing internal regulator that neatly provides access to the field on a connector. > If I understand your post correctly, what you describe retains the > stock regulator, but allows external manual control if it. That is correct. > This sounds great. However, I have to wonder, if it really is this > simple, why haven't Paul M or Bob N proposed it before? Bob Nuckolls and I have exchanged email about this and, as I recall, he was concerned about asking people to take their alternator apart and possibly making it less reliable by not doing a good job with soldering or other workmanship inside the alternator. His point is a very good and valid one. (And Bob, please step in her if I am misrepresenting you as our conversations in this area are a couple years old if I recall.) OTOH, these things are pretty beefy and not prone to being screwed up by ham-handed mechanics. Making a bad solder joint is about the worst that I can see happening. I also suppose that if you shorted the B- lead to the field somehow you could get it to run away too. > I'm not knocking what you propose. I'm just wondering why this took > so long to appear on this list? Dunno. It seems pretty obvious to me so I just assumed someone had posted it before. Bob was certainly aware of the concept so I presumed it had been discussed on the list. > Do you have a schematic or photos of how to achieve this? Does this > modification require the use of certain model(s) of ND alternator > to function properly? No, I have no photos or schematic. I would have to experiment on one. I have worked inside the GM Delco alternators a lot as that is what I have on the boat but I have never tried to hack a Nippon Denso alternator. OTOH, alternators are all basically the same at the core. There are only a few ways you can make a self-exciting alternator. It shouldn't be too hard to do no matter which alternator you have. > Charlie Kuss Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Alternator failure. Info provided
FWIW, I have two Bosch alternators on my engine, and I just took them to my local alternator shop. This guy has a sterling reputation and he removed the internal regulators and provided a field wire for me at a very reasonable price. Great solution for a ham-handed amateur. Steve Thomas ________________________________________________________________________ On Jul 1, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote: > Bob Nuckolls and I have exchanged email about this and, as I > recall, he was concerned about asking people to take their > alternator apart and possibly making it less reliable by not doing > a good job with soldering or other workmanship inside the > alternator. His point is a very good and valid one. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Alternator Failure - Info provided
Kevin Horton is right. So is Brian. Those of us who have been reading this list for a number of years may easily attest to tye believability of both these two, Old Bob, Nuckolls and B&C. We don't need anyone who has been reading for one day in a row to lecture nor sass any of us. Why would anyone complain of lack of evidence due to lack of evidence? If the failures are not reported on one device, why would they be reported on others (particularly cheaper editions)? Thus the evidence is unimportant if that's the case. Several gentlemen have staked their reputations - over the decade - in the facts they support and I for one am prepared to believe them. The arrival of late arriving tsk-tsk in bad form is not needed. My choice is unaffected by Fred, George or Barry. Ferg Kyle Europa A064 914 Classic ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Date: Jul 01, 2006
Subject: Modifing an ND alternator regulator
Brian, The ND generic alternator uses a different way of powering the regulator. The 3 diodes you mention are not used (missing from the design) in the ND brand. The regulator gets its power directly from the "B" lead and the connection is part of a bolted stack of connections that are not easy to isolate for the builder. The MI brand, also popular, as its small and light (for the 50+amp current output) has the 3 diodes you mention and a simple snip of an internal link does the job you suggest (also covered in the Contact! article {Years old BTW}). Its very easy to modify the regulator to make the alternator 100% external regulation but the resulting modification requires a ground switching external regulator, not the more common positive switching regulator (LR3 for example). Transpo and most other regulator manufacturers have both types and have proven quite reliable in the trucking industry. It does not seem easy to keep the internal regulator usable because of the way the "B" lead is connected mechanically. Possible but only with some mechanical mods which I would not recommend for most builders. Low cost external regulators are a much better way to go; If one is worried about the concerns, by many, about some failure modes of internal regulators. The above modification takes around one hour from start of regulator removal to completion and reassembly. No case splitting etc is required. Its very simple to do. The end bells. bearings, and armature are not disturbed. A really neat design for simple repairs etc. This approach does have one fault mode of possible concern as the ground switch in the regulator can short. This is simple to provide for with a relay as it only switches the field not the HI current "B" lead. This mod is 100% contained within the bolt on regulator module so getting a replacement alternator that fits is much simpler as all you need do is exchange the regulator with your converted one which is a 10 min task. I am willing (if there is enough interest) to make a brand new PDF showing the details with new pictures etc. It would take a couple of weeks to do as this coming week is Arlington air show where I am a long time volunteer. For the record I know of NO B&C alternator failure. I have in my possession a failed LR3 regulator that burned up internally (part(s) charred) and did not pop the CB!. I have not heard of any other LR3 failures so that pricey system is very reliable in my opinion. The above (my) suggested approach is around $100 (and up) for a brand new ND alternator Lester #14684, one hour of your time, and a $25 ground switching regulator (no I do not have a part number handy). I am not convinced there is any measurable reliability difference for the extra $600+. The 14684 is rated for 18,000 rpm by the manufacturer. On the other hand I know of NO Brand New ND alternator (with internal regulator) that failed except for quite a few where there was a crowbar module and a common contactor in the "B" lead. That setup with (out other/different parts etc) has both a theoretical analysis and demonstrated high chance of failing a good alternator from false or intentional tripping. The typical contactor is not designed to break the electrical load of the alternator and the use of a diode across the contactor makes it 5-10 times more likely the result will burn out the alternator that otherwise was good. Also lots of used repaired alternators failing. Repaired is what is done, rebuilt is misleading. Thus, if you throw out the rebuilt failures and the crow bar/contactor failures, I know of NO failures of the Stock new ND alternator. The above for data demanders (I am one also) Paul PS I only post when my name comes up and I feel its important to comment. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Lloyd To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided Still, it isn't going to be that hard. If you remove the bolts holding the two bells together with the stator pole pieces, the rear bell with the regulator and brushes should come off. At that point you will probably see how the regulator module and the diode trio are connected. You will see the three leads of the diode trio going off to connect to the various stator windings. The fourth terminal will go to the regulator module. That is where the regulator gets its power. Remove the diode trio and provide some sort of connection to that terminal of the regulator. Feed your field power in there. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (show me the
data) Dear: Terry, Fiveonepw, Richard & Fergus Good for you guys calling me on my data. I would say you should. Always have the same SHOW ME attitude when ever you hear any story of ANY alternator failure or reliability from any person., INCLUDING B&C. (That was my point.) People are willing to believe a slick brochure with out question. OK, You got me, NO B&C product has ever failed and in fact it's the perfect product. ha ha ha I AM KIDDING!!! The point to my many many many was to get your attention, and a response to a ZERO failure comment. Don't assume that the B&C product is perfect, that's all. It's an electromechanical part and subject to wear like any. Here are two items (search for B&C): http://www.lancair.net/sdr.html Windows Web Explorer (select edit, find on this page) Type in B&C You will find a wacky VR and bad connector. There have been many connector issues because B&C used some other kind of connector other than what you would find on a stock ND alternator with a molded plug or something like that. I can't tell you how to search the archives but the is data there. The failures vary. Bob N or B&C can tell you better than I. Also many issues have been improved. There have been nuisance O/V trips of the LR-3 voltage regulator (internal crow bar), another (minor) issue. Minor if VFR at least. I did a quick search and found stuff on the LR3 regulator with a search of this forum, areoelectric-list: Crowbar CB "problem" question Help with Diagnosis Alt Field Trip This was a quick check. Come on, point is stuff happens. There have been a returns of B&C alternators. Again not everyone reports them on this forum. Just ask B&C and they will tell you honestly I am sure. Common guys I am just trying to be real, ZERO failures? Kyle, you are astounding me with your logic. Like you all I ask for is facts, evidence. Just because we have no reported B&C failures handy, that does not mean there are none, right. You are the man of logic. I feel no need to impugn or find negatives about B&C, only that ZERO failure expectation is unreasonable, just from common sense, Murphy's law and experience. I am not in the market for a B&C product. I don't have the motivation, but with out checking I am sure the reliability is good. However is it significantly better than a NEW Nippondenso alternator installed and operated properly? May be, but I have no data, but than B&C does not really either. So their claims may be opinion? IF YOU really want to know the facts they are there are you should hold everyone (EVERYONE) accountable with real data, not claims of data. Ask B&C point blank, how many are in service and how many have been returned and for what reasons. What was done to solve the problem. If you pay $600-$700 for a B&C set up you are getting a quality product, no doubt. To debate if it is worth it is totally subjective. I think I made my self clear in the previous post and said all I want on the subject. Cheers George M. (good debate) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> > >You are the one making the claim, George. Give us some >evidence, or give it up. >From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> > >Hear hear!!! >Many of us would like the FACTS!!! >RHDudley >From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com > >If we had anywhere near much data as verbiage, pehaps we >could put this to bed. Lots of assertions, still no data.... >From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> > >Why would anyone complain of lack of evidence due to lack of evidence? >If the failures are not reported on one device, why would they be reported >on others (particularly cheaper editions)? Thus the evidence is >unimportant if that's the case. Several gentlemen have staked their >reputations - over the decade - in the facts they support and I for one >am prepared to believe them. The arrival of late arriving tsk-tsk in bad >form is not needed.My choice is unaffected by Fred, George or Barry. --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
Does this guy do work by mail? If so, please give us his address and what is a reasonable price. I have a brand new ND look alike IR alt that I would like to have converted if your local alt. shop place is interested. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:01 PM > > FWIW, I have two Bosch alternators on my engine, and I just took them to > my local alternator shop. This guy has a sterling reputation and he > removed the internal regulators and provided a field wire for me at a > very reasonable price. Great solution for a ham-handed amateur. > > Steve Thomas > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > On Jul 1, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote: > >> Bob Nuckolls and I have exchanged email about this and, as I recall, he >> was concerned about asking people to take their alternator apart and >> possibly making it less reliable by not doing a good job with soldering >> or other workmanship inside the alternator. His point is a very good and >> valid one. > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Modifing an ND alternator regulator
On Jul 2, 2006, at 1:34 AM, Paul Messinger wrote: > Brian, > > The ND generic alternator uses a different way of powering the > regulator. The 3 diodes you mention are not used (missing from the > design) in the ND brand. The regulator gets its power directly from > the "B" lead and the connection is part of a bolted stack of > connections that are not easy to isolate for the builder. That is odd. Without the diodes to provide isolation the battery would be providing power to the regulator even when the engine isn't running. Remember, most automobiles have the alternator connected to the battery all the time. This would drain the battery. I would like to see how they prevent the alternator from killing the battery. > The MI brand, also popular, as its small and light (for the 50+amp > current output) has the 3 diodes you mention and a simple snip of > an internal link does the job you suggest (also covered in the > Contact! article {Years old BTW}). I understand. Sounds like you wrote a good article. > Its very easy to modify the regulator to make the alternator 100% > external regulation but the resulting modification requires a > ground switching external regulator, not the more common positive > switching regulator (LR3 for example). Transpo and most other > regulator manufacturers have both types and have proven quite > reliable in the trucking industry. You might be able to break the path from the B-lead to the field and then have access to both field terminals. Then you can do what you want with it. And I agree, I prefer an externally regulated alternator myself. > It does not seem easy to keep the internal regulator usable because > of the way the "B" lead is connected mechanically. Possible but > only with some mechanical mods which I would not recommend for most > builders. Low cost external regulators are a much better way to go; > If one is worried about the concerns, by many, about some failure > modes of internal regulators. Never having seen the inside of a ND alternator I knew I was going out on a bit of a limb. But it might not be that hard. Heck, if you have people building a whole airframe you have to assume they have learned how to properly drill a hole and install a bolt in it. ;-) > > The above modification takes around one hour from start of > regulator removal to completion and reassembly. No case splitting > etc is required. Its very simple to do. The end bells. bearings, > and armature are not disturbed. A really neat design for simple > repairs etc. This approach does have one fault mode of possible > concern as the ground switch in the regulator can short. This is > simple to provide for with a relay as it only switches the field > not the HI current "B" lead. > > This mod is 100% contained within the bolt on regulator module so > getting a replacement alternator that fits is much simpler as all > you need do is exchange the regulator with your converted one which > is a 10 min task. > > I am willing (if there is enough interest) to make a brand new PDF > showing the details with new pictures etc. It would take a couple > of weeks to do as this coming week is Arlington air show where I am > a long time volunteer. I would certainly like to see it. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brianl at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) "Five percent of the people think. Ten percent of the people think they think. Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think." ---Thomas A. Edison Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (show me
the data) On Jul 2, 2006, at 6:50 AM, wrote: > Common guys I am just trying to be real, ZERO failures? If the MTBF of a device is long enough it is possible to not have *yet* experienced failures in the field. But I know that B&C has had failures. Bill said that the failures he had seen so far (many years ago) had come from installation problems, not from defects in the alternator. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JAMES BOWEN" <jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
I too would be interested. Jim Bowen >From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator failure. Info provided Date: > > > >Does this guy do work by mail? If so, please give us his address and what >is a reasonable price. I have a brand new ND look alike IR alt that I >would like to have converted if your local alt. shop place is interested. >Larry in Indiana >----- Original Message ----- Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:01 PM > > >> >>FWIW, I have two Bosch alternators on my engine, and I just took them to >>my local alternator shop. This guy has a sterling reputation and he >>removed the internal regulators and provided a field wire for me at a >>very reasonable price. Great solution for a ham-handed amateur. >> >>Steve Thomas >>________________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >>On Jul 1, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote: >> >>>Bob Nuckolls and I have exchanged email about this and, as I recall, he >>>was concerned about asking people to take their alternator apart and >>>possibly making it less reliable by not doing a good job with soldering >>>or other workmanship inside the alternator. His point is a very good and >>>valid one. >> >> >> >> >>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >>http://wiki.matronics.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >http://wiki.matronics.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Modifing an ND alternator regulator
The isolation is internal to the regulator to prevent high current drain when the battery is connected and the engine is off. The "IGN" lead controlls the "B" lead power to the regulator. There is some current drain which requires an auto to be started every 10-20 days to prevent large battery discharging which is not an issue in an aircraft. Its worth noting the ND regulator design for this ND series is 30 years old. The amount of standby drain varies with the specific regulator but I have seen as much as 90 ma in an auto. The start of this original failure thread had a comment that the IGN lead did not turn off the alternator. This tells me the "rebuilt alternator had a already failed regulator as a good ND regulator will turn on and off the power when running using the IGN lead. I guess this is a clear warning about rebuilt alternators and associated quality control :-( As for seperating the field, nothing is impossible but its not something I would want the average person to do and I see no point to having an internal regulator with total external control. I have looked into that and felt it was not for most people to try. Its hard to describe but the ND mechanical wiring is different from most alternators and that makes you idea harder to do. Go one way or the other(internal or external). There are 100% safe ways of disconnecting the "B" lead but a just a common contactor is not a safe way. The only contactor available at a "reasonable" price rated to open that circuit is the kilovac. Electrical parts (External to the common contactor) can be added to make the contactor safe but that is a different issue not included here. Paul ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 6:52 AM > > > On Jul 2, 2006, at 1:34 AM, Paul Messinger wrote: > >> Brian, >> >> The ND generic alternator uses a different way of powering the >> regulator. The 3 diodes you mention are not used (missing from the >> design) in the ND brand. The regulator gets its power directly from the >> "B" lead and the connection is part of a bolted stack of connections >> that are not easy to isolate for the builder. > > That is odd. Without the diodes to provide isolation the battery would be > providing power to the regulator even when the engine isn't running. > Remember, most automobiles have the alternator connected to the battery > all the time. This would drain the battery. I would like to see how they > prevent the alternator from killing the battery. > >> The MI brand, also popular, as its small and light (for the 50+amp >> current output) has the 3 diodes you mention and a simple snip of an >> internal link does the job you suggest (also covered in the Contact! >> article {Years old BTW}). > > I understand. Sounds like you wrote a good article. > >> Its very easy to modify the regulator to make the alternator 100% >> external regulation but the resulting modification requires a ground >> switching external regulator, not the more common positive switching >> regulator (LR3 for example). Transpo and most other regulator >> manufacturers have both types and have proven quite reliable in the >> trucking industry. > > You might be able to break the path from the B-lead to the field and then > have access to both field terminals. Then you can do what you want with > it. And I agree, I prefer an externally regulated alternator myself. > >> It does not seem easy to keep the internal regulator usable because of >> the way the "B" lead is connected mechanically. Possible but only with >> some mechanical mods which I would not recommend for most builders. Low >> cost external regulators are a much better way to go; If one is worried >> about the concerns, by many, about some failure modes of internal >> regulators. > > Never having seen the inside of a ND alternator I knew I was going out on > a bit of a limb. But it might not be that hard. Heck, if you have people > building a whole airframe you have to assume they have learned how to > properly drill a hole and install a bolt in it. ;-) > >> >> The above modification takes around one hour from start of regulator >> removal to completion and reassembly. No case splitting etc is required. >> Its very simple to do. The end bells. bearings, and armature are not >> disturbed. A really neat design for simple repairs etc. This approach >> does have one fault mode of possible concern as the ground switch in the >> regulator can short. This is simple to provide for with a relay as it >> only switches the field not the HI current "B" lead. >> >> This mod is 100% contained within the bolt on regulator module so >> getting a replacement alternator that fits is much simpler as all you >> need do is exchange the regulator with your converted one which is a 10 >> min task. >> >> I am willing (if there is enough interest) to make a brand new PDF >> showing the details with new pictures etc. It would take a couple of >> weeks to do as this coming week is Arlington air show where I am a long >> time volunteer. > > I would certainly like to see it. > > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way > brianl at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) > > "Five percent of the people think. > Ten percent of the people think they think. > Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think." > ---Thomas A. Edison > > > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way > brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) > > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . > Antoine de Saint-Exupry > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Sporty's, James, & Paintucation Videos for sale.
Michael Sausen I'll take the James Painting DVD. Please send your email address. Dale Ensing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Modifing an ND alternator regulator
On Jul 2, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Paul Messinger wrote: > > > The isolation is internal to the regulator to prevent high current > drain when the battery is connected and the engine is off. The > "IGN" lead controlls the "B" lead power to the regulator. There is > some current drain which requires an auto to be started every 10-20 > days to prevent large battery discharging which is not an issue in > an aircraft. Its worth noting the ND regulator design for this ND > series is 30 years old. The amount of standby drain varies with the > specific regulator but I have seen as much as 90 ma in an auto. > > The start of this original failure thread had a comment that the > IGN lead did not turn off the alternator. This tells me the > "rebuilt alternator had a already failed regulator as a good ND > regulator will turn on and off the power when running using the IGN > lead. I guess I read this a different way. If the regulator has power applied and there are enough electrons flowing to allow the IGN lead to control the behavior of the regulator, the regulator is "on" to some extent. Kind of like most consume electronics that are drawing power and doing things with their microprocessors even when they are "off". Just because you turn the switch to "off" doesn't mean it isn't drawing power and doing something. > > I guess this is a clear warning about rebuilt alternators and > associated quality control :-( > > As for seperating the field, nothing is impossible but its not > something I would want the average person to do and I see no point > to having an internal regulator with total external control. I have > looked into that and felt it was not for most people to try. Its > hard to describe but the ND mechanical wiring is different from > most alternators and that makes you idea harder to do. That is certainly a possibility. I have no experience with the ND alternator. > > Go one way or the other(internal or external). There are 100% safe > ways of disconnecting the "B" lead but a just a common contactor is > not a safe way. The only contactor available at a "reasonable" > price rated to open that circuit is the kilovac. Electrical parts > (External to the common contactor) can be added to make the > contactor safe but that is a different issue not included here. And that issue has already been beaten to death. Having the pass/ switch transistor fail shorted will cause any IR alternator to turn on hard with no way to turn it off. It seemed to me if we could control the field excitation externally we could truly turn off the alternator. I will now shut up about this. I plan to get a B&C alternator as B&C already has the mounting and adaptor plates for the Russian radial engine. I don't plan to use an ND alternator. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Date: Jul 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Modifing an ND alternator regulator
----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 6:42 PM > > On Jul 2, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Paul Messinger wrote: > >> >> >> The isolation is internal to the regulator to prevent high current drain >> when the battery is connected and the engine is off. The "IGN" lead >> controlls the "B" lead power to the regulator. There is some current >> drain which requires an auto to be started every 10-20 days to prevent >> large battery discharging which is not an issue in an aircraft. Its >> worth noting the ND regulator design for this ND series is 30 years old. >> The amount of standby drain varies with the specific regulator but I >> have seen as much as 90 ma in an auto. >> >> The start of this original failure thread had a comment that the IGN >> lead did not turn off the alternator. This tells me the "rebuilt >> alternator had a already failed regulator as a good ND regulator will >> turn on and off the power when running using the IGN lead. > > I guess I read this a different way. If the regulator has power applied > and there are enough electrons flowing to allow the IGN lead to control > the behavior of the regulator, the regulator is "on" to some extent. Kind > of like most consume electronics that are drawing power and doing things > with their microprocessors even when they are "off". Just because you > turn the switch to "off" doesn't mean it isn't drawing power and doing > something. You missed my point. The output power IE the "B" lead amps are controlled by the IGN input when the regulator has not failed. The ref ND did not do this meaning the regulator already had failed to some extent when it was sold as rebuilt. The "latch on mode" as stated is NOT what a fully working ND regulator does. The IGN lead does turn on and off the output of the alternator exactly as an external regulator when its working properly. And it can be safely turned on and off when in use. Hi alternators latch on and cannot be turned off when running. My point is the rebuilt ND was already failed to some extent when first sold and that is a good reason to never use a rebuilt. I also feel there is no need to continue this thread. Paul Back to listen only mode. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Date: Jul 03, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability)
value reliability) Sender: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.1.394 [268.9.2/372] You wrote: There have been many many many B&C alternator and voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just check these archives. It happens. "many many" . . . I forget. Is that out of the Furlong-Stone-Fortnight measurement system? What kinds of failures? Did any result in uncontrolled runaways that damaged other systems in the aircraft? I've shared my personal observations of B&C failure rates and reasons in the past . . . but I've not had any first-hand experience with B&C in several years. Perhaps you have more recent observations to share? Have B&C's fortunes taken a sudden dive into the crapper? I already wrote that there are failures in my post. In fact one acquaintance got tired of the B&C voltage regulator that burned out and replaced it with a $9.00 Ford VR. "Got tired"???? Multiple failures? B&C was unwilling to deduce root cause and fix them? Your assertions paint an ominous picture of B&C quality and/or business practices. Can you enlighten us further? If you know of a B&C customer that doesn't think they got their money's worth from B&C, please have them get in touch with me. My long standing promise to drive up to Newton and jump in the "middle of Bill's lap" is still operating. I can point to 1000's of other ND's sold by Van's aircraft and Niagara that have gone and are still are going for over a 1000 hours with out problems. 1000 trouble free installations of ANY other brand doesn't make B&C's "bad" or the 1,000 others "good." The bottom line is that the risks for (1) failure to perform task and (2) failure that migrates to other systems are not zero irrespective of what product(s) one chooses to install. "Goodness" is a customer perception issue. Get me in touch with a B&C customer who thinks he got B&C "badness" in either hardware or service. Mike and his multi failures is a mystery and don't know any details. What alternator? Where did he buy it? How is it installed? Wiring? Belt? Does he cycle the alternator on and off under load? Does he have cooling air going to it? Did he use the warning light Is the battery in good condition? This is not going to be productive. You are just two people which is not a statistically meaningful sample, BUT it is a data point and you and MIKE have two differnt outcomes that we might make a conclusion. However I bet there are several 1000 more stock ND's flying than B&C's. Even if we hear from the Mike's less than good results there are many more that have the bragging rights you have. However for the $600-$700 you would expect it to be better by a factor of 3 or 4. A WAG. The risks are still not zero . . . and perhaps B&C IS better by a factor of 3 or 4. What measure tells you they are NOT? May I humbly request CGS units of measurement? Having dropped out of college I missed the course on FSF units. Please forgive my ignorance. I will concede that quality of some ND aftermarket and rebuilt Alts is an issue. I do think the vendor Van had used in the past was not the best. Well now they changed their product. The #14684 is a new aftermarket unit of a differnt (better?) brand. I think the quality issue will get better. They also added the Plane Power units as well. To be fair to Van's a/c, builders do some not so smart things with their alternator and incorrectly wire them. The classic was the O/V module (crow bar) and b-lead relay that people intentionally tripped while the alternator was running. Many of the Alts where fried. They are not designed to be disconnected from the battery while running. I've had customers tell me of Figure Z-24 installations have halted a runaway alternator and protected the airplane. You're stirring two separate issues into the same pot. (1) Alternator system ability to do intended task (service life/reliability) and . . (2) Alternator system failure mode effects and features that prevent a runaway alternator from getting loose (dark-n-stormy night lights up really bright . . . for awhile). The same with cycling the ALT switch, which as you know I have said many times is a bad idea. I guess you can say your B&C is more tolerant of misuse? How mis-use? Somewhere on the order of 300,000 light aircraft have been built with alternator or generator control switches. None of those systems I've been associated with had any prohibitions or cautions about turning the alternator or generator on or off at any time under any conditions including B&C products. Perhaps your experience is different. I object to a characterization of "misuse". Being able to control any aircraft alternator or generator on airplanes from 150's to Hawkers at will under any conditions is a DESIGN GOAL that has been achieved by all the folks I work with. That's not "misuse" but meeting the specifications for the design. Please expand your assertions that the design goal was a "bad idea" with the supporting simple-ideas. I will agree that the automotive IR alternators as- supplied are not plug-n-play into the aircraft venue without addressing new system integration problems . . . but to hat-dance around integration issues by labeling root cause of a failure as "misuse" and then asserting that any-time/any-conditions control as a design goal is a "bad idea" is specious. Nothing against B&C, except the price. Again B&C is great but to claim near perfection is just silly. I think B&C is being miss quoted. Perhaps I missed it. What was the quotation? And what have you observed that argues against any B&C customer's perceptions of value? I know if you ask pointed questions they will tell you the reasons parts have come back in the past. However if you had a product and reputation you would protect that. Are you suggesting that they're lying? What conversations have you had with them that would indicate this? Inquiring minds thirst for understanding. ----- from another post -------- I am sure B&C sells a nice product. I think B&C might(?) achieve better reliability, but........ There is NO DATA to back that up any claim that B&C has superior reliability. I know B&C and Bob N. have a strong opinions but no real data. I have more data than you sir. I spent a lot of time in the employ of B&C in the early years and worked their booth at OSH for 12 years running. I am telling you of my first-hand knowledge that FEW (meaning perhaps 1 return per month) alternators would come back for any attention. All suffered some form of user induced damage. I never saw an alternator come back for failure or wear-out. In years since, I'm aware of one alternator that came back for overhaul when the engine was being overhauled too. The brushes were worn beyond serviceability. I think the alternator was still working . . . but I'll check on that. The engine had 2000+ hours on it. We've had controllers get returned too. Most needed owner induce damage repaired. Occasionally we'd have one go inop for a solder joint but there's been very few reasons to make changes in design since Voyager flew the first LR-1's up and down the coast of California. Return rates for any reason have been on the order of 1% per year for the total fleet. I'll see what the latest experience base is for alternator returns. I've not updated in over a year. But do I understand you correctly George? Are you asserting that whatever I share with the group is to be mistrusted? To say ZERO failures is disingenuous at best, with all do respect to B&C, but when you sell a product that cost 3 or 4 times as much I guess you have to distinguish yourself. However you have to be intellectually honest and admit that things fail and there is NO guarantee, regardless of the price paid. If the alternator cited came back working but worn, then to the best of my first hand knowledge, the failure rates for other than external damage have thus far been zero. Nobody is guaranteeing anything . . . but B&C's service history is a whole lot better that the competition in place when their products were introduced. That was 20 years ago. Capabilities of the current contenders haven't had enough time in the marketplace to claim anything in comparison with B&C. I know of several B&C products to fail both first hand and second hand, just check the archives. Give me dates. I've been on this List about as long as anybody. I cannot recall any discussions on un-resolved B&C hardware issues. You're claiming posted incidents to substantiate your learned advice just as I have for other cases in times past. You pasted me with that "no data" mantra, how come it applies to my arguments and not to yours? I'm not going to spend time looking. You tell us where to find them. There are many B&C failures that don't make news, web fourms or even get reported to B&C. There's that "many" again. If these terrible experiences by B&C customers are un-reported even to B&C, how is it that you know about them? How and when did we arrive at a condition in OBAM aviation that customers who pay good money for expensive hardware are going to shrug off any opportunity for getting their money back on bad product? Until you produce names times and places for B&C to investigate and rectify, your assertion as to shortcomings of their products and/or business practice is suspect. They are experimental and these is no tracking of reliability. I am sure B&C is aware of failures . . . You're telling us that B&C has lied to me when I've inquired about failures? Please cite your supporting evidence. and Bob N. has been somewhat forthright . . . Just "somewhat"????? In what manner and at what time did you find my explanations lacking? Pleased be specific. I've been mistaken and sincerely appreciated correction but I've NEVER deliberately cut corners in my explanations about anything to anybody. If you had my permission to insult me, I could get really upset about your statement . . . but nobody has that permission. . . . with problems regarding the voltage regulator that has lead to improvements. There are still issues. Name them. . . . If you're aware of outstanding "issues" then speak up. I know exactly what, when and why changes were made in the LR-series devices. Let us compare notes. Please state which of those changes casts doubt on either the quality our products or integrity of our companies. You're either citing facts that can be substantiated or your blowing blue smoke. Neither I, nor B&C nor our potential customers need to take notice of your counter-marketing rhetoric until we've have had an opportunity to address specific grievances or shortcomings. You have to include the alternator and regulator as a whole system when comparing it to a ND unit with integral Voltage regulator. B&C alternators are made 98% from ND parts or clone aftermarket ND parts. They DO anodize and claim . . . You doubt the claim? . . . . to balance it within a hair on Nat's bee-hind, but the benefit of this blue printing is a raging debate to be had another time. You'll get no "rage" from me and I doubt from B&C either. It's not worth debating unless you have an explanation supported by simple-ideas as to how it's a no-value-added thing to do. I can imagine there's a positive, but how much affect on reliability I don't know. Then of what value is it to express your doubts for the claim? First you "blow the smoke" and then say "I don't know". How are readers of this discussion to make a considered judgment of your advice? I can say if any alternator is bolted to a wild shaking Lycoming, producing endless vibrations and 50 G shaking at start and shut down like a wet dog, it's going for a WILD RIDE anyway. It is like measuring it with a microscope and cutting with an AX. Same with balance, does it matter? May Be? Stock alternators are NOT without some balance. There are million and millions of ND alternators (stock) running 24 hours, 7 days, year after year WORLD wide in cars and industrial equip with extreme reliability under demanding conditions. Both my Acura's have ND alternators. One is at 130K with no issue and the other 185K, with a combined +24 years of combined use. But those are not Lycomings and your cars don't cruise the alternators at over 10,000 rpm. You're comparing apples to plums and then buying pears. You don't design, build, or sell anything. You don't have a dependence on the happy customer. You've cited no personal experience with the company and products you're down-grading. Your advice lacks substance. Why debate it? Balancing is a feature of their product. Can you can cite a B&C bearing failure attributable to ANY decipherable root cause OTHER than balance? If not, it's just as credible to assign bearing longevity to bearing quality, care in assembly, balancing, a sprinkling of pixie dust or any combination of the above. Frankly, if their service history on LYCOMINGS in OBAM aircraft continues at the present pace, I think it matters not what manufacturing features are cited in the marketing hype . . . For a dozen years I worked in the booth at OSH and when asked "Whats the warranty" I said, "No unhappy customers." Bill was standing right beside be me when I said it. I've had no reason presented to me by an unhappy customer to prove Bill a fraud or me as mis-informed. Can you enlighten us in this regard? The issue with many ND alternators builders use is the fact they came from a supplier selling less than great aftermarket NON nippondenso units. As this 15-18 year old design gets older, you will only find aftermarket alternators. The good news is there are good aftermarket parts. The bad news is there are BAD ones as well. Aftermarket ND parts are make in Taiwan and China by 4 or more big companies. Not all are of the same quality. Not all aftermarket parts are the same. The same applies to re-builds at the Auto Zone or Pep-Boys. At least many offer a good warranty. The bad news is that chain of auto parts store may not be in your area when doing a cross country and it fails. If you can't go to the same store, you can't take advantage of the warranty replacement. I suspect if Auto-Parts-R-Us gets wind its on a plane, they may protest and deny your warranty claim anyway. If a B&C regulator or alternator fails, it is a custom alternator that only B&C can really work on. There is something to be said with over the counter auto parts. But who NEEDS parts to work on a B&C alternator? Who was told that B&C alternators only work with B&C controllers? There are diagrams in the 'Connection that illustrate alternate controller options designed to enhance the customer's purchasing experience with the offerings of both B&C and the 'Connection. I am sure B&C is good, but not as great as their hype. "Good" . . . "not as great" . . . please cite in CGS units . . . But in spite of "good", are we to understand that Bill lies and Bob is less than completely forthcoming? If you read B&C's web site it is full of hyperbole and rhetoric. I read the B&C sales pitch and it is so strongly worded, like a novel, One dark and stormy night stories, they just turn me off. It plays on emotion not facts. I got a cold sweat and thought I was going to die of an electrical failure sitting in my office in front to my PC. It's a great sales pitch but it's overstated. The owner or B&C is a super nice guy and think he believes in his product. This is just my opinion about what I think of sale's pitches that play on emotion not the product. If one chooses to join a hype-slinging match between B&C and Plane Power's sites, there's plenty of stretched semantics to go around. See: http://www.plane-power.com/Comparing_Amps.htm This alternator output curve doesn't state pulley sizes nor test conditions under which the two curves are plotted. It implies that Prestolite is fraudulent in their product labeling. But the two curves are parallel to each other . . . do you suppose if one adjusted the Prestolite pulley down in size that the curves would lay on top of each other? If I were to publish curves like this, any statement made concerning the value of the data would be supported by a test report. Let us consider this paragraph from Plane Power's website: ----------------------- The full line of Plane-Power alternators not only give you unprecedented choice, but also provide a vastly improved product. Years of research & development have gone into making Plane-Power alternators: * Generate substantially higher power at lower engine RPM, * Generate significantly less heat while generating rated power, * Generate rated power at typical aircraft cruise RPM (believe it or not, your current alternator does not!) * Generate more power at higher altitudes (all testing to 28,000'!) * Weigh up to four pounds less , and * Perform much more reliably than comparable OEM models ------------------------ Gee, lookit al those un-quantified adjectives! Oh, yeah, those must be FSF units of measure. But who are they comparing themselves to? Obviously not B&C alternators. Here's an interesting bit: See: http://www.plane-power.com/AL12_50C.htm If I read the webpage correctly, this alternator is CAPABLE of 70A of output but with the following modifier: ---------------- *Aircraft electrical system will be limited by existing wiring and output breaker not to exceed 50 amps. The Plane-Power alternator can produce all 70 amps if proper size wiring and circuit breaker is installed and approved. ---------------- Hmmm . . . how does the downsizing of b-lead and b-lead breaker de-rate the alternator? Sounds to me like a set-up for nuisance tripping. If this is a 70A machine, it needs wire and b-lead protection sized for that capability IRRESPECTIVE of what the original installation called for. On a cost to benefit analysis I doubt you will see a cost benefit from the B&C in your or anyone's lifetime. My only gripe with B&C is the outrageous price they charge. If you want an alternator kit check out Plane Power. Gripe all you want . . . and please, don't buy a B&C or 'Connection product based on anything Bill or I has to say about it. And don't buy it if you've found one of our customers that has been left with a hunk of junk because Bill or I has told him to "lump it." If you DO buy our products, know that we both strive to give fair value. If you bring a product back for any reason, we both expect to know the specifics of your problem and we're both ready to make it right with you. If the marketing techniques fraudulently drove your choice to purchase the product and you're dissatisfied with value-received, then it's a simple matter to cite your experiences, voice your displeasure and collect your refund. I've had two or three folks write over the years to say that the 'Connection was not what they expected whereupon they got their money back . . . and were told to keep the book. It just doesn't make sense to be less accommodating with a customer. No news travels faster than bad news and I strive to keep bad news from happening. I'm sure you understand how I might get my shorts bunched by fabricated bad news. I'll suggest that any claims about me and the 'Connection contrary to demonstrated policy are fabrications. I'll stand corrected about Bill if I talk to the B&C customer that got "shafted". I think if you buy a good quality after-market stock ND alternator and install and operate it properly, you can achieve the same reliability as any DESIGNER brand alternator. Proper operation is don't cycle the ALT switch with the engine turning and don't overload it. Hmmm . . . last time I ran an alternator, it was inherently current limited . . . if it's cooled sufficiently to run at 100% of rated load, then you can't "overload" it. Proper installation is install the warning light . . . I presume your talking about the warning light common to internally regulated alternators. Have you seen a schematic of how this light functions? The schematic I've seen shows that this feature is not worthy of name for aircraft use. But if you have a schematic that shows something different, we'd all be pleased and relived to know that someone has done due-diligence in rectifying the deficiency. . . . and provide heat shield and cooling air. Both Plane Power and B&C offer value but I think of the two, Plane Power has the value edge: - High Altitude brushes High altitude brushes in alternators is blue smoke. Slip ring service at 3A is a whole different animal than commutator service at 30 amps plus . . . Further, there are no RV's I'm aware of that cruise at 25,000 feet and up. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BrushesForAircraft.pdf - Proper Fan cooling direction B&C's go the wrong way? - Additional O/V protection (elegant**) (** additional OV is integrated not an ADD on B-lead relay) Hmmm . . . I have postings you've made stating that IR alternators didn't need ov protection. Now you say the addition is "elegant". Have you seen a schematic of this system? And what does the b-lead contactor ov system have to do with B&C's alternators and regulators? The B-lead disconnect contactor was a system integration solution published in the 'Connection for adding OV protection to an automotive alternator without getting inside the alternator to modify it. This has nothing to do with B&C's products. Keep in mind too that the B&C alternator controller has LV warning built . . . which reduces the delta-dollars of Plane-Power over B&C by $60 or so. If one chooses a 'Ford' regulator and external OV protection with the B&C alternator, then it's less expensive than Plane Power. - High Quality installation hardware ($375) B&C's installation hardware is not high quality? And this costs extra? Gee, B&C's alternators come with the mounting hardware. See: http://bandc.biz/L60desc.html Does this mean folks should steer clear of Plane Power? Don't see why. Should folks steer clear of B&C because of your un-substantiated assertions? Give us a list of shafted customers who were lied to by Bill or misinformed/ lied to by me. Bottom line: Does a product deliver what the customer wants for his project and does he get honorable support from the supplier when things are not going right? Tell us where B&C (or the 'Connection) has fallen short of this time honored free-enterprise recipe for success. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Date: Jul 03, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided
>Well, I am ready to present a question that I have not seen presented and >wonder just why the great minds of aero-elec have not asked it already. > >With all the concern about shutting down a runaway alternator and the fact >that IR alts. cannot be controlled in that way, why couldn't we setup a >switch (heavy duty one mind you) that we could throw in the event of the >OV that would just ground the alt. output to the plane's frame or ground >or have some tremendus load present like a hundred light bulbs that got >switched on to absorb the over load of electrons. I suppose we could also >consider a knife that could be moved out into the path of the alt. belt to >cut it off to cause the alt. to quit spinning. Larry in Indiana Don't worry about it. There's a system under development that's easy to add on to any existing system that provides the any-time/any-conditions absolute control over a stock automotive alternator. The risks for not having it right now are low. If you want OV protection now, you can install the original Z-24 configuration knowing that the ultimate solution will use the b-lead contactor and alternator control switch. The straight transorb approach hypothesized on the last figure of page 4 will not work. We've got a plan-E . . . or is it "F" . . . anyhow, the solution will not be difficult or expensive. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternator_Failures.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Jul 03, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value
reliability) On Jul 3, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > Bottom line: Does a product deliver what the customer wants > for his project and does he get honorable support from the > supplier when things are not going right? Tell us where B&C > (or the 'Connection) has fallen short of this time honored > free-enterprise recipe for success. You know George, I have spent a fair bit of time talking with Bill in person at OSH and on the phone. I have looked at his products and I have been impressed with the quality. (I used to design and build mission-critical computer networking devices and have a bit of a clue on how to build and support high-quality products.) I also understand quality support from competent people. B&C provides quality support from competent people who truly understand their product. As I said, I will be installing a B&C alternator in my CJ6A for two reasons: 1. I don't think anyone makes a better product at any price; 2. it is a bolt-on solution for the M14P engine (which shakes a good deal more than any Lycoming). I expect that the B&C alternator will make it to TBO even under aerobatic conditions. But it takes all kinds to make a horse race. I know which horse I plan to put my money on. And I sure do get tired of hearing people try to sell one product by running down its competitor. It is one thing to show how your product is better but a different thing to use FUD to try to scare people away from a competing product. I am sure Plane-Power and ND can stand on their own merits without you trying to run down B&C. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Campbell" <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jul 04, 2006
Subject: Grand Rapids Technology EIS Scaling Factor and Offset...
Does anybody have the *Grand Rapids Technology EIS* installation manual handy? There is a paragraph about setting up new sensors on Aux inputs. I have a new 25 psi pressure sender that outputs 1-5vdc. I'm trying to determine what Scaling Factor and Offset to use so my EIS displays pressure in PSI to the tenths of a PSI. Thanks! Greg *REFERENCES:* DigiKey.com part number: MSP6025P4-1-ND Measurement Specialties Inc: MSP-600-025-P-4-N-1 PN#: 2000872 SN# G429063 http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T062/1781.pdf http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Measurement%20Specialties%20Inc/Web%20Data/MSP-600%20Series.pdf http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Measurement%20Specialties%20Inc/Web%20Data/msp600_instructions.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ron Shannon <rshannon(at)cruzcom.com>
Date: Jul 03, 2006
Subject: Re: Grand Rapids Technology EIS Scaling Factor
http://tinyurl.com/l2zyv Greg Campbell wrote: > Does anybody have the *Grand Rapids Technology EIS* installation manual > handy? > There is a paragraph about setting up new sensors on Aux inputs. > > I have a new 25 psi pressure sender that outputs 1-5vdc. > I'm trying to determine what Scaling Factor and Offset to use > so my EIS displays pressure in PSI to the tenths of a PSI. > > Thanks! > Greg > > > *REFERENCES:* > DigiKey.com part number: MSP6025P4-1-ND > Measurement Specialties Inc: MSP-600-025-P-4-N-1 PN#: 2000872 SN# > G429063 > http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T062/1781.pdf > http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Measurement%20Specialties%20Inc/Web%20Data/MSP-600%20Series.pdf > http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Measurement%20Specialties%20Inc/Web%20Data/msp600_instructions.pdf > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz>
Date: Jul 04, 2006
Subject: Grand Rapids Technology EIS Scaling Factor and
Offset... Greg, The maths is: OutputValue = ( AuxInVoltage * AuxScaleFactor / 2.5 ) + AuxOffset Where AuxInVoltage is 0-5V DC The only specific details I have: 150 PSI sender AuxSF 182, AuxOff 29 80 PSI sender AuxSF 91, AuxOff 80 HTH Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg Campbell Sent: Tuesday, 4 July 2006 5:00 p.m. To: AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Grand Rapids Technology EIS Scaling Factor and Offset... Does anybody have the Grand Rapids Technology EIS installation manual handy? There is a paragraph about setting up new sensors on Aux inputs. I have a new 25 psi pressure sender that outputs 1-5vdc. I'm trying to determine what Scaling Factor and Offset to use so my EIS displays pressure in PSI to the tenths of a PSI. Thanks! Greg REFERENCES: DigiKey.com part number: MSP6025P4-1-ND Measurement Specialties Inc: MSP-600-025-P-4-N-1 PN#: 2000872 SN# G429063 http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T062/1781.pdf http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Measurement%20Specialties%20Inc/Web%20Data /MSP-600%20Series.pdf http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Measurement%20Specialties%20Inc/Web%20Data /msp600_instructions.pdf -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jul 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability)
Bob I was waiting for your to chime in. Could you provide facts and not endless talking in circles with vague and not so vague personal insults. I wrote everything I needed to say, and there is no need to repeat myself. I was hoping you would have something useful to contribute, but those hopes have been dashed. When you have nothing to say you attack the person and their choice of words, not the facts. I don't expect you to be un-bias, since you where the main band leader of faults and totally unsubstantiated urban legends about the horrors of internal regulators for years. I begged you to give facts so many times. I have given up. You can be hypocritical to an extrodinary and audacious degree. I don't think you are intentionally duplicitous. I just think you LOVE to argue. I am bored of arguing with you. We where having a nice friendly discussion on the topic before you came along. We have MANY, MANY, MANY smart people on this forum who can filter your bogosity. When you can prove B&C alternators and voltage regulators have ZERO failure rate please write me, and please don't try that Failure Mode and Effect Analysis claim you tried on me before, I know what that means. I know you have no such data. That was the day I lost a little respect for you Bob, when you tried to BS me. I still like you and think you contribute lots of good, but when you get like this you are less than useless. My bladder is empty, you can pee further, you win, you are right again, I am wrong again. OK. I am now going outside to talk to my mail box since that will be about as useful as corresponding with you right now. Have a nice 4th of July, independence day of the greatest democracy ever. She may not be perfect but I would not want to live anywhere else in the world. Cheers George M. >posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >You wrote: > >There have been many many many B&C alternator and >voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just >check these archives. It happens. --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Date: Jul 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value
reliability) With all respect that is due to the contributions you have otherwise made to this list, George, please consider letting this personal challenge between you and Bob thing die. You have proven you know a lot about some things and one of them is how to never give up on a point even when concrete evidence (first hand witnesses) is missing. I think anyone with any knowledge and deduced common sense knows that B&C alternators are proven, perhaps the best and if anyone reading this list had a failure for some reason other than installation induced, they surely would have chimed in by now. Why would not those with failures due to installation errors have chimed in by now with all the attention you have pointed at this?? Please give us all a break and favor by showing you are a gentleman and just walk away until you get uncover (if there is any) some real evidence. I might suggest you buy one of their alternators new, and see for yourself how they treat and service customers. Just be sure to properly install it so IF it fails you can tell the world you were right. For you, the higher the price, the more it might be worth it. Thank you for your consideration. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:08 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) Bob I was waiting for your to chime in. Could you provide facts and not endless talking in circles with vague and not so vague personal insults. I wrote everything I needed to say, and there is no need to repeat myself. I was hoping you would have something useful to contribute, but those hopes have been dashed. When you have nothing to say you attack the person and their choice of words, not the facts. I don't expect you to be un-bias, since you where the main band leader of faults and totally unsubstantiated urban legends about the horrors of internal regulators for years. I begged you to give facts so many times. I have given up. You can be hypocritical to an extrodinary and audacious degree. I don't think you are intentionally duplicitous. I just think you LOVE to argue. I am bored of arguing with you. We where having a nice friendly discussion on the topic before you came along. We have MANY, MANY, MANY smart people on this forum who can filter your bogosity. When you can prove B&C alternators and voltage regulators have ZERO failure rate please write me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,SNIP Cheers George M. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu>
Date: Jul 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value
reliability) I think it's abundantly clear who's the one who loves to argue here, George. I don't know why you have such a vendetta against Bob and/or B&C, both of whom have built their sterling reputations over decades. If they were as duplicitous as you claim, the word would be out by now. No one cares what kind of alternator you want to use, but I'm sure lots of people on this list are extraordinarily tired of your constant attacks. Have you noticed that no one seems to be chiming in to take your side? Don't you ever get tired of being the turd in the punchbowl? Give it a rest, George. Go spew your venom somewhere else. William Slaughter -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:09 AM value reliability) Bob I was waiting for your to chime in. Could you provide facts and not endless talking in circles with vague and not so vague personal insults. I wrote everything I needed to say, and there is no need to repeat myself. I was hoping you would have something useful to contribute, but those hopes have been dashed. When you have nothing to say you attack the person and their choice of words, not the facts. I don't expect you to be un-bias, since you where the main band leader of faults and totally unsubstantiated urban legends about the horrors of internal regulators for years. I begged you to give facts so many times. I have given up. You can be hypocritical to an extrodinary and audacious degree. I don't think you are intentionally duplicitous. I just think you LOVE to argue. I am bored of arguing with you. We where having a nice friendly discussion on the topic before you came along. We have MANY, MANY, MANY smart people on this forum who can filter your bogosity. When you can prove B&C alternators and voltage regulators have ZERO failure rate please write me, and please don't try that Failure Mode and Effect Analysis claim you tried on me before, I know what that means. I know you have no such data. That was the day I lost a little respect for you Bob, when you tried to BS me. I still like you and think you contribute lots of good, but when you get like this you are less than useless. My bladder is empty, you can pee further, you win, you are right again, I am wrong again. OK. I am now going outside to talk to my mail box since that will be about as useful as corresponding with you right now. Have a nice 4th of July, independence day of the greatest democracy ever. She may not be perfect but I would not want to live anywhere else in the world. Cheers George M. >posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" < <http://us.f300.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=nuckollsr@cox.net&YY=763 27&y5be ta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b> nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > >You wrote: > >There have been many many many B&C alternator and >voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just >check these archives. It happens. _____ <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com /ev t=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com> call rates. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
Date: Jul 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value
reliability) Larry in Indiana,


June 25, 2006 - July 04, 2006

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fu