AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gb
August 28, 2006 - September 07, 2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-av(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? |
On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>
> In an airplane equipped with a Continental 0-200, would you want to
> turn on the ALT switch before engine start, or after?
It doesn't matter. Do what makes you feel most comfortable.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian HYPHEN av 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: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Mag noise filters..... |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.21c)
Is anyone aware of a master list or good explanation floating around
as to the utility/need for filters as used on magnetos? I'll call TCM
tomorrow to get their take on the situation on the Bendix series.
Reason I'm asking is I'm almost done with the install of a rebuilt
IO520K1B that replaces the old original Phase 1 case (cracked
about 3/4 way round the #6 cyl in flight) in a Bellanca Viking. The old
mags had one filter on the right mag and none on the left...which
seems kind of odd but I did nothing about it since all my comm was
good. Any guidelines appreciated. Some of the data I've seen says
the need for a filter depends a great deal on the mag capacitor
design and its frequency characteristics.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mag noise filters..... |
>
>Is anyone aware of a master list or good explanation floating around
>as to the utility/need for filters as used on magnetos? I'll call TCM
>tomorrow to get their take on the situation on the Bendix series.
>Reason I'm asking is I'm almost done with the install of a rebuilt
>IO520K1B that replaces the old original Phase 1 case (cracked
>about 3/4 way round the #6 cyl in flight) in a Bellanca Viking. The old
>mags had one filter on the right mag and none on the left...which
>seems kind of odd but I did nothing about it since all my comm was
>good. Any guidelines appreciated. Some of the data I've seen says
>the need for a filter depends a great deal on the mag capacitor
>design and its frequency characteristics.
Fly it and see if you need it. The magneto already has
a pretty high quality capacitor right across the
p-lead as it exits the case. Wire with shielded wire
as illustrated in Figures Z-26/Z-27 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
and I believe you're unlikely to need any additional
filtering.
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: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes) |
>From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
>
>In an airplane equipped with a Continental 0-200, would you want to
>turn on the ALT switch before engine start, or after?
Bill:
If it's a certified plane do what the AFM, AOM or check list call for.
Most AFM's tell you to turn the MASTER switch on together before
start and off together after start, and they even make it easy for you
with a single split switch.
I agree it probably does not matter. My opinion is given the choice,
turn the battery and ALT on at the same time before start. That
way you will not forget. There really is no advantage in making
multiple steps for yourself. Its a single engine plane not a B737.
Less is more. Once on (bat/alt) together, once off together.
I assume this is a factory plane (Cessna) and not an experimental.
If it's an experimental with an internally regulated (ND) Nippon Denso
alternator, I highly, highly recommend turning the "ALT" on before
engine start and leave the ALT on until the engine shut downs. ND's
are designed to turn themselves on and off as needed. Forcing it
while spinning is not necessary and even counter productive.
Cheers George
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? |
>
>In an airplane equipped with a Continental 0-200, would you want to turn
>on the ALT switch before engine start, or after?
It makes no difference. The arguments for and against
either philosophy are not backed by good science meaning
that effects cited as undesirable are so weak as to be
insignificant.
This presumes that you have a "controllable" alternator,
i.e. a separately regulated machine wherein the panel mounted
alternator switch has control over the alternator's field
supply.
The present state of the art for control systems intended
to bring some measure of protection against failures of
internally regulated alternators offers a means by which
the machine can be damaged if inadvertently turned off
by disconnection of the b-lead which produces a load-dump
that can be deleterious to the alternator. Many internally
regulated alternators cannot withstand their own load dumps.
In these cases, one may turn the alternator ON at any time
but it's prudent to wait until the engine stops turning to
turn it OFF.
In the mean time, know that a control system for internally
regulated alternators is "in the works" with an achievable
goal of making the IR alternator behave as if it were
an externally regulated machine. This will offer the
OBAM aircraft builder the option of using the stock
internally regulated alternator as a form-fit-function
replacement for the traditional externally regulated
system at a fraction of the cost and without giving
up functionality or control
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: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? |
In a message dated 8/29/2006 10:16:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
In the mean time, know that a control system for internally
regulated alternators is "in the works" with an achievable
goal of making the IR alternator behave as if it were
an externally regulated machine. This will offer the
OBAM aircraft builder the option of using the stock
internally regulated alternator as a form-fit-function
replacement for the traditional externally regulated
system at a fraction of the cost and without giving
up functionality or control
Bob . . .
I'm really glad to hear that this is in the works, Bob. Even thought I am
pretty familiar with alternators and regulators, the Van's 60 amp internally
regulated alternator on my airplane is a "black box." I have no idea what
function the 2 wires that run from the "field" breaker to the alternator serve.
I believe it is a Nippondenso system. In the meantime, do you know of any
available documentation which would reveal any details of its operation?
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? |
>In a message dated 8/29/2006 10:16:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
> In the mean time, know that a control system for internally
> regulated alternators is "in the works" with an achievable
> goal of making the IR alternator behave as if it were
> an externally regulated machine. This will offer the
> OBAM aircraft builder the option of using the stock
> internally regulated alternator as a form-fit-function
> replacement for the traditional externally regulated
> system at a fraction of the cost and without giving
> up functionality or control
>
> Bob . . .
>I'm really glad to hear that this is in the works, Bob. Even thought I am
>pretty familiar with alternators and regulators, the Van's 60 amp
>internally regulated alternator on my airplane is a "black box." I have
>no idea what function the 2 wires that run from the "field" breaker to the
>alternator serve. I believe it is a Nippondenso system. In the meantime,
>do you know of any available documentation which would reveal any details
>of its operation?
Not that I've been made privy to. That's a major
stumbling block for my personal approach to
systems integration, failure mode effects analysis
and mitigation.
I'm going to look at an alternator drive
stand this weekend that I'm told is a 2+
hp machine with variable speed drive and
isn't covered in more barn-bird-crap than
one would want to wash into the gutters in
front of my house.
If this machine can be resurrected, I'll
be able to characterize the performance of
any product one wishes to examine. I have
a couple of alternators here now that came
from folks on the List that I want to
put into a Z-11 mock-up and characterize
their performance and/or failures.
It seems unlikely that we'll ever be privy
to detailed inner workings of all the options
out there. I'll suggest a prudent approach
that assumes nothing.
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: | "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com> |
| Subject: | HAND HELD COM ANTENNA CONNECTION |
I was just looking at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html and if I
understand it correctly this will break the antenna connection from the in
dash com (disabling it)and allow the hand help to use the antenna. I would
prefer to be able to use both radio's at once if needed. I have read here on
Aeroelectric that a "t" type bnc connector will cause the antenna to loose
some of it's range. Is there a better way to use both radios at the same
time ?
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-av(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HAND HELD COM ANTENNA CONNECTION |
On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:40 PM, 6440 Auto Parts wrote:
>
>
> I was just looking at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/
> commtap/commtap.html and if I understand it correctly this will
> break the antenna connection from the in dash com (disabling it)and
> allow the hand help to use the antenna. I would prefer to be able
> to use both radio's at once if needed. I have read here on
> Aeroelectric that a "t" type bnc connector will cause the antenna
> to loose some of it's range. Is there a better way to use both
> radios at the same time ?
There is no good way to connect two radios that operate in the same
band to the same antenna, i.e. you can't connect two comm radios to
the same antenna. If you put in a 'T' connector to connect both
radios to the same antenna, odds are very good that the first time
you transmit on one radio you will destroy the other.
So the best answer is, "add another antenna."
If you want to connect a handheld radio to your regular comm antenna,
bring the com antenna coax to a place you can readily reach (like
just under the leading edge of the panel) and terminate it with a BNC
female connector. Bring the coax from your comm radio to the same
place terminated in a BNC male. Connect them together. If you need to
plug your hand-held into the comm antenna because your main comm has
failed, reach under the panel, disconnect the BNC male from the
regular comm, and attach the antenna cable from your handheld to the
now-free BNC female that goes to the antenna.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian HYPHEN av 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: | "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Wiring diagram software |
What software is available to make wiring diagrams at a reasonable cost?
Eric Parlow
RV-10 Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garland Edwards" <eddieedwards(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Wire drawing software |
Look at this one:
Capilano Computing
1641 Lonsdale Avenue, Suite 603
North Vancouver, B.C., V7M 2J5
CANADA TRANSACTION RECEIPT
Phone: (604) 522-6200
Fax: (604) 522-3972
email: info(at)capilano.com
www: www.capilano.com
I tried the trial version and loved it. Then purchased.
With all the blocks to drag and drop and neat wring, it makes doing schematics
fun.
I have AutoCad but this software is too easy.
Happy building and flying,
Ed
RV7 in the works.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin D sub pin removal ?? |
What's the secret to removal of the SMALL Garmin machined pins (as in
the GMA 340) from a Dsub connector? The tool for the larger pins won't
fit, I thought I heard someone say they used a paperclip filed flat, and
I've tried that to no avail yet. Would appreciate any suggestions as
I've mis placed some pins.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse/Finishing/Panel
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin D sub pin removal ?? |
Check the archives - recently there was a thread on pins and there was a
picture of two different tools red for the 'normal' size and green (IIRC)
for the high density.
I don't remember which list but it was within the last few days.....I have
the other tool - I'll try to remember this weekend to get part num......
Ralph
----- Original Message -----
From: "Deems Davis" <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin D sub pin removal ??
>
> What's the secret to removal of the SMALL Garmin machined pins (as in the
> GMA 340) from a Dsub connector? The tool for the larger pins won't fit, I
> thought I heard someone say they used a paperclip filed flat, and I've
> tried that to no avail yet. Would appreciate any suggestions as I've mis
> placed some pins.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse/Finishing/Panel
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire drawing software |
Did you go with "Lite" or the full version?
On 8/29/06, Garland Edwards wrote:
>
>
> Look at this one:
>
> Capilano Computing
> 1641 Lonsdale Avenue, Suite 603
> North Vancouver, B.C., V7M 2J5
> CANADA TRANSACTION RECEIPT
>
> Phone: (604) 522-6200
> Fax: (604) 522-3972
> email: info(at)capilano.com
> www: www.capilano.com
>
>
> I tried the trial version and loved it. Then purchased.
> With all the blocks to drag and drop and neat wring, it makes doing
> schematics fun.
> I have AutoCad but this software is too easy.
>
> Happy building and flying,
>
> Ed
> RV7 in the works.
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A DeMarzo" <planepubs(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin D sub pin removal ?? |
I've removed those pins with the throwaway removers. Make sure you're
using the correct color, which naturally escapes me now. I've also
broken a few of those plastic tools on them.
Al
On 08/29/2006 8:11:26 PM, Deems Davis (deemsdavis(at)cox.net) wrote:
>
> What's the secret to removal of the SMALL Garmin machined pins (as in
> the GMA 340) from a Dsub connector? The tool for the larger pins won't
>
> fit, I thought I heard someone say they used a paperclip filed flat,
and
> I've tried that to no avail yet. Would appreciate any suggestions as
> I've
> mis placed some pins.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse/Finishing/Panel
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin D sub pin removal ?? |
Go to:
http://www.steinair.com/connectors.htm
SAT-034 is for the high density pins
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin D sub pin removal ??
What's the secret to removal of the SMALL Garmin machined pins (as in
the GMA 340) from a Dsub connector? The tool for the larger pins won't
fit, I thought I heard someone say they used a paperclip filed flat, and
I've tried that to no avail yet. Would appreciate any suggestions as
I've mis placed some pins.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse/Finishing/Panel
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: HAND HELD COM ANTENNA CONNECTION |
In a message dated 8/29/06 5:19:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sales(at)6440autoparts.com writes:
> I was just looking at
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html and if I
> understand it correctly this will break the antenna connection from the in
> dash com (disabling it)and allow the hand help to use the antenna. I would
> prefer to be able to use both radio's at once if needed. I have read here
on
>
> Aeroelectric that a "t" type bnc connector will cause the antenna to loose
> some of it's range. Is there a better way to use both radios at the same
> time ?
>
> Randy
===============================
Randy:
I hope someone got to you sooner than I on your question?
You CANNOT use a 'T' fitting to use both radios at the same time.
The HUGE problem in doing so is that when you TRANSMIT the output of one
radio will go directly into the other radio and BLOWOUT that radio. And since
there is also a mismatch it could even do damage to the transmit radio,
The ONLY way I know of to use one antenna and two radios is to disconnect one
radio from the antenna. Which brings up a second problem. When you
disconnect the panel Com it is sitting without an antenna/load. If you were to
hit
the transmit button on the stick you could blow the output circuit of the Com
radio.
Best way around this is to have two antennas. Second best way is to shout
off the panel Com radio when using the HH radio.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire drawing software |
I second that. Tried several different ones that all seemed to have
been written by engineers with way too much DOS influence. The
Capilano software is cheap and intuitive and has a very short
learning curve. Downside is that you won't be able to exchange
drawings with anybody. But you'll be able to whip out schematics
like the ones at the bottom of
http://www.davemorris.com/PhotoViewer.cfm?Subdirectory=Dragonfly%20Electrical
in no time at all.
Dave Morris
At 07:59 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote:
>Look at this one:
>
>Capilano Computing
>1641 Lonsdale Avenue, Suite 603
>North Vancouver, B.C., V7M 2J5
>CANADA TRANSACTION RECEIPT
>
>Phone: (604) 522-6200
>Fax: (604) 522-3972
>email: info(at)capilano.com
>www: <http://www.capilano.com>www.capilano.com
>
>
>I tried the trial version and loved it. Then purchased.
>With all the blocks to drag and drop and neat wring, it makes doing
>schematics fun.
>I have AutoCad but this software is too easy.
>
>Happy building and flying,
>
>Ed
>RV7 in the works.
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin D sub pin removal ?? |
>
>What's the secret to removal of the SMALL Garmin machined pins (as in the
>GMA 340) from a Dsub connector? The tool for the larger pins won't fit, I
>thought I heard someone say they used a paperclip filed flat, and I've
>tried that to no avail yet. Would appreciate any suggestions as I've mis
>placed some pins.
You need a tool like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/AMP_Tyco/91285-1_Extraction_Tool.pdf
which offers interchangeable blades for working
both the 20 and 22HD sized d-sub connectors.
DigiKey offers this tool in the upper end of right hand
column at:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T062/0181.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? |
Avionics Systems has one. Quite pricey at $90 each. See it here
<http://www.avionikits.com/>.
Or maybe ebay. Here was a Cessna 150 switch that sold for $9.
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cessna150-Flap-Switch_W0QQitemZ190020853902QQcmdZViewItem>
Larry Rosen
RV10 #356
Deems Davis wrote:
>
> I've searched in vain for a flap position switch which has a wide
> broad flat paddle for the toggle, similar to what Cessna uses. anybody
> know where you can pick one of the up?
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse/Finishing/Panel
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin D sub pin removal ?? |
Steinair has it. It is part 2 SAT-034
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin D sub pin removal ??
What's the secret to removal of the SMALL Garmin machined pins (as in
the GMA 340) from a Dsub connector? The tool for the larger pins won't
fit, I thought I heard someone say they used a paperclip filed flat, and
I've tried that to no avail yet. Would appreciate any suggestions as
I've mis placed some pins.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse/Finishing/Panel
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dynon D10A Boom AOA |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
I have a Dynon D10A. Would be nice to use the AOA feature. Already have a
pitot/static under wing of my Europa.
I am thinking a probe high up on the rudder may work and not complicate
rigging the wings or hurting anything when wings go on trailer.
Dynon sells a boom mount AOA/pitot, part number is 100532-000 but it is 1"
in diameter and has a pitot.
I am thinking something like a thin wall 5/16" or 1/4" tube, with 1" of
the tip turned up, flattened, and plugged up and a hole drilled.
Has anyone mounted a AOA on rudder?
Know where to buy one?
Made one?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring diagram software |
Try this for starters:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/ws_script_short.cgi
-- "Eric Parlow" wrote:
What software is available to make wiring diagrams at a reasonable cost?
Eric Parlow
RV-10 Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A DeMarzo" <planepubs(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin D sub pin removal ?? |
Yes, it was the green color tool that I used/abused! Thanks Bill.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:48 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin D sub pin removal ??
>
>
> Go to:
> http://www.steinair.com/connectors.htm
>
> SAT-034 is for the high density pins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-av(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring diagram software |
On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Eric Parlow wrote:
>
>
> What software is available to make wiring diagrams at a reasonable
> cost?
How about an engineering notebook and a Sharpie.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian HYPHEN av 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: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | HAND HELD COM ANTENNA CONNECTION |
There actually is a way to use two Com radios on one antenna. Bob Archer
sells an antenna switch that connects both radios while receiving and
disconnects the passive radio when either transmits. I think he can be
reached at:
bobsantennas(at)earthlink.net
Google him up and you'll find all kinds of interesting stuff.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: HAND HELD COM ANTENNA CONNECTION
In a message dated 8/29/06 5:19:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sales(at)6440autoparts.com writes:
> I was just looking at
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html and if I
> understand it correctly this will break the antenna connection from
the in
> dash com (disabling it)and allow the hand help to use the antenna. I
would
> prefer to be able to use both radio's at once if needed. I have read
here
on
>
> Aeroelectric that a "t" type bnc connector will cause the antenna to
loose
> some of it's range. Is there a better way to use both radios at the
same
> time ?
>
> Randy
===============================
Randy:
I hope someone got to you sooner than I on your question?
You CANNOT use a 'T' fitting to use both radios at the same time.
The HUGE problem in doing so is that when you TRANSMIT the output of one
radio will go directly into the other radio and BLOWOUT that radio. And
since
there is also a mismatch it could even do damage to the transmit radio,
The ONLY way I know of to use one antenna and two radios is to
disconnect one
radio from the antenna. Which brings up a second problem. When you
disconnect the panel Com it is sitting without an antenna/load. If you
were to hit
the transmit button on the stick you could blow the output circuit of
the Com
radio.
Best way around this is to have two antennas. Second best way is to
shout
off the panel Com radio when using the HH radio.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the
third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | HAND HELD COM ANTENNA CONNECTION |
Ed,
Comant also sells the same thing. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed
Holyoke
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:48 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: HAND HELD COM ANTENNA CONNECTION
There actually is a way to use two Com radios on one antenna. Bob Archer
sells an antenna switch that connects both radios while receiving and
disconnects the passive radio when either transmits. I think he can be
reached at:
bobsantennas(at)earthlink.net
Google him up and you'll find all kinds of interesting stuff.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: HAND HELD COM ANTENNA CONNECTION
In a message dated 8/29/06 5:19:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sales(at)6440autoparts.com writes:
> I was just looking at
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html and if I
> understand it correctly this will break the antenna connection from
the in
> dash com (disabling it)and allow the hand help to use the antenna. I
would
> prefer to be able to use both radio's at once if needed. I have read
here
on
>
> Aeroelectric that a "t" type bnc connector will cause the antenna to
loose
> some of it's range. Is there a better way to use both radios at the
same
> time ?
>
> Randy
===============================
Randy:
I hope someone got to you sooner than I on your question?
You CANNOT use a 'T' fitting to use both radios at the same time.
The HUGE problem in doing so is that when you TRANSMIT the output of one
radio will go directly into the other radio and BLOWOUT that radio. And
since
there is also a mismatch it could even do damage to the transmit radio,
The ONLY way I know of to use one antenna and two radios is to
disconnect one
radio from the antenna. Which brings up a second problem. When you
disconnect the panel Com it is sitting without an antenna/load. If you
were to hit
the transmit button on the stick you could blow the output circuit of
the Com
radio.
Best way around this is to have two antennas. Second best way is to
shout
off the panel Com radio when using the HH radio.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the
third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring diagram software |
If one wishes to take advantage of the AutoCAD wirebook
drawings downloadable from our website at:
http://aeroelectric.com/PPS
you can acquire any version of TurboCAD v7.0 or higher
like item 270022950768 on
http://ebay.com
Browse through the directories in the link to our
website and you'll find AutoCAD .dwg files that probably
contain 98% of your proposed wirebook already drawn up
for you.
All you need to do is import, edit to your needs, save
and print the page per system drawings needed for your
project.
Here's the list of commands that cover 99% of all my
AutoCAD actions:
AR, *ARRAY
B, *BLOCK
WB, *WRITEBLOCK
BR, *BREAK
CI, *CIRCLE
C, *CHANGE
CH, *CHAMFER
CO, *COPY
D, *DIMSTYLE
DI, *DIST
DO, *DONUT
DT, *DTEXT
E, *ERASE
ED, *DDEDIT
EL, *ELLIPSE
XT, *EXTEND
EXIT, *QUIT
F, *FILLET
H, *HATCH
I, *INSERT
L, *LINE
LA, *LAYER
LI, *LIST
LT, *LINETYPE
M, *MOVE
MI, *MIRROR
OF, *OFFSET
OS, *OSNAP
P, *PAN
PE, *PEDIT
PL, *PLINE
PG, *POLYGON
P, *PURGE
R, *REDRAW
RG, *REGEN
RT, *RECTANGLE
REN *RENAME
RO, *ROTATE
S, *STRETCH
SC, *SCALE
SCR, *SCRIPT
T, *TRIM
V, *VIEW
XP, *EXPLODE
Z, *ZOOM
AutoCAD, TurboCAD and others are capable of
responding to hundreds of commands . . . ALL of
which are described in the well rounded tutorial.
However, if one acquires a proficiency in the
short-list cited above, I believe you'll find
that a $low$ copy of TurboCAD will be exceedingly
useful not only for your wirebook tasks . . . but
lots of drawing tasks for other projects. It's
a good resource and skill to acquire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D10A Boom AOA |
Hi Ron,
The AOA technique used by Dynon appears to be to measure the differential
pressure between the pitot tube port and an angled reference port in their
AOA probe. As the angle of attack changes so will the pressure
differential. So you would need two tubes (if using tubes) one aligned with
the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and one at an angle (I am not certain
but I think Dynon's angle port is at about 45 deg from the pitot port axis).
Since the Dynon system is set up for this angle difference in their
computation, it would be important to try to duplicate this angular
difference as close as possible. Also, the airflow around the tip of a tube
can result vortex generation as opposed to a hole drilled in a nominal
airfoil shaped probe which can cause pressure fluctuation. If I were to
choose to build my own probe for the Dynon system, I would attempt to copy
the Dynon probe as close as I could.
I have designed and built an AOA system using a similar approach - works on
the bench with a air blower but have not installed it in the aircraft as
yet.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
.
----- Original Message -----
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon D10A Boom AOA
>
> I have a Dynon D10A. Would be nice to use the AOA feature. Already have a
> pitot/static under wing of my Europa.
>
> I am thinking a probe high up on the rudder may work and not complicate
> rigging the wings or hurting anything when wings go on trailer.
>
> Dynon sells a boom mount AOA/pitot, part number is 100532-000 but it is 1"
> in diameter and has a pitot.
>
> I am thinking something like a thin wall 5/16" or 1/4" tube, with 1" of
> the tip turned up, flattened, and plugged up and a hole drilled.
>
> Has anyone mounted a AOA on rudder?
>
> Know where to buy one?
>
> Made one?
>
> Thx.
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D10A Boom AOA |
The only problem you will have is that the Dynon requires their AOA Pitot to
function as the AOA function requires a differential pressure variance to
indicate the lift potential.
If you use the Dynon AOA Pitot tube it will only take care of the AOA
function and you will still have to supply a separate static port for the other
Dynon instrument functions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A DeMarzo" <planepubs(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
And I think that I would spring for a $10 switch as just a tiny bit more
protection on my $3000 instrument.
Spikes Happen
Al
General Aviation - Pricing People Out Daily
On 08/30/2006 7:56:01 AM, Bill Denton (bdenton(at)bdenton.com) wrote:
> Dynon disagrees...
>
> The following exchange came from
> Dynon's message board:
>
> Question: "I've just installed my D10A and as
> advised in the instructions wired it through a 2 amp fuse. Since I
> didn't order the internal battery, I did not connect the "stay alive"
wire and also did not install a separate power switch. The unit comes on
when I turn on the master switch without my pressing the unit's
> power button. I assume this in normal, but can I have problems with
power
> spikes during engine start? Should I install a separate power switch
in
> the Dynon circuit? If not, should I turn off the EFIS before engine
> start?"
>
>
> Answer, from Dynon Support:
>
> "The EFIS is indeed
> designed to come alive when power is applied.
>
> Many customers install the EFIS in exactly the same electrical
> configuration you have set up. The unit will not be damaged by having
it
> on during engine start, but it may reboot if the voltage momentarily
drops
> below 10V.
>
> Also, since you did not purchase the internal battery, you may want to
> connect the keep alive wire to power the clock when your master switch
is
> off. Otherwise it will reset after every power
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? |
>
>Avionics Systems has one. Quite pricey at $90 each. See it here
><http://www.avionikits.com/>.
>
>Or maybe ebay. Here was a Cessna 150 switch that sold for $9.
><http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cessna150-Flap-Switch_W0QQitemZ190020853902QQcmdZViewItem>
>
>Larry Rosen
>RV10 #356
Tried to check this out but it seems to have been removed
from Ebay's listings. Be cautious of "Cessna flap switch"
listings. Some airplanes do use a switch modified to add
the "flap" shape to the toggle. Other Cessna flap "switches"
are really an assembly of flap handle, microswitches and
a moveable mounting plate for switches that is driven by
a Bowden cable attached to flaps. This is a rudimentary
servo-system developed at Cessna for a set-it-and-forget-it
style flap control and is probably not well suited to most
OBAM aircraft projects. Although I'll have to admit that
the idea was pretty clever!
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
>Dynon disagrees...
>
>The following exchange came from Dynon's message board:
>
>Question: "I've just installed my D10A and as advised in the instructions
>wired it through a 2 amp fuse. Since I didn't order the internal battery,
>I did not connect the "stay alive" wire and also did not install a
>separate power switch. The unit comes on when I turn on the master switch
>without my pressing the unit's power button. I assume this in normal, but
>can I have problems with power spikes during engine start? Should I
>install a separate power switch in the Dynon circuit? If not, should I
>turn off the EFIS before engine start?"
>
>
>Answer, from Dynon Support:
>
>"The EFIS is indeed designed to come alive when power is applied.
>
>Many customers install the EFIS in exactly the same electrical
>configuration you have set up. The unit will not be damaged by having it
>on during engine start, but it may reboot if the voltage momentarily drops
>below 10V.
>
>Also, since you did not purchase the internal battery, you may want to
>connect the keep alive wire to power the clock when your master switch is
>off. Otherwise it will reset after every power cycle."
>
>I hope this is useful...
Aha! thank you sir for doing this research
and offering the resulting data.
If I'm interpreting their reply correctly, it
is useful to run their keep-alive wire to
the always hot battery bus to support the internal
clock.
I note that Dynon has published their installation
manuals at:
http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/support_documentation.html
I've not read them in detail but what I had time
to look at seems lucid and complete . . . including
descriptions of the connector pin-outs.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
Bob:
It is called Airmanship. Standardization, Procedures, Checklist.
I hate to be boring and repeat my self, but do it as the AFM, AOM
or checklist says. Granted if "experimental" you can set any procedure
you want, BUT WHY NOT stay with the standard method / procedure.
Bob as a CFII-MET, ATP and professional instructor I reject the, it
does not matter, attitude. On the B767 for example you are trained
to turn hydraulic pumps on and off in a certain order. Well the smart
pilots say it does not matter. However they have out smarted them
selves. When done out of sequence or reversing the order you
transfer fluid from one system to another and end up over full on
one system and low on the other over time.
Second is human factors. I worked for Boeing and developing or
evaluating small changes in check list. LESS IS MORE. You don't
need to do extra steps than DON'T. Don't make it up as you go. BE
CONSISTANT and FOLLOW PROCEDURES, every time. Why be
different than Piper or Cessna in your experimental? If you don't need
to or have a good reason to change the procedure DON'T. Some day
it will bite you.
Last, internally regulated alterantors have automatic control of the
voltage regulator and do not require manual selection. Doing manual
selection is going against the way it was designed. Many have
"soft start" and delays built into the chip. If you don't have first hand
knowledge of how it's designed than I suggest you follow the
PROCEDURE that was established for the application that alternator
was originally designed for, e.g., a automobile. How many automobiles
require the driver the switch the alternator on and off manually? ZERO
I know Boys will be Boys and throwing switches is weeeeee, fun, but
resist the urge to play Top Gun, Space Shuttle Captain. KISS
Keep it Simple Scientific-man.
I think your observations Bob are weak and insignificant. :-)
Yea, standardization and check list are stupid (not).
You must be fun to work with Bob, when you tell people their input
is insignificant. Bob, there are other factors to consider that are not
related to electrons alone. You need to get up from you bench and
go fly more. Human factors, AFM's and checklist are key, critical
to aviation safety. To get into a NIT PICK of the esoterica of who
is more correct is counter productive.
Repeat: FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AS DESIGNED BY A TEAM
OF ENGINEER'S (who have covered all bases) AND IS APPROVED
BY THE FAA. If experimental try to follow industry standards, which
is: ALT on before start, ALT off after shutdown. Simple.
Cheers George (boring and following standardization and checklist)
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>posted by: "Bill Denton"
>>
>>In an airplane equipped with a Continental 0-200, would you want to
>>turn on the ALT switch before engine start, or after?
>It makes no difference. The arguments for and against
>either philosophy are not backed by good science meaning
>that effects cited as undesirable are so weak as to be
>insignificant.
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
Here's a bit of background on my question...
I was considering panel layouts for an OBAM (Experimental) aircraft, so
there would be no "procedures" other than what I set myself.
I am a firm believer in standardization as I have done a great deal of
computer software development, and I always follow the human interface
standards unless there is a very good reason not to.
But there may rarely be reasons for overriding a standard, or you may have
conflicting standards. For example, workflow patterns are typically set
using a "left to right; top to bottom" flow model.
You will note that in most small single engine aircraft, the standard is to
have the mag/starter switch on the left, with the master switch(es) (bat and
alt) on the right. This violates the typical workflow model as you must
first turn on the battery master (at minimum), then move left to start the
aircraft.
I am considering overriding the "standard" placement and using a
workflow-based placement.
In this instance, you would have the battery master on the left, with the
mag/starter switch to the right.
The question then arises as to when the alt switch should be turned on, and
I recall reading someplace at some time (how's that for precision!) that it
might be best not to turn on the alt switch until after engine start.
If you would turn on the alt switch before engine start, I would use a
layout of: battery master - alt - mag/starter.
But if you would turn the alt switch on after engine start, I would use a
layout of: battery master - mag/starter - alt.
The concept would be maintaining the left-to-right workflow model...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:08 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes
Airmanship)
Bob:
It is called Airmanship. Standardization, Procedures, Checklist.
I hate to be boring and repeat my self, but do it as the AFM, AOM
or checklist says. Granted if "experimental" you can set any procedure
you want, BUT WHY NOT stay with the standard method / procedure.
Bob as a CFII-MET, ATP and professional instructor I reject the, it
does not matter, attitude. On the B767 for example you are trained
to turn hydraulic pumps on and off in a certain order. Well the smart
pilots say it does not matter. However they have out smarted them
selves. When done out of sequence or reversing the order you
transfer fluid from one system to another and end up over full on
one system and low on the other over time.
Second is human factors. I worked for Boeing and developing or
evaluating small changes in check list. LESS IS MORE. You don't
need to do extra steps than DON'T. Don't make it up as you go. BE
CONSISTANT and FOLLOW PROCEDURES, every time. Why be
different than Piper or Cessna in your experimental? If you don't need
to or have a good reason to change the procedure DON'T. Some day
it will bite you.
Last, internally regulated alterantors have automatic control of the
voltage regulator and do not require manual selection. Doing manual
selection is going against the way it was designed. Many have
"soft start" and delays built into the chip. If you don't have first hand
knowledge of how it's designed than I suggest you follow the
PROCEDURE that was established for the application that alternator
was originally designed for, e.g., a automobile. How many automobiles
require the driver the switch the alternator on and off manually? ZERO
I know Boys will be Boys and throwing switches is weeeeee, fun, but
resist the urge to play Top Gun, Space Shuttle Captain. KISS
Keep it Simple Scientific-man.
I think your observations Bob are weak and insignificant. :-)
Yea, standardization and check list are stupid (not).
You must be fun to work with Bob, when you tell people their input
is insignificant. Bob, there are other factors to consider that are not
related to electrons alone. You need to get up from you bench and
go fly more. Human factors, AFM's and checklist are key, critical
to aviation safety. To get into a NIT PICK of the esoterica of who
is more correct is counter productive.
Repeat: FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AS DESIGNED BY A TEAM
OF ENGINEER'S (who have covered all bases) AND IS APPROVED
BY THE FAA. If experimental try to follow industry standards, which
is: ALT on before start, ALT off after shutdown. Simple.
Cheers George (boring and following standardization and checklist)
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>posted by: "Bill Denton"
>>
>>In an airplane equipped with a Continental 0-200, would you want to
>>turn on the ALT switch before engine start, or after?
>It makes no difference. The arguments for and against
>either philosophy are not backed by good science meaning
>that effects cited as undesirable are so weak as to be
>insignificant.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Lineberry" <glineberry(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin D sub pin removal ?? |
SteinAir has a tool for these pins listed at $5.00
http://www.steinair.com/connectors.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 08/29/06 |
Guys: I am experimenting with a home grown moving map display system based
on a 12v mini-PC and 12v LCD display. I plan to use one of the commercially
available navigation software packages and an input from my GPS to drive it.
Question: Any experience with operating systems in this environment? I am
aware of the altitude issues with hard drives but have not been privy to any
operating system discussions. One popular software package comes ported on
either Windows CE or Windows XPHome. I'm told that XP Home is more robust
and less crash prone but that it routinely swaps files with its memory which
means (I had never heard this one before) that it will "wear out" a flash
card used as a solid state memory in a certain number of swap operations.
For that reason, I was advised to go with a ruggedized HD and XP Home, not
with a flash card and CE as I was originally planning.
Any experience and/or comments on this challenge?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
Blue Mountain's EFIS/one was designed by someone who thinks all airplanes
should have a 28 volt electrical system, so it can't handle the drop in
voltage during engine start. But, it also has all of my engine gauges, so I
had to install a second battery to keep the engine and starter on separate
busses during start-up. Maybe I should have just relied on a low oil
pressure light to tell me what I really need to know about the engine during
start-up.
Terry
RV-8A still finishing
Seattle
I spoke with Blue Mountain and they said to keep the EFIS off until after
start up. I also shut the EFIS down before shutting down the engine. I
installed a Pull CB to act as a switch.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Airmanship, Science and Ruts (was alternator switching). |
>Bob:
>
>It is called Airmanship. Standardization, Procedures, Checklist.
>
>I hate to be boring and repeat my self, but do it as the AFM, AOM
>or checklist says. Granted if "experimental" you can set any procedure
>you want, BUT WHY NOT stay with the standard method / procedure.
George, this is a forum on the design, fabrication and
operation of aircraft supported by the simple-ideas that
bound function and limits. If there's an argument with a
published procedure, I expect to explain the foundation
for that argument.
>
>I think your observations Bob are weak and insignificant. :-)
Observations of the science? Exactly what observation do
you object to?
>
>Yea, standardization and check list are stupid (not).
Do you dream about these discussions? Where have
I written that standardization and check lists are
"stupid" . . .
>
>You must be fun to work with Bob, when you tell people their input
>is insignificant.
I can't help it if someone anthropomorphizes an idea.
I'm not paid to be "fun", I'm paid to study my craft and share
what I've learned with those who choose to invite me to their
sandbox. In arena of ideas, nobody's input is insignificant as
long as the goal of discussion is to sort and assemble the
simple-ideas into the best-we-know-how-to-do. I can't help
it if someone translates my words into personal attacks . . .
beating up on folks is not my style.
>Bob, there are other factors to consider that are not
>related to electrons alone. You need to get up from you bench and
>go fly more. Human factors, AFM's and checklist are key, critical
>to aviation safety.
No argument.
> To get into a NIT PICK of the esoterica of who
>is more correct is counter productive.
Input with no supporting explanation IS worthy of skepticism.
It becomes insignificant when examination of the science doesn't
support it.
Now, if you wish to discuss POH procedures from a human factors
perspective, be my guest . . . but that wasn't the question
I perceived and answered.
>
>Repeat: FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AS DESIGNED BY A TEAM
>OF ENGINEER'S (who have covered all bases) AND IS APPROVED
>BY THE FAA. If experimental try to follow industry standards, which
>is: ALT on before start, ALT off after shutdown. Simple.
I've never said that a POH procedure was to be ignored
or was even wrong without a lucid explanation as to why.
I was answering what I believe was the core question. Is
there hazard to hardware for adopting one procedure over
another for turning the alternator ON and OFF? The answer
in the physics was, "NO, with caveats noted."
I've ALWAYS supported the development and use of checklists.
The question before us was, "What should the builder adopt
for HIS checklist?" I offered that there was no reason
in the physics to favor one action over another: he could
adopt any technique his wished.
>
>Cheers George (boring and following standardization and checklist)
Mindless acceptance of traditional policy and procedures promotes
several conditions: (1) The approval of your supervisors and
regulators, (2) stagnation of progress, (3) suppression of curiosity,
(4) constraint of understanding and (5) loss of opportunity
to improve on the-best-we-know-how-to-do. There are additional
effects but those are pretty key . . .
Now, if YOU believe alternator operations described in the
C-150 POH are golden from EITHER human factors perspectives, science
OR BOTH, stand up and explain why the original questioner should
hold it in high regard with respect to the crafting of HIS
personal POH.
Speaking of worship at the altar of POH, I'm aware of no
published procedure where the pilot is told "Do not
switch the alternator ON or OFF at times not specifically
cited in this handbook." From this I infer (and physics supports)
the notion that there is no perceived hazard to equipment
for doing it.
You have written that there's no reason for wanting to
turn alternators ON or OFF at will. The assertion was then
morphed into a design goal for installation of automotive
alternators on aircraft without regard for their special operating
limitations. Choose your words carefully George. You're already
on record for having argued more against traditional POH
procedures and system performance goals than I.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
In a message dated 8/30/2006 10:52:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bdenton(at)bdenton.com writes:
You will note that in most small single engine aircraft, the standard is to
have the mag/starter switch on the left, with the master switch(es) (bat and
alt) on the right. This violates the typical workflow model as you must first
turn on the battery master (at minimum), then move left to start the aircraft.
I am considering overriding the "standard" placement and using a
workflow-based placement.
In this instance, you would have the battery master on the left, with the
mag/starter switch to the right
============================================================
This would have been a good idea if it was done about 50 years ago. The
problem is all of your training and 99.93% of everyone else's was done to the old
standard. You have been conditioned over the years and hopefully just like a
concert violinist trained your muscles to react. I'm not saying you can't be
retrained but the rules of 'Precedence' overrides 'Rote'.
I mention everyone else because there may be times when you may want to or
need to have someone else fly your plane.
Also, there is a little bit of a physical reason why things were original
done with the Mags to the outside. It was because you can accidentally shutoff
the Master without any serious consequences. But, if you shut off the engine
you now have to pray it will restart.
Years ago I was given the training aid ... Down & Out is OFF - That goes for
two situations Switches & Controls - and - The Start Up / Shut Down
procedure. Starting at center panel you go DOWN and then OUT to both the Right
and
Left. This works for many planes especially one that is not yours or is new to
you. It is also a double check as you go back to center. Human nature takes
you BACK the same path you went out on.
As far as things violating the typical workflow model, well just about ALL of
flying does that. Thinking back, what was normal, natural or standard when
you were taking your training? Maybe the Push forward to go Down, Pull Back to
go UP but what about the Pull Back more to GO DOWN. That still has me
confused. Left & Right are OK, but again, what about the things you do with the
Rudder? Crazy ain't it!
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Turn on ALT before engine start? |
>Here's a bit of background on my question...
>
>I was considering panel layouts for an OBAM (Experimental) aircraft, so
>there would be no "procedures" other than what I set myself.
>
>I am a firm believer in standardization as I have done a great deal of
>computer software development, and I always follow the human interface
>standards unless there is a very good reason not to.
>
>But there may rarely be reasons for overriding a standard, or you may have
>conflicting standards. For example, workflow patterns are typically set
>using a "left to right; top to bottom" flow model.
>
>You will note that in most small single engine aircraft, the standard is
>to have the mag/starter switch on the left, with the master switch(es)
>(bat and alt) on the right. This violates the typical workflow model as
>you must first turn on the battery master (at minimum), then move left to
>start the aircraft.
>
>I am considering overriding the "standard" placement and using a
>workflow-based placement.
>
>In this instance, you would have the battery master on the left, with the
>mag/starter switch to the right.
>
>The question then arises as to when the alt switch should be turned on,
>and I recall reading someplace at some time (how's that for precision!)
>that it might be best not to turn on the alt switch until after engine start.
>
>If you would turn on the alt switch before engine start, I would use a
>layout of: battery master - alt - mag/starter.
>
>But if you would turn the alt switch on after engine start, I would use a
>layout of: battery master - mag/starter - alt.
>
>The concept would be maintaining the left-to-right workflow model...
Very good sir. A lucid consideration of both human factors
and the value of procedures but within the OBAM aviation venue.
This validates my perceptions of your question and does not
change my answer. Thank you for the clarification.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
Terry:
I also have the Grand Rapids EIS in the same plane and their instructions ar
e
to leave it on all the time.
Go Figure!
Barry
==================
Blue Mountain=99s EFIS/one was designed by someone who thinks all airp
lanes
should have a 28 volt electrical system, so it can=99t handle the drop
in voltage
during engine start. But, it also has all of my engine gauges, so I had to
install a second battery to keep the engine and starter on separate busses d
uring
start-up. Maybe I should have just relied on a low oil pressure light to tel
l
me what I really need to know about the engine during start-up.
Terry
RV-8A still finishing
Seattle
I spoke with Blue Mountain and they said to keep the EFIS off until after
start up. I also shut the EFIS down before shutting down the engine. I
installed a Pull CB to act as a switch.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
You could stick something like this in between your electrical system
and your EFIS:
http://store.mp3car.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=PWR-012
This will handle short complete outages of power and is designed to
keep a PC running in a car even during cranking.
There's a whole crop of "carputer" devices that are showing up now,
that may be interesting for aviation.
Dave Morris
At 10:46 AM 8/30/2006, you wrote:
>Blue Mountain's EFIS/one was designed by someone who thinks all
>airplanes should have a 28 volt electrical system, so it can't
>handle the drop in voltage during engine start. But, it also has all
>of my engine gauges, so I had to install a second battery to keep
>the engine and starter on separate busses during start-up. Maybe I
>should have just relied on a low oil pressure light to tell me what
>I really need to know about the engine during start-up.
>
>Terry
>RV-8A still finishing
>Seattle
>
>
>I spoke with Blue Mountain and they said to keep the EFIS off until
>after start up. I also shut the EFIS down before shutting down the
>engine. I installed a Pull CB to act as a switch.
>
>
>Barry
>"Chop'd Liver"
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Moving map Operating System considerations |
You might put that question to the experimenters on the Yahoo group
listed at the very bottom of www.MyGlassCockpit.com
Dave Morris
At 10:46 AM 8/30/2006, you wrote:
>Guys: I am experimenting with a home grown moving map display system
>based on a 12v mini-PC and 12v LCD display. I plan to use one of
>the commercially available navigation software packages and an input
>from my GPS to drive it.
>
>Question: Any experience with operating systems in this
>environment? I am aware of the altitude issues with hard drives but
>have not been privy to any operating system discussions. One
>popular software package comes ported on either Windows CE or
>Windows XPHome. I'm told that XP Home is more robust and less crash
>prone but that it routinely swaps files with its memory which means
>(I had never heard this one before) that it will "wear out" a flash
>card used as a solid state memory in a certain number of swap
>operations. For that reason, I was advised to go with a ruggedized
>HD and XP Home, not with a flash card and CE as I was originally planning.
>
>Any experience and/or comments on this challenge?
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
>I also have the Grand Rapids EIS in the same plane and their instructions
>are to leave it on all the time.
>Go Figure!
>==================
>Blue Mountain's EFIS/one was designed by someone who thinks all airplanes
>should have a 28 volt electrical system, so it can't handle the drop in
>voltage during engine start. But, it also has all of my engine gauges, so
>I had to install a second battery to keep the engine and starter on
>separate busses during start-up. Maybe I should have just relied on a low
>oil pressure light to tell me what I really need to know about the engine
>during start-up.
>==================
>I spoke with Blue Mountain and they said to keep the EFIS off until after
>start up. I also shut the EFIS down before shutting down the engine. I
>installed a Pull CB to act as a switch.
DO-160 design philosophies have been with us for
decades. It's unfortunate that some otherwise
capable individuals do not take advantage of
recipes for success that are free for the taking.
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: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Switching |
My scratch-built Dragonfly did not come with a POH. And my 1960
Mooney POH doesn't tell me what order to switch them on either. I
suspect most of the people on this list are building experimentals
and will be WRITING the POH.
Dave
At 09:08 AM 8/30/2006, you wrote:
>Repeat: FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AS DESIGNED BY A TEAM
>OF ENGINEER'S (who have covered all bases) AND IS APPROVED
>BY THE FAA. If experimental try to follow industry standards, which
>is: ALT on before start, ALT off after shutdown. Simple.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-av(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:51 AM, A DeMarzo wrote:
> And I think that I would spring for a $10 switch as just a tiny bit
> more protection on my $3000 instrument.
>
> Spikes Happen
This is an old wives' tale. I am amazed at how long this one has
persisted. The only "spike" are you going to have to deal with in
your airplane is load-dump from the alternator after turning off a
big load. And that will be absorbed by the battery. The "spike" that
happens during start is just the voltage sag due to the huge load
presented by the starter. If you don't believe me, put a 'scope on
your bus and watch it while starting the engine. No "spike".
Hasn't this one been beaten to death?
And as for Blue Mountain telling you to turn off your EFIS during
start, that is only a problem with 14V electrical systems where the
starter can draw the bus down to a voltage below which the BM-EFIS'
power supply will work. That is why Greg at BM likes 28V electrical
systems. His equipment does not reboot during start with a 28V
electrical system. It makes sense to me too.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian HYPHEN av 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-av(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:08 AM,
wrote:
> Repeat: FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AS DESIGNED BY A TEAM
> OF ENGINEER'S (who have covered all bases) AND IS APPROVED
> BY THE FAA. If experimental try to follow industry standards, which
> is: ALT on before start, ALT off after shutdown. Simple.
It is possible that a team of engineers may have produced a checklist
for specific reasons but most check lists only ensure you perform all
the steps and sequence is not an issue. I am aware of checklists that
were constructed by the manufacturer just that way, by random chance.
Changing the checklist to improve logical grouping or cockpit flow is
actually sensible.
You make a good point about understanding the systems. You understand
why there is a start-up order for the hydraulic systems in the B767.
Systems understanding is very important.
And when you understand the single-battery, single-bus, single-
alternator-with-external-regulation system used in almost all TC
singles, you will know that turning on the alternator with the master
or after start is a non-issue. IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Slavish adherence to old procedures without any thought is bad
practice also.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian HYPHEN av 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-av(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:57 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> I am considering overriding the "standard" placement and using a
> workflow-based placement.
>
> In this instance, you would have the battery master on the left,
> with the mag/starter switch to the right
> ===================================
> This would have been a good idea if it was done about 50 years
> ago. The problem is all of your training and 99.93% of everyone
> else's was done to the old standard. You have been conditioned
> over the years and hopefully just like a concert violinist trained
> your muscles to react. I'm not saying you can't be retrained but
> the rules of 'Precedence' overrides 'Rote'.
> I mention everyone else because there may be times when you may
> want to or need to have someone else fly your plane.
> Also, there is a little bit of a physical reason why things were
> original done with the Mags to the outside. It was because you can
> accidentally shutoff the Master without any serious consequences.
> But, if you shut off the engine you now have to pray it will restart.
I think you will find that, beyond the six-pack flight instrument
placement, there just hasn't been a lot of standardization on
aircraft panels. My Aztec has the master and the four mag switches in
close proximity from left to right on the left side of the switch
panel. If for any reason I feel a crazy need to turn any of these
switches off during flight you can bet your sweet ass I will be
looking very hard to make sure I have the correct one in my hand.
Just like when retracting flaps the call is "confirm flaps" at which
point my co-pilot looks down and says "flaps confirmed". Then and
only then do I raise the flaps.
I think that Bill Denton is to be applauded for thinking about work
flow ergonomics of his panel. It will make his airplane easier and
more logical to fly. Just because Beech, Piper, and Cessna used the
shotgun approach to panel layout 50 years ago doesn't mean there is
some virtue in retaining those bad old layouts.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian HYPHEN av 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: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
Good Afternoon All,
Just a few random thoughts on this subject.
1.) Standardization makes it much easier for a check
pilot to conduct a proficiency check.
2.) Standardization allows us to easily develop habit
patterns.
3.) Standardization is the mortal enemy of innovation.
4.) Standardization tends to make the operator feel
he/she is safe as long as he/she is following the
standardized procedures.
So the question becomes: Is standardization good or
bad?
It is my contention that such a question is best
answered by the following statement.
"It All Depends!"
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:57 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> > I am considering overriding the "standard"
> placement and using a
> > workflow-based placement.
> >
> > In this instance, you would have the battery
> master on the left,
> > with the mag/starter switch to the right
> > ===================================
> > This would have been a good idea if it was done
> about 50 years
> > ago. The problem is all of your training and
> 99.93% of everyone
> > else's was done to the old standard. You have
> been conditioned
> > over the years and hopefully just like a concert
> violinist trained
> > your muscles to react. I'm not saying you can't
> be retrained but
> > the rules of 'Precedence' overrides 'Rote'.
> > I mention everyone else because there may be times
> when you may
> > want to or need to have someone else fly your
> plane.
> > Also, there is a little bit of a physical reason
> why things were
> > original done with the Mags to the outside. It
> was because you can
> > accidentally shutoff the Master without any
> serious consequences.
> > But, if you shut off the engine you now have to
> pray it will restart.
>
> I think you will find that, beyond the six-pack
> flight instrument
> placement, there just hasn't been a lot of
> standardization on
> aircraft panels. My Aztec has the master and the
> four mag switches in
> close proximity from left to right on the left side
> of the switch
> panel. If for any reason I feel a crazy need to turn
> any of these
> switches off during flight you can bet your sweet
> ass I will be
> looking very hard to make sure I have the correct
> one in my hand.
> Just like when retracting flaps the call is "confirm
> flaps" at which
> point my co-pilot looks down and says "flaps
> confirmed". Then and
> only then do I raise the flaps.
>
> I think that Bill Denton is to be applauded for
> thinking about work
> flow ergonomics of his panel. It will make his
> airplane easier and
> more logical to fly. Just because Beech, Piper, and
> Cessna used the
> shotgun approach to panel layout 50 years ago
> doesn't mean there is
> some virtue in retaining those bad old layouts.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline
> Way
> brian HYPHEN av 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
Let's see: Bluemountain designed their EFIS for experimental aircraft. The
biggest single segment of experimental aircraft are RV's. There must be some
but I have never heard of 28 volt RV. Every one I have ever seen was a 14
volt design. Most other experimental aircraft that I am aware of are also 14
volt designs.
Either Greg made a serious mistake in accessing the needs of his potential
market, or I have a serious case of tunnel vision. Nothing in his sales
literature says anything about it not working with a 14 volt system.
But maybe I'm just in a crappy mood about BMA at the moment. I tried to
install the latest update to the software in my BMA EFIS/one last night and
it locked up on me -- again. The last time this happened I had to ship it
back to Tennessee, which cost $85 just for shipping. (But they didn't charge
for the repair and updating some of the internal hardware and software.) I
am now waiting for their support to answer my email or return my phone call.
Terry
And as for Blue Mountain telling you to turn off your EFIS during
start, that is only a problem with 14V electrical systems where the
starter can draw the bus down to a voltage below which the BM-EFIS'
power supply will work. That is why Greg at BM likes 28V electrical
systems. His equipment does not reboot during start with a 28V
electrical system. It makes sense to me too.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian HYPHEN av 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: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
Yes, sometimes standardization can kill us.
I don't have any information on that commuter crash in KY a couple of days
ago, other than what I saw on the news. But I'll bet you a breakfast that
the guy realized that he was on too short a runway just as he saw the end
coming up. He was probably still a little below V1 and his training kicked
in causing him to abort and go off the end of the runway (I'm sure his
accelerate/stop distance was more than the runway length). If he had kept
going on the takeoff he probably would have been able to rotate and get off
the ground in the 3,500 feet he had. Bad day for all.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of OldBob
Siegfried
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes
Airmanship)
Good Afternoon All,
Just a few random thoughts on this subject.
1.) Standardization makes it much easier for a check
pilot to conduct a proficiency check.
2.) Standardization allows us to easily develop habit
patterns.
3.) Standardization is the mortal enemy of innovation.
4.) Standardization tends to make the operator feel
he/she is safe as long as he/she is following the
standardized procedures.
So the question becomes: Is standardization good or
bad?
It is my contention that such a question is best
answered by the following statement.
"It All Depends!"
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:57 AM, FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> > I am considering overriding the "standard"
> placement and using a
> > workflow-based placement.
> >
> > In this instance, you would have the battery
> master on the left,
> > with the mag/starter switch to the right
> > ===================================
> > This would have been a good idea if it was done
> about 50 years
> > ago. The problem is all of your training and
> 99.93% of everyone
> > else's was done to the old standard. You have
> been conditioned
> > over the years and hopefully just like a concert
> violinist trained
> > your muscles to react. I'm not saying you can't
> be retrained but
> > the rules of 'Precedence' overrides 'Rote'.
> > I mention everyone else because there may be times
> when you may
> > want to or need to have someone else fly your
> plane.
> > Also, there is a little bit of a physical reason
> why things were
> > original done with the Mags to the outside. It
> was because you can
> > accidentally shutoff the Master without any
> serious consequences.
> > But, if you shut off the engine you now have to
> pray it will restart.
>
> I think you will find that, beyond the six-pack
> flight instrument
> placement, there just hasn't been a lot of
> standardization on
> aircraft panels. My Aztec has the master and the
> four mag switches in
> close proximity from left to right on the left side
> of the switch
> panel. If for any reason I feel a crazy need to turn
> any of these
> switches off during flight you can bet your sweet
> ass I will be
> looking very hard to make sure I have the correct
> one in my hand.
> Just like when retracting flaps the call is "confirm
> flaps" at which
> point my co-pilot looks down and says "flaps
> confirmed". Then and
> only then do I raise the flaps.
>
> I think that Bill Denton is to be applauded for
> thinking about work
> flow ergonomics of his panel. It will make his
> airplane easier and
> more logical to fly. Just because Beech, Piper, and
> Cessna used the
> shotgun approach to panel layout 50 years ago
> doesn't mean there is
> some virtue in retaining those bad old layouts.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline
> Way
> brian HYPHEN av 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 08/29/06 |
Hi Lee,
I've been thinking along the same lines, but as far as the ruggedized
Hard Drive, there are solid state hard drives out there for use above
10,000 ft. try this URL:
http://www.bitmicro.com/products_edisk_6U_vme_scsiw.php
There are others, you might want to Google SS hd's to see what's out
there.
Harold..RV9A fuselage
----- Original Message -----
From: Lee Logan
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs -
08/29/06
Guys: I am experimenting with a home grown moving map display system
based on a 12v mini-PC and 12v LCD display. I plan to use one of the
commercially available navigation software packages and an input from my
GPS to drive it.
Question: Any experience with operating systems in this environment?
I am aware of the altitude issues with hard drives but have not been
privy to any operating system discussions. One popular software package
comes ported on either Windows CE or Windows XPHome. I'm told that XP
Home is more robust and less crash prone but that it routinely swaps
files with its memory which means (I had never heard this one before)
that it will "wear out" a flash card used as a solid state memory in a
certain number of swap operations. For that reason, I was advised to go
with a ruggedized HD and XP Home, not with a flash card and CE as I was
originally planning.
Any experience and/or comments on this challenge?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
In a message dated 8/30/06 1:19:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
brian-av(at)lloyd.com writes:
> You make a good point about understanding the systems. You understand
> why there is a start-up order for the hydraulic systems in the B767.
> Systems understanding is very important.
=========================
Very Good Point, Brian.
The o'l quote goes: "You can teach a monkey to fly but, you can't teach a
monkey to make decisions and learn systems."
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
In a message dated 8/30/06 2:22:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
terry(at)tcwatson.com writes:
> But maybe I'm just in a crappy mood about BMA at the moment. I tried to
> install the latest update to the software in my BMA EFIS/one last night and
> it locked up on me -- again. The last time this happened I had to ship it
> back to Tennessee, which cost $85 just for shipping. (But they didn't
charge
> for the repair and updating some of the internal hardware and software.) I
> am now waiting for their support to answer my email or return my phone
call.
>
> Terry
=====================
Terry:
I can't blame you ... My NEW unit FAILED the first time I installed it. I
knew what was wrong (bad accelerometer) but after calling them the tech dept.
wanted me to upgrade the software. $35 for a connection cable (50 ft long - no
short ones available) and two hours of trying to down load and configure ...
I called them back .. This time I was lucky and talked to the BOSS. In
seconds he confirmed that it was the accelerometer and told me to ship it back.
They did the software upgrade and the unit is in and working. All at no charge.
But, WHY did it fail ... A brand new unit? I can't blame BMA for an
accelerometer problem, they did not make it. But, now I am always wondering if
it is
going to fail, especially when I would need it the most.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
In a message dated 8/30/06 2:25:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
> He was probably still a little below V1
But did he reach or pass Vrto?
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 08/29/06 |
Lee, I'd rather trust my life to Linux or QNX, whether embedded or
standard, than any Microsoft product. I've been playing with computers
and making a living at it since 1977, if that helps my bona fides :).
There is a learning curve to the UNIX clones, but there will also be for
a Windows embedded type system.
I'm also working on a homegrown unit (taking me lots of time) and have
yet to decide which soluiton to use. It will partly be driven by which
computer hardware I end up with, which is wholly driven by the graphics
power available on the embedded unit. However, for the trials and
software validation, I'll be using an ordinary laptop.
David M.
Lee Logan wrote:
> Guys: I am experimenting with a home grown moving map display system
> based on a 12v mini-PC and 12v LCD display. I plan to use one of the
> commercially available navigation software packages and an input from
> my GPS to drive it.
>
> Question: Any experience with operating systems in this environment?
> I am aware of the altitude issues with hard drives but have not been
> privy to any operating system discussions. One popular software
> package comes ported on either Windows CE or Windows XPHome. I'm told
> that XP Home is more robust and less crash prone but that it routinely
> swaps files with its memory which means (I had never heard this one
> before) that it will "wear out" a flash card used as a solid state
> memory in a certain number of swap operations. For that reason, I was
> advised to go with a ruggedized HD and XP Home, not with a flash card
> and CE as I was originally planning.
>
> Any experience and/or comments on this challenge?
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
In a message dated 8/30/06 12:39:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
> DO-160 design philosophies have been with us for
> decades. It's unfortunate that some otherwise
> capable individuals do not take advantage of
> recipes for success that are free for the taking.
>
> Bob . . .
>
=======================
Bob:
What individuals? I did not design the EFIS, guess you are referring to BMA.
I wish I would have been consulted on functions and layout, but what do I
know? I only have install it and use it!
I'm not impressed with the GPS screens or the mounting method, or how they
didn't hook up the magnetometer. And I'm still trying to get the bugs out with
the Pitot - Static System and its readings (I have a DUAL system - EFIS and
Steam gages).
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 08/29/06 |
If I was working on a primary display ("trust my life") I'd consider
going the painful and expensive QNX route or something similar. For
secondary displays like moving maps, NT embedded is more than
sufficient. I helped develop moving map software at a company that made
avionics based on NT embedded, and believe me reliability of the OS was
never a problem. Remember, you're talking about a subset of the NT
modules (using only what you need), on a *closed* system (no end users
downloading software and viruses), and only being turned on for a couple
hours at a time and then turned off. You've got hardware and software
watchdogs, the ability to write protect whole volumes, and the control
to turn off paging. You may not want to discount it in your normal
Windows bashing, but I know it's easy to do.
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finishing Kit Auburn, CA
David M. wrote:
>
> Lee, I'd rather trust my life to Linux or QNX, whether embedded or
> standard, than any Microsoft product. I've been playing with
> computers and making a living at it since 1977, if that helps my bona
> fides :). There is a learning curve to the UNIX clones, but there
> will also be for a Windows embedded type system.
>
> I'm also working on a homegrown unit (taking me lots of time) and have
> yet to decide which soluiton to use. It will partly be driven by
> which computer hardware I end up with, which is wholly driven by the
> graphics power available on the embedded unit. However, for the
> trials and software validation, I'll be using an ordinary laptop.
>
> David M.
>
>
> Lee Logan wrote:
>
>> Guys: I am experimenting with a home grown moving map display system
>> based on a 12v mini-PC and 12v LCD display. I plan to use one of the
>> commercially available navigation software packages and an input from
>> my GPS to drive it.
>>
>> Question: Any experience with operating systems in this environment?
>> I am aware of the altitude issues with hard drives but have not been
>> privy to any operating system discussions. One popular software
>> package comes ported on either Windows CE or Windows XPHome. I'm
>> told that XP Home is more robust and less crash prone but that it
>> routinely swaps files with its memory which means (I had never heard
>> this one before) that it will "wear out" a flash card used as a solid
>> state memory in a certain number of swap operations. For that
>> reason, I was advised to go with a ruggedized HD and XP Home, not
>> with a flash card and CE as I was originally planning.
>>
>> Any experience and/or comments on this challenge?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | SlickSTART Bulletin SB1-06 |
8/30/2006
Hello Fellow Builders with Unison SlickSTART Ignition Boosters, Unison has
just published SB1-06 which calls for removal of pin 2 from the unit and the
associated wiring within 20 flight hours or at the next scheduled
maintenance, whichever is sooner.
Pin 2 is the pin that gets connected to the non boosted magneto (usually the
right one) P lead stud. During cranking this connection automatically
grounds out the non boosted magneto so that it cannot prematurely fire and
cause kickback.
Once this modification has been made to the SlickSTART unit one must ensure
that the aircraft magneto / ignition switching system is such that the non
boosted magneto is grounded out during cranking by the switching system.##
Unison is directing this change because the pin 2 connection to the non
boosted magneto "potentially compromises the redundancy of the ignition
system".
Shoot me an email if you have questions.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
## PS: My installation has separate switches for each magneto. I always
cranked with the right magneto switch turned OFF (grounded out) just to
doubly ensure that the right magneto could not fire prematurely. All of my
left (boosted) magneto spark plug leads go to the upper plugs in each
cylinder to ensure getting better odds of sparking than from a potentially
oil fouled lower plug.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garland Edwards" <eddieedwards(at)mindspring.com> |
Bill,
I purchased the Lite Version for $39.99 after trying out the demo version for 1
day. With AutoCad you have to either create your own devise block library or
purchase a third party package.
The Professional version is quite a bit more expensive. The "Simulator " version
would be great for testing out a circuit design.
By the way, I have no association with this company other than being a satisfied
customer.
Garland Edwards
eddieedwards(at)mindspring.com
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
>
>In a message dated 8/30/06 12:39:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
>
> > DO-160 design philosophies have been with us for
> > decades. It's unfortunate that some otherwise
> > capable individuals do not take advantage of
> > recipes for success that are free for the taking.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>=======================
>Bob:
>
>What individuals? I did not design the EFIS, guess you are referring to BMA.
> I wish I would have been consulted on functions and layout, but what do I
>know? I only have install it and use it!
All individuals. Many who do not have a background in
TC aircraft are not cognizant of the dragons already slain
in decades of effort by those who have gone before us.
Virtually every individual I've met who had an idea and
starry-eyed dream (Including Greg) was offered no-charge,
design assistance with packaging, power conditioning and I/O
configurations that are proven ingredients in the recipe
for success. Only a tiny fraction have accepted the offer.
>I'm not impressed with the GPS screens or the mounting method, or how they
>didn't hook up the magnetometer. And I'm still trying to get the bugs out
>with
>the Pitot - Static System and its readings (I have a DUAL system - EFIS and
>Steam gages).
And all those are performance and systems integration issues.
Let us all hope that once those snakes are sacked and tied
that environmental worms don't spill out. Those issues
are generally beyond the ability of the installer
to deal with and are the responsibility of the manufacturer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
begs the question, what about the current crop of electronic engine
instruments, ya all keep them off till u engine is running.
What good are they if u can't have them on during engine start ;-)
so u wait till the engine is running, switch u electronic instruments on
to discover u have no oil pressure, oops....somehow i don't think i want
Blue Mountain to check my oil pressure if i have to have their system
off during engine start.
A DeMarzo wrote:
> And I think that I would spring for a $10 switch as just a tiny bit
> more protection on my $3000 instrument.
>
> Spikes Happen
>
> Al
> General Aviation - Pricing People Out Daily
>
>
>
> On 08/30/2006 7:56:01 AM, Bill Denton (bdenton(at)bdenton.com
> ) wrote:
> > Dynon disagrees...
> >
> > The following exchange came from
> > Dynon's message board:
> >
> > Question: "I've just installed my D10A and as
> > advised in the instructions wired it through a 2 amp fuse. Since I
> > didn't order the internal battery, I did not connect the "stay
> alive" wire and also did not install a separate power switch. The unit
> comes on when I turn on the master switch without my pressing the unit's
> > power button. I assume this in normal, but can I have problems with
> power
> > spikes during engine start? Should I install a separate power switch in
> > the Dynon circuit? If not, should I turn off the EFIS before engine
> > start?"
> >
> >
> > Answer, from Dynon Support:
> >
> > "The EFIS is indeed
> > designed to come alive when power is applied.
> >
> > Many customers install the EFIS in exactly the same electrical
> > configuration you have set up. The unit will not be damaged by having it
> > on during engine start, but it may reboot if the voltage momentarily
> drops
> > below 10V.
> >
> > Also, since you did not purchase the internal battery, you may want to
> > connect the keep alive wire to power the clock when your master
> switch is
> > off. Otherwise it will reset after every power
> *
>
>
> *
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
>
>begs the question, what about the current crop of electronic engine
>instruments, ya all keep them off till u engine is running.
>What good are they if u can't have them on during engine start ;-)
>so u wait till the engine is running, switch u electronic instruments on
>to discover u have no oil pressure, oops....somehow i don't think i want
>Blue Mountain to check my oil pressure if i have to have their system off
>during engine start.
The risks are exceedingly low. I suppose there are
folks who tell tales of having lost an engine when a pump
shaft sheared on startup . . . but think about it. Just
how highly stressed are the oil pump parts? If one is
really worried about a bullet proof oil pressure indication
at startup, perhaps a pressure switch and "OIL P WARN" light
in the annunciator panel is called for.
I wouldn't put engine instrumentation on the e-bus. 99.999% of
the time, engine instruments show the same things they said
the last time you looked at them. Loss of some engine functionality
in addition to loss of alternator on same tank of fuel is exceedingly
remote. Or, one could install an SD-8 for unlimited endurance on
an 8 Amp e-bus and flip the instrumentation on from time to time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SlickSTART Bulletin SB1-06 |
>
>8/30/2006
>
>Hello Fellow Builders with Unison SlickSTART Ignition Boosters, Unison has
>just published SB1-06 which calls for removal of pin 2 from the unit and
>the associated wiring within 20 flight hours or at the next scheduled
>maintenance, whichever is sooner.
>
>Pin 2 is the pin that gets connected to the non boosted magneto (usually
>the right one) P lead stud. During cranking this connection automatically
>grounds out the non boosted magneto so that it cannot prematurely fire and
>cause kickback.
>
>Once this modification has been made to the SlickSTART unit one must
>ensure that the aircraft magneto / ignition switching system is such that
>the non boosted magneto is grounded out during cranking by the switching
>system.##
>
>Unison is directing this change because the pin 2 connection to the non
>boosted magneto "potentially compromises the redundancy of the ignition
>system".
>
>Shoot me an email if you have questions.
>
>OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
Good data sir! Do you have a copy of the SB? Is it available on the
net? I'd like to have a copy for the archives.
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: | "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 08/29/06 |
QNX has a free version. Of course, Linux is free for the download,
too. Just to keep the record straight.
David M.
Mitchell Faatz wrote:
>
>
> If I was working on a primary display ("trust my life") I'd consider
> going the painful and expensive QNX route or something similar. For
> secondary displays like moving maps, NT embedded is more than
> sufficient. I helped develop moving map software at a company that
> made avionics based on NT embedded, and believe me reliability of the
> OS was never a problem. Remember, you're talking about a subset of
> the NT modules (using only what you need), on a *closed* system (no
> end users downloading software and viruses), and only being turned on
> for a couple hours at a time and then turned off. You've got hardware
> and software watchdogs, the ability to write protect whole volumes,
> and the control to turn off paging. You may not want to discount it
> in your normal Windows bashing, but I know it's easy to do.
>
> Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finishing Kit Auburn, CA
>
>
> David M. wrote:
>
>>
>> Lee, I'd rather trust my life to Linux or QNX, whether embedded or
>> standard, than any Microsoft product. I've been playing with
>> computers and making a living at it since 1977, if that helps my bona
>> fides :). There is a learning curve to the UNIX clones, but there
>> will also be for a Windows embedded type system.
>>
>> I'm also working on a homegrown unit (taking me lots of time) and
>> have yet to decide which soluiton to use. It will partly be driven
>> by which computer hardware I end up with, which is wholly driven by
>> the graphics power available on the embedded unit. However, for the
>> trials and software validation, I'll be using an ordinary laptop.
>>
>> David M.
>>
>>
>> Lee Logan wrote:
>>
>>> Guys: I am experimenting with a home grown moving map display system
>>> based on a 12v mini-PC and 12v LCD display. I plan to use one of
>>> the commercially available navigation<<>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Yes Airmanship) |
| From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> I mention everyone else because there may be times when you may want to or need
to have someone else fly your plane.
I see no problem there. Anyone that stupid won't be flying my airplane!
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=58682#58682
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | in-rush limiters |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
I am considering installing in-rush limiters for my landing lights. Can
in-rush limiters be used effectively in conjunction with a wig-wag flasher?
My understanding is that the in-rush limiters do their job through their
odd property of providing decreasing resistance with increasing heat. That
would imply that they would need time to cool down before being able to do
their job the next time the power is turned on. With the flasher however,
the power is being turned on and off very quickly. On the other hand, the
bulb filament is probably not cooling off a lot either between flashes, so
maybe the in-rush limiters do not need to be effective when the wig-wag is
wigging and wagging.
Did I just answer my own question? If so, can someone recommend an
appropriate in-rush limiter for my 12V, 75W halogen lights
thanks
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters |
>
>
>I am considering installing in-rush limiters for my landing lights. Can
>in-rush limiters be used effectively in conjunction with a wig-wag flasher?
>
>My understanding is that the in-rush limiters do their job through their
>odd property of providing decreasing resistance with increasing heat. That
>would imply that they would need time to cool down before being able to do
>their job the next time the power is turned on. With the flasher however,
>the power is being turned on and off very quickly. On the other hand, the
>bulb filament is probably not cooling off a lot either between flashes, so
>maybe the in-rush limiters do not need to be effective when the wig-wag is
>wigging and wagging.
>
>Did I just answer my own question? If so, can someone recommend an
>appropriate in-rush limiter for my 12V, 75W halogen lights
The inrush limiters are, as you've already guessed,
slow to respond. They have to cool down for perhaps a minute
or more to be an effective inrush limiter for the next
turn-on event.
At the same time, filaments in lamps . . . especially the
halogens have a cooling time constant so long as to eliminate
the need for current limiting between flashes of a wig-wag system
I did some measurements on the bench a few years ago to
flash an automotive halogen headlamp bulb. The first turn-on
transient was what you would have expected . . . light up
transient from cold start was about a 10x running current.
However, sufficient heat was retained between flashes that
subsequent turn-on events were perhaps 1.2x running current.
Before halogens, the notion of installing inrush limiters
or adding some kind of keepwarm circuit had some appeal. With
the proliferation of the much more rugged halogens, the
old life-enhancing techniques are less useful. The next revision
of the 'Connection's lighting chapter will only mention these
techniques as ideas with historical significance but not
recommended for new design.
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 |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
In a message dated 8/30/06 9:15:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
> begs the question, what about the current crop of electronic engine
> instruments, ya all keep them off till u engine is running.
> What good are they if u can't have them on during engine start ;-)
> so u wait till the engine is running, switch u electronic instruments on
> to discover u have no oil pressure, oops....somehow i don't think i want
> Blue Mountain to check my oil pressure if i have to have their system
> off during engine start.
=====================
I do not know if Blue Mountain (BMA) has an EIS. What I was mentioning was
the EFIS system. There is also a huge difference between the electronics of an
EFIS or Com radio and a simple sending unit and gage used for fuel quantity,
oil temp & pressure and the like.
Now, Grand Rapids states KEEP THE UNIT ON. So there is a difference in
electrical design between the two or at least their thinking!
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters (Oops!) |
>
>Did I just answer my own question? If so, can someone recommend an
>appropriate in-rush limiter for my 12V, 75W halogen lights
P.S.
If you would like to include an in-rush limiter in your
design, consider the KC003L on
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T062/1405.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters |
In a message dated 8/31/06 4:20:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com writes:
> I am considering installing in-rush limiters for my landing lights. Can
> in-rush limiters be used effectively in conjunction with a wig-wag flasher?
>
> My understanding is that the in-rush limiters do their job through their
> odd property of providing decreasing resistance with increasing heat. That
> would imply that they would need time to cool down before being able to do
> their job the next time the power is turned on. With the flasher however,
> the power is being turned on and off very quickly. On the other hand, the
> bulb filament is probably not cooling off a lot either between flashes, so
> maybe the in-rush limiters do not need to be effective when the wig-wag is
> wigging and wagging.
>
> Did I just answer my own question? If so, can someone recommend an
> appropriate in-rush limiter for my 12V, 75W halogen lights
>
> thanks
>
> Erich Weaver
==================================
Erich:
I am familiar with two types of inrush limiters. Neither of them work off of
heat (I would like to learn more about this heat type).
The simplest "limiter" you can build yourself. It is nothing more than a
coil. The coil can be made around either a dowel or a ferrite slug. The wire
size is chosen to handle the current of the load and the basic size is about
1/2" ID, 1" OD and 2" Long. The type of wire is SOLID single strand and is what
is known as Transformer Wire. After wrapping the wire coils TIGHT you can use
heat shrink tubing over them. If you want to get fancy and I would; before
you heat shrink tube them dip them in varnish. They should be located close to
the load device.
Oh! When choosing the wire size, do NOT go by the Mil-Spec wire size used in
wiring the plane. I would DOUBLE that wire size.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Paralleled microphone circuits? |
>Hi Bob,
>
>I am a homebuilder (Midget Mustang, very small single seat) now doing the
>wiring. My radio stack will contain one comm/nav radio and I plan to
>include a small handheld mounted elsewhere in the cockpit. If needed due
>to a failure of the #1 radio, it will interface to my headphones via your
>isolation amplifier.
>
>My question is, "Can I connect my mike to both radios concurrently. I will
>have seperate PTT switches, so only one radio will transmit. I am not sure
>if the 2nd radio will load the mike too much, or will there be some other
>gotcha out there?
Connecting the mic circuits as you've suggested
offers an unknown probability of success . . .
I would guess not a good one.
A transmitter selector switch is suggested. See:
Figure 18-11 of:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
>I use your website lots. Thanks for all your work in that area.
You're most welcome sir!
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
for the record, I am NOT worried about it, but it stands to reason that
many an EIS are build on the same platform as the accompanying EFIS, if
a company recommends to not turn on the EFIS and the EIS is on the same
platform, should it then not follow to have that switched off too?? I
just think it is funny that u want to buy a $$$$ EIS but the mfg
recommends to have it off at a important time.
Yes, i know, u can always add another switch to u stick to switch it on
el-pronto when the engine catches ;-)
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> begs the question, what about the current crop of electronic engine
>> instruments, ya all keep them off till u engine is running.
>> What good are they if u can't have them on during engine start ;-)
>> so u wait till the engine is running, switch u electronic instruments
>> on to discover u have no oil pressure, oops....somehow i don't think
>> i want Blue Mountain to check my oil pressure if i have to have their
>> system off during engine start.
>
> The risks are exceedingly low. I suppose there are
> folks who tell tales of having lost an engine when a pump
> shaft sheared on startup . . . but think about it. Just
> how highly stressed are the oil pump parts? If one is
> really worried about a bullet proof oil pressure indication
> at startup, perhaps a pressure switch and "OIL P WARN" light
> in the annunciator panel is called for.
>
> I wouldn't put engine instrumentation on the e-bus. 99.999% of
> the time, engine instruments show the same things they said
> the last time you looked at them. Loss of some engine functionality
> in addition to loss of alternator on same tank of fuel is exceedingly
> remote. Or, one could install an SD-8 for unlimited endurance on
> an 8 Amp e-bus and flip the instrumentation on from time to time.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D10 AOA Boom |
Take a peek at http://www.ch601.org/resources/aoa/aoa.htm
The Dynon AOA function requires calibration, just like this instrument
will need. Ed described how it works. The calibration technique is to
go up and do a few stalls, noting where the gauge is at the stall point.
>
>
>>
>>I have a Dynon D10A. Would be nice to use the AOA feature. Already have a
>>pitot/static under wing of my Europa.
>>
>>I am thinking a probe high up on the rudder may work and not complicate
>>rigging the wings or hurting anything when wings go on trailer.
>>
>>Dynon sells a boom mount AOA/pitot, part number is 100532-000 but it is 1"
>>in diameter and has a pitot.
>>
>>I am thinking something like a thin wall 5/16" or 1/4" tube, with 1" of
>>the tip turned up, flattened, and plugged up and a hole drilled.
>>
>>Has anyone mounted a AOA on rudder?
>>
>>Know where to buy one?
>>
>>Made one?
>>
>>Thx.
>>Ron Parigoris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters |
>
>In a message dated 8/31/06 4:20:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com writes:
>
> > I am considering installing in-rush limiters for my landing lights. Can
> > in-rush limiters be used effectively in conjunction with a wig-wag
> flasher?
> >
> > My understanding is that the in-rush limiters do their job through their
> > odd property of providing decreasing resistance with increasing
> heat. That
> > would imply that they would need time to cool down before being able to do
> > their job the next time the power is turned on. With the flasher however,
> > the power is being turned on and off very quickly. On the other hand, the
> > bulb filament is probably not cooling off a lot either between flashes, so
> > maybe the in-rush limiters do not need to be effective when the wig-wag is
> > wigging and wagging.
> >
> > Did I just answer my own question? If so, can someone recommend an
> > appropriate in-rush limiter for my 12V, 75W halogen lights
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Erich Weaver
>==================================
>Erich:
>
>I am familiar with two types of inrush limiters. Neither of them work off of
>heat (I would like to learn more about this heat type).
See
http://www.gesensing.com/products/resources/datasheets/cl.pdf
>The simplest "limiter" you can build yourself. It is nothing more than a
>coil. The coil can be made around either a dowel or a ferrite slug. The
>wire
>size is chosen to handle the current of the load and the basic size is about
>1/2" ID, 1" OD and 2" Long. The type of wire is SOLID single strand and
>is what
>is known as Transformer Wire. After wrapping the wire coils TIGHT you can
>use
>heat shrink tubing over them. If you want to get fancy and I would; before
>you heat shrink tube them dip them in varnish. They should be located
>close to
>the load device.
Adding inductance in series with a load does have an
effect of softening an inrush current event. However,
the time constant of an inductive circuit is (t=L/R)
and the inductance of a 1" x 2" wood core inductor
with 30T of wire on it is about 10 microhenries. Assuming
one finds a suitable hunk of ferrite and assuming also
a permeability of about 10, the inductance goes up to
about 100 microhenries. Cold closed loop resistance for
a 75 watt lamp circuit will be on the order of 0.3 ohms yielding
a max time constant on the order of .0001/0.3 or about 1/3
millisecond for a ferrite core device. A wood core device
yields about a 1/30 millisecond - rather short compared to the time
constant of a part like the KC003L NTC current limiter that
will be in the neighborhood of 10-100 milliseconds.
An inductive current limiter would be so fast compared to
the inrush time for a lamp filament as to offer little
assistance in mitigating the magnitude of inrush current.
>Oh! When choosing the wire size, do NOT go by the Mil-Spec wire size used in
>wiring the plane. I would DOUBLE that wire size.
Don't understand why. The current ratings for choosing wire
size from charts like those found in AC43-13 or chapter
8 of the 'Connection are already de-rated for 10C temperature
rise. The 6A lamp cited in the original post would not
seriously warm an inductor wound with 22AWG (5A rated) wire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Static port on Dynon AoA probe |
This only has a cursory connection to electronics in airplanes, but I
still thought it would be the best place to ask.
The Dynon AoA probe doesn't have provisions for a static port. It was
designed with the expectation that the ports would be located on the
sides of the fuselage. That's not such a good location in a Delta. The
only flat space to put a port would be along the turtleback, aft of the
cockpit, which would put them deep inside of the wing's wake. The
readings would be all over the place. The plans location is for the
static probe to be low on the front leading edge, along with the pitot.
I have to build a mounting post for the Dynon probe (again, the
available mounting kits are designed for RVs, and don't match up to the
Delta's curves and angles) which is basically a streamline tube flaring
into the wing. I can see two options:
1) build another tube into the streamlined mounting post pointing forward
2) design ports into the side of the streamlined tube mounting post
The second option would look nicer and be aerodynamically cleaner (for
a sufficiently small value of aerodynamically clean). The question is,
where along the streamline crossection would I put the port in order to
reliably pick up static pressure? Would it be better to have a length
of flat section to put the ports in, and if so, how big would a flat
spot need to be? I'm making this mounting post from composite, so
complex shape isn't an issue.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
B&B-
>...causing him to abort and go off the end of the runway (I'm sure his
>accelerate/stop distance was more than the runway length). If he had kept
>going on the takeoff he probably would have been able to rotate and get off
>the ground in the 3,500 feet he had. Bad day for all.
As I understand it, the plane did roll off the end of the rwy, became
airborne, and came down a mile off the end of the rwy.
>> He was probably still a little below V1
>But did he reach or pass Vrto?
You're probably thinking of V1.
If memory serves, the 2 rwys at LEX cross at about the highest point on the
field. That point is about mid field for the short rwy. The T/O roll
would climb about six feet to the apex of that rwy, which would decrease
normal accelleration, and then descend nine feet to the other end. In
pre-dawn dark, with light rain, one could not see the other end of either
rwy. One could speculate that once one was far enough down the rwy to see
the far end, and had enough time to go through the 'what the...' process,
there was no way to stop in the rwy remaining. Also, that particular rwy
is restricted to day vmc ops, and there seems to have been only one
controller on duty vs the 2 required by FAA policy. There's no telling
what other factors might be in the error chain.
A very sad day, indeed.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Campbell" <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
I don't have a Dynon yet - but based on my experience with the Chelton
Sport:
I would say "yes" you do want a separate power switch (for each screen),
and "no" you don't want it on during engine start (if the voltage causes it
to reboot).
My original design had the EFIS screens fused directly to the E-Bus
as I couldn't see a time when I would ever want to turn them off.
Turning the EFIS screens off is no big deal, but turning the
AHRS off and getting an in-flight restart was a big deal
when I had the Crossbow NAV425.
If I start with just one battery, the EFIS would stay on just fine.
If I cross-connect both batteries for the start, the starter would
spin a little faster, but both EFIS screens would usually reboot.
If the batteries were low - then using both batteries and not having two
EFIS
screens drawing a couple of extra amps each would be a nice option.
The Chelton doesn't have an ON/OFF switch on the EFIS, (or I haven't found
it ;-)
The other place it would be nice is if you're trying to shed some load.
I have two screens, but I can easily get by with one. Turning one off in
flight
wasn't an option before. And those screens DO put out the heat.
And finally - if one of the screens acted up & did something weird,
it would be nice to be able to shut it off to avoid the distraction.
So... for all these reasons, I plan on adding a power switch to each
EFIS screen. My current plan is to continue using fuses,
but add a DPDT ON-OFF-ON switch, possibly with a "guard".
With the guard down, it would be in the "normal ON" position and
connected to a fuse in the E-Bus. In the "center OFF" position
the screen would be off. In the "alternate ON" position with the guard up,
it would be connected to a different fuse directly on the main bus.
This gives me the ability to:
1) reboot just one screen
2) turn off one screen (to save power, heat, etc..)
3) take a "second shot" if the first fuse pops, by switching to the
"alternate ON"
4) gain back the voltage lost through the diode to the E-Bus (the second
fuse goes direclty to Bus1)
IF the battery is ever getting really, really, low - that last 0.4v might
make a difference.
The Chelton "small screens" run considerably warmer than the Dynon.
I've been flying with the Chelton's for over a year and my system is still
evolving.
One other thing I discovered is that my Grand Rapids EIS "fades out" long
before
the other screens stop running in a low voltage situation. It continues to
put out
valid engine data to the Chelton, but you won't be able to see it on the
EIS.
Consider what you would do if you smelled electrical smoke in the cockpit !?
Reaching over and shutting off the master switch might be overkill, or it
could
be your first choice. The airlines teach that once you've made the
situation
"survivable" you should usually stop troubleshooting.
Turning off the master switch in-flight needn't leave you clueless,
so my backup instruments include mechanical gages for:
airspeed, altimeter, VSI, compass, and MP. A battery backed Dynon
wouldn't be bad either!
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Paralleled microphone circuits? |
>My question is, "Can I connect my mike to both radios concurrently. I will
>have seperate PTT switches, so only one radio will transmit. I am not sure
>if the 2nd radio will load the mike too much, or will there be some other
>gotcha out there?
=========================================
It depends on HOW you hook up the PTT switch.
You do NOT want the MIC to be HOT in a parallel radio circuit. That would
change the MIC matching impedance of both radios.
But, if you switch in and out the MIC lines using a PTT switch that would
work.
In most cases the PTT switch ONLY keys ON the radio and does not switch in
and out the MIC. You may have to go to a small relay ... Point of Failure.
The problem as I see it is ... When you talk to yourself or yell at yourself
(as needed) you will NOT have any sidetone in the headset. Lucky it is a
single seater ;-)
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
FYI, the Dynon is set to come on when powered (mine is via fuse from the
e-bus). If it were necessary to turn it off for starting (not), a
simple push of the lower left button for 2 secs. turns it off.
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Campbell
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, 31 August, 2006 7:50
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start?
I don't have a Dynon yet - but based on my experience with the Chelton
Sport:
I would say "yes" you do want a separate power switch (for each
screen),
and "no" you don't want it on during engine start (if the voltage
causes it to reboot).
My original design had the EFIS screens fused directly to the E-Bus
as I couldn't see a time when I would ever want to turn them off.
Turning the EFIS screens off is no big deal, but turning the
AHRS off and getting an in-flight restart was a big deal
when I had the Crossbow NAV425.
If I start with just one battery, the EFIS would stay on just fine.
If I cross-connect both batteries for the start, the starter would
spin a little faster, but both EFIS screens would usually reboot.
If the batteries were low - then using both batteries and not having
two EFIS
screens drawing a couple of extra amps each would be a nice option.
The Chelton doesn't have an ON/OFF switch on the EFIS, (or I haven't
found it ;-)
The other place it would be nice is if you're trying to shed some
load.
I have two screens, but I can easily get by with one. Turning one off
in flight
wasn't an option before. And those screens DO put out the heat.
And finally - if one of the screens acted up & did something weird,
it would be nice to be able to shut it off to avoid the distraction.
So... for all these reasons, I plan on adding a power switch to each
EFIS screen. My current plan is to continue using fuses,
but add a DPDT ON-OFF-ON switch, possibly with a "guard".
With the guard down, it would be in the "normal ON" position and
connected to a fuse in the E-Bus. In the "center OFF" position
the screen would be off. In the "alternate ON" position with the
guard up,
it would be connected to a different fuse directly on the main bus.
This gives me the ability to:
1) reboot just one screen
2) turn off one screen (to save power, heat, etc..)
3) take a "second shot" if the first fuse pops, by switching to the
"alternate ON"
4) gain back the voltage lost through the diode to the E-Bus (the
second fuse goes direclty to Bus1)
IF the battery is ever getting really, really, low - that last 0.4v
might make a difference.
The Chelton "small screens" run considerably warmer than the Dynon.
I've been flying with the Chelton's for over a year and my system is
still evolving.
One other thing I discovered is that my Grand Rapids EIS "fades out"
long before
the other screens stop running in a low voltage situation. It
continues to put out
valid engine data to the Chelton, but you won't be able to see it on
the EIS.
Consider what you would do if you smelled electrical smoke in the
cockpit !?
Reaching over and shutting off the master switch might be overkill, or
it could
be your first choice. The airlines teach that once you've made the
situation
"survivable" you should usually stop troubleshooting.
Turning off the master switch in-flight needn't leave you clueless,
so my backup instruments include mechanical gages for:
airspeed, altimeter, VSI, compass, and MP. A battery backed Dynon
wouldn't be bad either!
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | downside of manual battery disconnects? |
Does anyone have any experience with the manual battery
disconnects that the hot rod folks use?
Has anyone heard any issues with corrosion or failures or
horror stories floating around about these things?
Are certain brands better than others?
Are any (for whatever reason) more suitable for aircraft use
than others?
Thanks for the insight!
D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Wx Impressions |
Has anyone opened up the 396 power (cig lighter) cord to see if there are wires
in it for the data connections? I know I can buy a cord with bare wires that
has the power and serial connections but I'd like to maintain the cig lighter
plug for power. If the wires are in the one I have, I'll splice into them. Any
other alternatives?
Regards,
Greg Young
james(at)berkut13.com wrote:
> Thanks for the report Mike,
>
> Unfortunately, your friend must not have had the Garmin 430 and 396
> connected by the serial data line. The two units, if properly connected,
> will transfer the flight plans requiring only a single data entry in the
> 430. They also connect to the SL-30 radios to pre-select the frequencies as
> the flight progresses.
>
> Of course, if it's not plugged in...it will never work. ;-)
>
> James Redmon
> Berkut #013 N97TX
> http://www.berkut13.com
>
> ---
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=58764#58764
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-av(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static port on Dynon AoA probe |
Ernest Christley wrote:
> 1) build another tube into the streamlined mounting post pointing forward
> 2) design ports into the side of the streamlined tube mounting post
If you examine the pitot tube on a Yak-52 or CJ6A you will find that the
static ports are in a ring around the pitot tube about 1" back from the
front. The whole assembly sticks out of the leading edge of the wing by
about 16". It works just peachy and the errors are minimal.
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static port on Dynon AoA probe |
On 31 Aug 2006, at 09:38, Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> This only has a cursory connection to electronics in airplanes, but
> I still thought it would be the best place to ask.
> The Dynon AoA probe doesn't have provisions for a static port. It
> was designed with the expectation that the ports would be located
> on the sides of the fuselage. That's not such a good location in a
> Delta. The only flat space to put a port would be along the
> turtleback, aft of the cockpit, which would put them deep inside of
> the wing's wake. The readings would be all over the place. The
> plans location is for the static probe to be low on the front
> leading edge, along with the pitot.
> I have to build a mounting post for the Dynon probe (again, the
> available mounting kits are designed for RVs, and don't match up to
> the Delta's curves and angles) which is basically a streamline tube
> flaring into the wing. I can see two options:
>
> 1) build another tube into the streamlined mounting post pointing
> forward
> 2) design ports into the side of the streamlined tube mounting post
>
> The second option would look nicer and be aerodynamically cleaner
> (for a sufficiently small value of aerodynamically clean). The
> question is, where along the streamline crossection would I put the
> port in order to reliably pick up static pressure? Would it be
> better to have a length of flat section to put the ports in, and if
> so, how big would a flat spot need to be? I'm making this mounting
> post from composite, so complex shape isn't an issue.
There is no reliable way to predict an exact probe profile and
location that will give an acceptable static source. I have been
involved with two projects that tried to chose locations for static
pressure ports. One project, on a type-certificated light aircraft,
used engineering analysis and experience to chose a static port
location. The chosen location had large errors, and the easiest
solution was to launch into a fly, fix, fly approach, using a
modified Piper pitot-static port. They kept on changing the angle on
the bottom of the Piper port until they found an acceptable
compromise. I recall that there were at least four configurations
tested, maybe more.
The other project, on a large business jet, had a much larger
budget. They used computational flow dynamics (CFD) computer
predictions to chose a static port location. The chosen location
produced such large errors at high angle of attack that the indicated
airspeed would stagnate as you approached the stall, then it would
start increasing as you got closer to the stall. It was fixed by
putting a very complicated correction curve in an air data computer.
Bottom line - the best bet is to copy exactly what someone else has
done, assuming they have a successful installation with acceptable
errors. If you start experimenting, the best chance of success is to
get the static port as far ahead of the wing as possible. Any
location near the wing is a recipe for trouble, as the wing's purpose
is to modify the local pressures to create lift, and a static port
needs to see the far-field ambient pressure. If you put a "roll your
own" system near the wing, expect to find large errors. If you enjoy
flight testing, this is a good thing, as it will keep you busy for
months doing fly, fix, fly.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
So... for all these reasons, I plan on adding a power switch to each
EFIS screen. My current plan is to continue using fuses,
but add a DPDT ON-OFF-ON switch, possibly with a "guard".
With the guard down, it would be in the "normal ON" position and
connected to a fuse in the E-Bus. In the "center OFF" position
the screen would be off. In the "alternate ON" position with the
guard up, it would be connected to a different fuse directly on the main
bus.
This gives me the ability to:
1) reboot just one screen
2) turn off one screen (to save power, heat, etc..)
3) take a "second shot" if the first fuse pops, by switching to the
"alternate ON"
4) gain back the voltage lost through the diode to the E-Bus (the
second fuse goes direclty to Bus1)
Greg
I am planning something similar, but some time ago I realized that when
one wants to go from "normal ON" to "alternate ON", or backwards, it is
not possible without rebooting the unit, since you will have to pass by
the central OFF position of the DPDT switch, which will cut power to
unit. How can this be solved?
I looked for a OFF - ON - ON switch but didn't find it. Does it exist?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: downside of manual battery disconnects? |
---- D Wysong wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any experience with the manual battery
> disconnects that the hot rod folks use?
>
> Has anyone heard any issues with corrosion or failures or
> horror stories floating around about these things?
>
> Are certain brands better than others?
>
> Are any (for whatever reason) more suitable for aircraft use
> than others?
>
> Thanks for the insight!
>
> D
D
I would suggest getting a brand name unit. The German made Hella brand is very
good quality. You can find them at your local marine supply store.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nancy Ghertner <nghertner(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
On 8/30/06 9:10 PM, "gert" wrote:
>
> begs the question, what about the current crop of electronic engine
> instruments, ya all keep them off till u engine is running.
> What good are they if u can't have them on during engine start ;-)
> so u wait till the engine is running, switch u electronic instruments on
> to discover u have no oil pressure, oops....somehow i don't think i want
> Blue Mountain to check my oil pressure if i have to have their system
> off during engine start.
>
> A DeMarzo wrote:
>> And I think that I would spring for a $10 switch as just a tiny bit
>> more protection on my $3000 instrument.
>>
>> Spikes Happen
>>
>> Al
>> General Aviation - Pricing People Out Daily
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/30/2006 7:56:01 AM, Bill Denton (bdenton(at)bdenton.com
>> ) wrote:
>>> Dynon disagrees...
>>>
>>> The following exchange came from
>>> Dynon's message board:
>>>
>>> Question: "I've just installed my D10A and as
>>> advised in the instructions wired it through a 2 amp fuse. Since I
>>> didn't order the internal battery, I did not connect the "stay
>> alive" wire and also did not install a separate power switch. The unit
>> comes on when I turn on the master switch without my pressing the unit's
>>> power button. I assume this in normal, but can I have problems with
>> power
>>> spikes during engine start? Should I install a separate power switch in
>>> the Dynon circuit? If not, should I turn off the EFIS before engine
>>> start?"
>>>
>>>
>>> Answer, from Dynon Support:
>>>
>>> "The EFIS is indeed
>>> designed to come alive when power is applied.
>>>
>>> Many customers install the EFIS in exactly the same electrical
>>> configuration you have set up. The unit will not be damaged by having it
>>> on during engine start, but it may reboot if the voltage momentarily
>> drops
>>> below 10V.
>>>
>>> Also, since you did not purchase the internal battery, you may want to
>>> connect the keep alive wire to power the clock when your master
>> switch is
>>> off. Otherwise it will reset after every power
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
You can hook up a back up battery either for the Blue Mountain alone with a
diode in the circuit available on their website, or as I am doing use the
back up battery for the emergency bus to power up the efis before start up.
Lory Ghertner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters |
In a message dated 8/31/2006 8:53:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
Don't understand why. The current ratings for choosing wire
size from charts like those found in AC43-13 or chapter
8 of the 'Connection are already de-rated for 10C temperature
rise. The 6A lamp cited in the original post would not
seriously warm an inductor wound with 22AWG (5A rated) wire.
Bob . . .
Bob,
When wire is wound in a transformer or choke, the density of the power loss
is much greater than even in a bundle of wires. A typical design value is
500 to 1000 circular mils per amp. Solid number 22 wire is 25.3 mils in
diameter and has about 643 circular mils. Therefore it is only rated for about
1
amp when wound in a multi layered coil. Operating a number 22 enamel wire at
5 amps continuously when it is tightly surrounded by more number 22 enamel
wire also carrying 5 amps would cause it to overheat.
Dan Hopper
Retired electrical engineer and transformer nut.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters |
Bob,
Sorry, after rereading all the posts on this subject, I made a wrong
assumption in writing the reply below. The reply still is correct, but probably
not
applicable.
Dan
In a message dated 8/31/2006 7:54:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com writes:
In a message dated 8/31/2006 8:53:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
Don't understand why. The current ratings for choosing wire
size from charts like those found in AC43-13 or chapter
8 of the 'Connection are already de-rated for 10C temperature
rise. The 6A lamp cited in the original post would not
seriously warm an inductor wound with 22AWG (5A rated) wire.
Bob . . .
Bob,
When wire is wound in a transformer or choke, the density of the power loss
is much greater than even in a bundle of wires. A typical design value is
500 to 1000 circular mils per amp. Solid number 22 wire is 25.3 mils in
diameter and has about 643 circular mils. Therefore it is only rated for about
1
amp when wound in a multi layered coil. Operating a number 22 enamel wire at
5 amps continuously when it is tightly surrounded by more number 22 enamel
wire also carrying 5 amps would cause it to overheat.
Dan Hopper
Retired electrical engineer and transformer nut.
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
I am planning something similar, but some time ago I realized that when
one wants to go from "normal ON" to "alternate ON", or backwards, it is
not possible without rebooting the unit, since you will have to pass by
the central OFF position of the DPDT switch, which will cut power to
unit. How can this be solved?
I looked for a OFF - ON - ON switch but didn't find it. Does it exist?
Carlos
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
The switch you are looking for is the Master Switch that B&C sells (the
S-10 - $19.50).
See:
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2-10
This is a double-pole switch, which may be more than you need, but getting a
single pole version will be a $pecial order item from someplace like Digikey
or Mouser or OnlineComponents and probably take a while to get.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
you could wire in a pushbutton, normally open, switch, to bypass normal
switch, and push it in to keep power on the unit while you operate the "normal
on" to "alternate on" switch. If added switch failed then you would be back as
before push button switch was added. I would add PB switch adjacent to
existing switch.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: downside of manual battery disconnects? |
>
>Does anyone have any experience with the manual battery disconnects that
>the hot rod folks use?
Piper Tri-Pacers and Pacers of the 1950's had manual
battery master -AND- starter switches in them. While
they limited the options for location (had to have fat-wire
control devices in reach of pilot - and generally NOT on the
panel) they functioned as intended.
>Has anyone heard any issues with corrosion or failures or horror stories
>floating around about these things?
Everything corrodes. Most switches in service die of
environmental issues . . . not from service stresses.
>Are certain brands better than others?
The use of these devices is so small a part of the
constellation of choices as to make any significant
field comparisons of devices difficult if not impossible
>Are any (for whatever reason) more suitable for aircraft use than others?
Airplanes are not terribly unique . . . especially if one
crafts a failure tolerant design. Suppose your battery
switch DOES crap . . . so what? If you're wired like a
Tripacer, then your panel is black. If you're wired like
Z-11, it's no big deal. Take a peak at:
http://harborfreight.com and search for item 92688-1VGA
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 |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters |
>Oh! When choosing the wire size, do NOT go by the Mil-Spec wire size used in
>wiring the plane. I would DOUBLE that wire size.
Don't understand why. The current ratings for choosing wire
size from charts like those found in AC43-13 or chapter
8 of the 'Connection are already de-rated for 10C temperature
rise. The 6A lamp cited in the original post would not
seriously warm an inductor wound with 22AWG (5A rated) wire.
Bob . . .
==================================
Hello Bob:
You have me smiling ...
Now how did I know you were going to question this part :-)
Let me start off by asking a LOADED QUESTION:
What determines the current handling capabilities of a wire?
I should wait at this point for a responce, but concidering that the question
is also put the site's reading public ... I will guess at their answer and
maybe yours.
That being: The diameter, cross-sectional area of the wire.
Does that sound like the most given answer? And it is a logical answer. But
not the whole story. I did say it was a LOADED QUESTION.
So to unload the answer:
The Determining factor is the INSULATION, the thickness and type.
Here is why. You have to ask the questions: What fails? And How?
There are two failures. As the wire heats up, it heats up so much that it
MELTS the insulation. FAILURE ... This exposes the wire to do any combination
of events: Fire, short to ground - case - airframe or melt into and short to
another wire.
The other failure is crystalization of the wire from the heat. Usually
repeated heat and that leads to the wire failing in an OPEN. This is not the norm.
The norm is the insulation FAILING.
Now, most builders do use Mil-Spec wire and the Mil-Spec wire does have a
higher tempature rating and dialectric rating. So what determines the current
handling capabilities of a wire? INSULATION - Told ya it was Loaded!
Lets switch to the coil construction I mentioned. You said 30 Turns ... Only
30 Turns? Way Much More than 30 turns can fit on a form that has a 1/2" ID
and a 1" OD and 2" Long ... That gives you 1/4" of room to build up and about 1
1/4" length to fill. I haven't worked out the Henry's (inductance) of the
coil and quite honestly it does not matter. Too much engineering and not enough
practicality. I know the size will work. How do I know? A life of
experimentation! I have been getting my ass shocked since I was 11 years old :-)
As the commercial says: Try it you'll like it. As we say here in NJ: Don't
worry about it!
O! For the size of the wire -- I would suggest 18 or 16 AWG enameled
(Transformer) wire. It should handle the current and both circuit heat and engine
heat. And even with this large size wire you should be able to get way more
than 30 turns.
Try it you'll like it. We are the EAA, Experiment!
Happy Toe Tingles.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters |
>In a message dated 8/31/2006 8:53:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
> Don't understand why. The current ratings for choosing wire
> size from charts like those found in AC43-13 or chapter
> 8 of the 'Connection are already de-rated for 10C temperature
> rise. The 6A lamp cited in the original post would not
> seriously warm an inductor wound with 22AWG (5A rated) wire.
>
> Bob . . .
>Bob,
>
>When wire is wound in a transformer or choke, the density of the power
>loss is much greater than even in a bundle of wires. A typical design
>value is 500 to 1000 circular mils per amp. Solid number 22 wire is 25.3
>mils in diameter and has about 643 circular mils. Therefore it is only
>rated for about 1 amp when wound in a multi layered coil. Operating a
>number 22 enamel wire at 5 amps continuously when it is tightly surrounded
>by more number 22 enamel wire also carrying 5 amps would cause it to overheat.
Define "overheat". I'm aware of the transformer design
philosophies but were talking about a single layer solenoid
wound inductor. The amount of current a 22AWG wire can carry
without damaging its insulation is huge compared to the de-rating
we impose for bundling and/or voltage drops.
The 22AWG wire you see at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/20A_22AWG.jpg
had been carrying 20A for several minutes at the time this
picture was taken. The temperature as monitored by the
thermocouple in the photo was still well below operating
limits for the wire.
One of the most difficult concepts to illuminate with
respect to wires is that the recommended current RATINGS for
wires are chosen for a suite of inter-related effects not
the least of which is insulation type and ability of the
wire to reject heat - as installed. The values cited in the
wire bundle charts are not even close to being LIMITS beyond
which one may expect smoke, fire and otherwise unhappy times
in the cockpit.
For the case cited (single layer inductor) the charted
rating for 22AWG at 5A would be quite conservative even
for the 6+ amp landing light cited . . . assuming that
the inductive approach to inrush limiting was useful.
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: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
Good Morning All,
Since I am an electrical neophyte, I should stay out
of this discussion, but may I mention that several
airliners I flew in a previous life had two basic
types of switches used for system control.
Most were the familiar snap type which "broke" the
first circuit before "making" the next. Others were
made such that the second circuit was connected before
the first was disconnected. Naturally, the old style
were called "break before make" and the others called
were "make before break".
How they worked mechanically is way beyond me, but it
does seem that a "make before break" style switch
might be s just what you want.
Hopefully, they are available at a cost and weight
that would work!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, IL
LL22
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- PSILeD(at)aol.com wrote:
> you could wire in a pushbutton, normally open,
> switch, to bypass normal
> switch, and push it in to keep power on the unit
> while you operate the "normal
> on" to "alternate on" switch. If added switch failed
> then you would be back as
> before push button switch was added. I would add PB
> switch adjacent to
> existing switch.
>
> Paul
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters |
In a message dated 9/1/06 8:12:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nuckollsr(at)cox.net
writes:
> Define "overheat". I'm aware of the transformer design
> philosophies but were talking about a single layer solenoid
> wound inductor.
==============================
Who said!
I said a form of 1/2" ID, 1" OD and 2" Long. That is no single layer ... Not
unless you are using 1/4" thick wire.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static port on Dynon AoA probe |
rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
>Hello Ernest
>
>"The Dynon probe does nothing more than implement what this gentleman
>describes. As I understand it, the exact dimensions aren't critical, as
>it has to be calibrated for each airplane anyway. Look on the Dynon site.
> They give the calibration procedures, and it is exactly what Mark and
>David describe. As for exact dimensions:
>3/4" aluminum tube that tapers down to 3/8" for the pitot, which is pushed
>up to the top.
>The bottom of the head has a triangular slice cut off at a 30 degree angle
>from the bottom. The AoA sense hole is 5/8" from the tip. A little less
>than 8" long."
>
>I am not certain that the Zodiac home made probe is doing the exact same
>thing as the Dynon.
>http://www.ch601.org/resources/aoa/aoa.htm
>
>What size is the size of the port hole of the Dynon AOA hole?
>What angle is the port hole drilled in relation to the sliced face?
>Is the sliced face flat or has a slight radius?
>
>Thx.
>Sincerely
>Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
It's about a 1/16th hole drilled tangentially to a flat face. The hole
size and location aren't critical. The critical part is that you need
two 'pitot' ports pointing forward at different angles. As you change
angle of attack, the relative pressures on these two ports will change.
It's a relative pressure between just those two ports, so static
pressure or absolute dynamic pressure (from airspeed) are unimportant
and ignored. As you slow down to where the wing can't maintain
altitude, the wind is not coming straight at you, even if the nose is
still on the horizon. Riding the edge of stall with a power out, you
could be headed down at a 45degree angle even though the plane is in a
level attitude. As you're sinking, it is coming from below. The lower
pitot will 'feel' more of the rising air than the forward pointing one.
How much more it 'feels' will rely completely on AoA. Now all that's
necessary is a sensitive differential gauge to measure both pressures,
the calibration procedure will set a couple of points that correspond to
"doin' fine" and "lift all gone". Just throw in a semi-arbitrary red,
yellow and green ranges, and you're good to go.
It really is a simple yet profound concept.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Logic and experience) |
Bob:
I probably don't have scientific evidence of why I have
the opinions I do or why it differs from yours. I do have
logic and personal experience to share.
We do agree that checklist are good, and from an
electrical standpoint most alternators (not all) don't care
if you turn them ON before or after start. OK?
HOWEVER given the choice I say turn the ALT ON with
the BAT before start and than back OFF together with the
BAT after engine shut down. I'll explain.
**Let me tell you all a little story first**
One of my students many years ago was going on one of
her solo cross country flights. Well she made one
mistake and turned the battery on and accidentally left
the ALT off (Cessna split switch). She took off enroute
and did not note the discharge, mistake two. Never the
less I can see it happening to anyone. She realized her
error and proceed to turn the ALT on. Because the
battery was now discharged it demanded a large current,
it popped the CB with the combined load of lights, radios
and battery charging. She did not think to "load shed"
first, before resetting the CB.
Well from then on she was perfect. She noted the CB
pop, let cool, reset once and left it out when it popped
the 2nd time. She did a 180 and than did an electrical
load shed to save the remaining battery. Nearing the
airport she powered the Comm up and landed without
further incidence. Yes she should have turned the ALT
on first; Yes she should have checked for charge right
after start; Yes she probably would have been successful
resetting the CB if she would have turned the strobes and
avionics off first, before turning the ALT on; however I
never taught her this. To be sure from than on I went
over this in detail with all students using Machado's
water flow analogy. (End of STORY)
Here is how I arrived at my opinions:
ONE - ANYTHING that can assure you don't make a
mistake, like in the above story, is good. KEEP IT
SIMPLE. Turning the ALT on first before start with the
BAT is one of those KISS methods and step reducing
things. IT MAKES SENSE to me and is LOGICAL to
me, less steps are better. It's obvious if the BAT is not
on, Right? Nothing happens. Turning the BAT/ALT on
together is goodness in my opinion, you're less likely to
forget the ALT. Tie the ALT and BAT together
procedurally. We can agree to disagree. My argument or
logical reason is LESS STEPS are BETTER from a
human factor stand point (not electrical).
The caveat is if the AFM calls for something different,
like an old twin with generators or the B737 I use to fly,
than do that. (The B757/767 brings the Gens online
automatically; yea!)
TWO - Most factory planes call for ALT/BAT turned on
together; why not follow a standard which will aid
transition and proficiency of other pilots across different
planes, aka, why be different? My over all
recommendations to anyone designing their panel or
procedures, keep it simple and follow the traditional
layouts and procedures as much as possible. Cessna puts
the master, BAT and ALT switch together in a split
toggle design for a reason, they are normally actuate
together. I think Cessna got it right. Again it's my
OPINION and apparently Cessna's opinion. Granted in
my above story even the split switch is not fail-safe, but
it helps.
Bob, you can INSERT your argument in HERE that
there should be a low volt idiot light. I agree, but that is
POOR Airmanship to rely on idiot lights to configure the
plane's electrical system properly.
If you want me to prove my opinion or explain my logic
better than I already have, I can't. I have no top secret
oscilloscope plots to prove my opinion. It really is not
an electrical thing, it's more human factors.
My opinion is based on 12,000 hrs flt time & counting,
CFI, ATP, airline and engineer for Boeing, which
involved evaluating check list and teaching flight crews.
As a former CFI-CFII-MEI, in over 20 different
make/models of GA planes, almost all did not REQUIRE
a separate ALT throwing step. You say so what? I say
follow the standard. However if the AFM/Checklist say
do it, than you are bound by FAR's to follow it. Can you
imagine forgetting the ALT because of a modified
procedures which got you into a pickle like my student
but violating airspace because you where NO RADIO.
Than the FAA asks, why? you say:
**Oh I throw the ALT switch after start, even though the
checklist says otherwise, because I think it's better,
but I forgot this time.**
hummmm
Can you say violation and licence revoked? I love pilots
who are too cool to BLINDLY follow checklist. Follow the
darn checklist. It's not trivial or just to evaluate pilots by,
it's the safety net of aviation, use it. Some day pilots flying
a C-150 may be in a G-V or B747 and good checklist
discipline is critical. Its just good Airmanship and I don't
need any data to prove standardization is goodness.
Experimental, do what ever you want, but suggest you try
to consider the traditional or standard procedures as a
starting point.
Exception to the RULE - Internally regulated Alternators
Again it does not matter from an electronics stand point
for most alternators when you turn them ON or OFF except
for internally regulated alternators. Since there's no I-VR
alternators on factory planes, it only affects experimental
aircraft that use them.
I always have recommended I-VR alternators be ON
before cranking the engine and OFF after engine shut
down. The logical reason is, I-VR alternators are based
on an automotive application. I again ask rhetorically,
"How many cars need the driver to activate the alternator
separately?" The answer is none. If using a I-VR
alternator, it's logical to operate it the same way as it
does in the automobile, for which it was designed.
The second reason for not cycling internally regulated
alternators while they're spinning is they can fail. From
my experience and those of many I have helped and
corresponded with, who had I-VR alternator problems,
they all had a common thread, they played switch
monkey with the ALT (IGN) switch. Anecdotal yes, but
it's what I got, take it or leave it.
Technically IC chips inside some I-VR's have delays and
soft start functions most external voltage regulators
don't have, including the B&C unit. By using an internal
V-regulator to switch high amps ON/OFF is needless and
counter to its design. Again, no scientific bench test or
scope traces to show. Take it or leave it. Fact is I-VR's are
microprocessor controlled in many cases and don't need
or benefit from pilot switch monkey intervention (my opinion).
Again my LOGIC, my EXPERIENCE, my OPINION and
research into I-VR designs is the basis of my comments.
I have no scientific proof that will make you happy Bob,
sorry. The best I got, take it or leave it.
Now Bob tell me why turning the ALT on and off as a
separate step, post-start is superior? (Forget electrons,
think like a pilot for a minute.)
Regards George M, CFII-MEI, ATP, B73/75/76/CE500, MSME
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Logic and |
experience)
George,
Thank you for the lucid explanation of how you arrived at your opinions.
It does make sense and, to me anyway, the rationale is solid.
IMHO, the only thing I would have suggested you leave out of your post
was your challenge to Bob to argue a point - why? Is there anything,
really, to be gained? If he disagreed with your points, it is his
option to pick up the keyboard and whack away - with the challenge, it
becomes less his choice, as a point of "honor." This is much as a
slanderous comment many years ago might have resulted in a pistol duel
challenge. Hopefully, we have advanced beyond that mode for addressing
disagreements.
Keep up the good explanations for your opinions - it can help us all to
better understand.
Regards,
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, 01 September, 2006 11:36
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Turn on ALT before engine start?
(Logic and experience)
Bob:
I probably don't have scientific evidence of why I have
the opinions I do or why it differs from yours. I do have
logic and personal experience to share.
We do agree that checklist are good, and from an
electrical standpoint most alternators (not all) don't care
if you turn them ON before or after start. OK?
HOWEVER given the choice I say turn the ALT ON with
the BAT before start and than back OFF together with the
BAT after engine shut down. I'll explain.
**Let me tell you all a little story first**
One of my students many years ago was going on one of
her solo cross country flights. Well she made one
mistake and turned the battery on and accidentally left
the ALT off (Cessna split switch). She took off enroute
and did not note the discharge, mistake two. Never the
less I can see it happening to anyone. She realized her
error and proceed to turn the ALT on. Because the
battery was now discharged it demanded a large current,
it popped the CB with the combined load of lights, radios
and battery charging. She did not think to "load shed"
first, before resetting the CB.
Well from then on she was perfect. She noted the CB
pop, let cool, reset once and left it out when it popped
the 2nd time. She did a 180 and than did an electrical
load shed to save the remaining battery. Nearing the
airport she powered the Comm up and landed without
further incidence. Yes she should have turned the ALT
on first; Yes she should have checked for charge right
after start; Yes she probably would have been successful
resetting the CB if she would have turned the strobes and
avionics off first, before turning the ALT on; however I
never taught her this. To be sure from than on I went
over this in detail with all students using Machado's
water flow analogy. (End of STORY)
Here is how I arrived at my opinions:
ONE - ANYTHING that can assure you don't make a
mistake, like in the above story, is good. KEEP IT
SIMPLE. Turning the ALT on first before start with the
BAT is one of those KISS methods and step reducing
things. IT MAKES SENSE to me and is LOGICAL to
me, less steps are better. It's obvious if the BAT is not
on, Right? Nothing happens. Turning the BAT/ALT on
together is goodness in my opinion, you're less likely to
forget the ALT. Tie the ALT and BAT together
procedurally. We can agree to disagree. My argument or
logical reason is LESS STEPS are BETTER from a
human factor stand point (not electrical).
The caveat is if the AFM calls for something different,
like an old twin with generators or the B737 I use to fly,
than do that. (The B757/767 brings the Gens online
automatically; yea!)
TWO - Most factory planes call for ALT/BAT turned on
together; why not follow a standard which will aid
transition and proficiency of other pilots across different
planes, aka, why be different? My over all
recommendations to anyone designing their panel or
procedures, keep it simple and follow the traditional
layouts and procedures as much as possible. Cessna puts
the master, BAT and ALT switch together in a split
toggle design for a reason, they are normally actuate
together. I think Cessna got it right. Again it's my
OPINION and apparently Cessna's opinion. Granted in
my above story even the split switch is not fail-safe, but
it helps.
Bob, you can INSERT your argument in HERE that
there should be a low volt idiot light. I agree, but that is
POOR Airmanship to rely on idiot lights to configure the
plane's electrical system properly.
If you want me to prove my opinion or explain my logic
better than I already have, I can't. I have no top secret
oscilloscope plots to prove my opinion. It really is not
an electrical thing, it's more human factors.
My opinion is based on 12,000 hrs flt time & counting,
CFI, ATP, airline and engineer for Boeing, which
involved evaluating check list and teaching flight crews.
As a former CFI-CFII-MEI, in over 20 different
make/models of GA planes, almost all did not REQUIRE
a separate ALT throwing step. You say so what? I say
follow the standard. However if the AFM/Checklist say
do it, than you are bound by FAR's to follow it. Can you
imagine forgetting the ALT because of a modified
procedures which got you into a pickle like my student
but violating airspace because you where NO RADIO.
Than the FAA asks, why? you say:
**Oh I throw the ALT switch after start, even though the
checklist says otherwise, because I think it's better,
but I forgot this time.**
hummmm
Can you say violation and licence revoked? I love pilots
who are too cool to BLINDLY follow checklist. Follow the
darn checklist. It's not trivial or just to evaluate pilots by,
it's the safety net of aviation, use it. Some day pilots flying
a C-150 may be in a G-V or B747 and good checklist
discipline is critical. Its just good Airmanship and I don't
need any data to prove standardization is goodness.
Experimental, do what ever you want, but suggest you try
to consider the traditional or standard procedures as a
starting point.
Exception to the RULE - Internally regulated Alternators
Again it does not matter from an electronics stand point
for most alternators when you turn them ON or OFF except
for internally regulated alternators. Since there's no I-VR
alternators on factory planes, it only affects experimental
aircraft that use them.
I always have recommended I-VR alternators be ON
before cranking the engine and OFF after engine shut
down. The logical reason is, I-VR alternators are based
on an automotive application. I again ask rhetorically,
"How many cars need the driver to activate the alternator
separately?" The answer is none. If using a I-VR
alternator, it's logical to operate it the same way as it
does in the automobile, for which it was designed.
The second reason for not cycling internally regulated
alternators while they're spinning is they can fail. From
my experience and those of many I have helped and
corresponded with, who had I-VR alternator problems,
they all had a common thread, they played switch
monkey with the ALT (IGN) switch. Anecdotal yes, but
it's what I got, take it or leave it.
Technically IC chips inside some I-VR's have delays and
soft start functions most external voltage regulators
don't have, including the B&C unit. By using an internal
V-regulator to switch high amps ON/OFF is needless and
counter to its design. Again, no scientific bench test or
scope traces to show. Take it or leave it. Fact is I-VR's are
microprocessor controlled in many cases and don't need
or benefit from pilot switch monkey intervention (my opinion).
Again my LOGIC, my EXPERIENCE, my OPINION and
research into I-VR designs is the basis of my comments.
I have no scientific proof that will make you happy Bob,
sorry. The best I got, take it or leave it.
Now Bob tell me why turning the ALT on and off as a
separate step, post-start is superior? (Forget electrons,
think like a pilot for a minute.)
Regards George M, CFII-MEI, ATP, B73/75/76/CE500, MSME
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Logic and |
experience)
George,
Yours is one of those dark and stormy night stories. I've got one like
it where I blew the alternator breaker on our C-150 when the engine
surged a few times and then quit. I didn't realize that the breaker was
blown. I was busy trying to find a place to land. I also neglected to
shed lighting loads. The airport within gliding range was obscured by a
cloud bank and while I was consulting the GPS for a heading and
distance, it rebooted for lack of voltage. I did not need this extra
pucker factor at this time. Once on the ground, I figured out what had
happened to the electrics and also figured out what I could have done
better.
The thing is - Cessnas are designed to blow the circuit breaker. It's
obviously not sized right. It should be able to handle what the
alternator can throw at it. It should not require exceptional airmanship
to keep the electrical system running. It's badly designed. Your student
was suckered by more bad Cessna design. The split rocker switch is a bad
idea. It begs to be mishandled. The POH calls for the alternator switch
to be cycled during the run-up and the ammeter to be observed to verify
that the alternator is charging. This is unnecessary. All that you need
to do to check the alternator is to look at the voltmeter. If it's low,
shed some load and look again. You don't need to turn it off and on to
see if it is working.
What we have the option to do in our "experimental" aircraft is to use a
better design that doesn't nuisance trip and that does inform us when
the voltage is low so that we can figure out what's going on and what to
do about it before the battery is drained.
The point Bob made was that, from the charging system's viewpoint, it
doesn't matter much in what order you turn them on or if the engine is
started first. A guy asked the question. Bob answered it. He never said
that turning the alternator on after engine start was the superior
technique. He just said that the charging system wouldn't care.
By the way, while you are arguing the fine point of when to turn on the
alternator, please note that many of Bob's Z figures call for a double
pole master switch which turns on the master and alternator field
simultaneously. That's the way I wired our RV. It works fine. One can't
very well forget to turn on the alternator. Simple is good.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Turn on ALT before engine start? (Logic
and experience)
**Let me tell you all a little story first**
One of my students many years ago was going on one of
her solo cross country flights. Well she made one
mistake and turned the battery on and accidentally left
the ALT off (Cessna split switch). She took off enroute
and did not note the discharge, mistake two. Never the
less I can see it happening to anyone. She realized her
error and proceed to turn the ALT on. Because the
battery was now discharged it demanded a large current,
it popped the CB with the combined load of lights, radios
and battery charging. She did not think to "load shed"
first, before resetting the CB.
Well from then on she was perfect. She noted the CB
pop, let cool, reset once and left it out when it popped
the 2nd time. She did a 180 and than did an electrical
load shed to save the remaining battery. Nearing the
airport she powered the Comm up and landed without
further incidence. Yes she should have turned the ALT
on first; Yes she should have checked for charge right
after start; Yes she probably would have been successful
resetting the CB if she would have turned the strobes and
avionics off first, before turning the ALT on; however I
never taught her this. To be sure from than on I went
over this in detail with all students using Machado's
water flow analogy. (End of STORY)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: downside of manual battery disconnects? |
In a message dated 8/31/06 5:31:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hdwysong(at)gmail.com writes:
> Does anyone have any experience with the manual battery
> disconnects that the hot rod folks use?
>
> Has anyone heard any issues with corrosion or failures or
> horror stories floating around about these things?
>
> Are certain brands better than others?
>
> Are any (for whatever reason) more suitable for aircraft use
> than others?
>
> Thanks for the insight!
>
> D
================================
D:
I am not familiar with the Hot Rod system but I am very familiar with the
Boat system. I have designed a dual battery system around a very robust and easy
to use A - B Battery switch. Corrosion should not be an issue since it is
enclosed and designed to work around salt water.
Go to your local chandlery and see what they offer.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Lee" <bob(at)flyboybob.com> |
| Subject: | OV Module additional requirement |
Bob,
I have upgraded my engine from mag to electronic ignition and carb to fuel
injection. This has increased the electrical demand far in excess of the 20
amp alternator that is supplied with my engine. I am using Z13-20 with a 40
amp alternator installed in the mag drive of the engine.
My load analysis shows 59 amps with everything on (including pitot heat).
Therefore I would like to be able to run both alternators together as my
standard operation. Now lets make the assumption that one of the
alternators has an OV event. Using the existing Crowbar OVM revE as a base
line I would like to know if it is possible to remove the wire between pinA
of the Gate S6025L, and add an additional output from the OVM to be the trip
for the alternator field. The existing positive connection of the OVM would
be connected to the alternator B+ as a sense lead.
I have a schematic of this idea at
http://flyboybob.com/images/kr2/n52bl/electric%20and%20instrument/ov001-rev2
-4.jpg to illistrate my question.
The power distribution has the two alternators each with a separate OVM
comming together at the battery contactor on opposite sides which puts the
battery between B+ power feeds of the two alternators.
That's the background, now the question:
Would an OVMs be able to sence the offending high voltage alternator and
only trip that one alternator off line? Or would the battery not be able to
clamp the OV event long enough to prevent the OVM on the good alternator
from tripping too?
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA
91% done only 65% to go!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W Livingston" <livingjw(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Static port on Dynon AoA probe |
The pressure differential, and hence needle position, will be proportional
to angle of attack but the amount of needle movement for a given change in
AoA will change with speed (i.e. dynamic pressure). You need to divide the
differential signal by the dynamic pressure to obtain a signal that does not
vary with speed. Then you can correlate the signal to AoA independent of
speed. For an aircraft with a limited upper speed range the instrument as
described might be useful, but it isn't quite an AoA indicator.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static port on Dynon AoA probe
-->
rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
>Hello Ernest
>
>"The Dynon probe does nothing more than implement what this gentleman
>describes. As I understand it, the exact dimensions aren't critical,
>as it has to be calibrated for each airplane anyway. Look on the Dynon
>site. They give the calibration procedures, and it is exactly what
>Mark and David describe. As for exact dimensions: 3/4" aluminum tube
>that tapers down to 3/8" for the pitot, which is pushed up to the top.
>The bottom of the head has a triangular slice cut off at a 30 degree angle
>from the bottom. The AoA sense hole is 5/8" from the tip. A little less
>than 8" long."
>
>I am not certain that the Zodiac home made probe is doing the exact
>same thing as the Dynon. http://www.ch601.org/resources/aoa/aoa.htm
>
>What size is the size of the port hole of the Dynon AOA hole?
>What angle is the port hole drilled in relation to the sliced face?
>Is the sliced face flat or has a slight radius?
>
>Thx.
>Sincerely
>Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
It's about a 1/16th hole drilled tangentially to a flat face. The hole
size and location aren't critical. The critical part is that you need
two 'pitot' ports pointing forward at different angles. As you change
angle of attack, the relative pressures on these two ports will change.
It's a relative pressure between just those two ports, so static
pressure or absolute dynamic pressure (from airspeed) are unimportant
and ignored. As you slow down to where the wing can't maintain
altitude, the wind is not coming straight at you, even if the nose is
still on the horizon. Riding the edge of stall with a power out, you
could be headed down at a 45degree angle even though the plane is in a
level attitude. As you're sinking, it is coming from below. The lower
pitot will 'feel' more of the rising air than the forward pointing one.
How much more it 'feels' will rely completely on AoA. Now all that's
necessary is a sensitive differential gauge to measure both pressures,
the calibration procedure will set a couple of points that correspond to
"doin' fine" and "lift all gone". Just throw in a semi-arbitrary red,
yellow and green ranges, and you're good to go.
It really is a simple yet profound concept.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Campbell" <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is EFIS vulnerable at engine start? |
I considered a "Make before Break" switch on the
"ON-OFF-Alternate ON" switch, as well as a
momentary switch in parallel with the other switch.
This could work well, but only as long as BOTH the
"ON" and "Alternate ON" sources were *ON THE SAME BUS*.
The hazard would be if either "source" were on a different bus,
then if you use a small SPST switch to keep the EFIS alive
while you switch from "ON" to "Alternate ON", you face a very likely risk
of running MANY amps through a switch (& fuses) designed for FEW amps.
At a minimum, you'd probably smoke either or both fuses
protecting the EFIS, and then the EFIS would be dead.
A workable alternative would be a momentary OFF-(ON) DPST switch,
where each source is protected by a diode so it could ONLY feed the EFIS,
and would not attempt to serve as a cross-connect between the busses.
By putting the diodes on the momentary switch, you avoid having the diodes
permanently dropping the voltage going to the EFIS. When you're load
shedding,
you're probably least likely to want to have "extra" diodes in series with
your EFIS.
This starts to get a bit complex. The "pain" of having an EFIS screen
reboot
is fairly low. It might take 30 seconds or so. In the meantime, you could
leave the other EFIS screen on and barely miss the first one.
Much more important is keeping the AHRS system up & running.
The new Pinpoint Inertial AHRS supports two power inputs.
But the point is... you can't just casually switch to a "make-before-break"
switch
without considering what the sources are. You don't want to try running
your
landing light, pitot heat, nav lights, etc.. thru a switch & fuse rated at 5
amps.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vern Little <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring diagram software |
How about free, with a complete design already done that you can edit as
you want?
See http://vx-aviation.com/page_3.html
All of the details are available there to download what you want.
Vern Little
Eric Parlow wrote:
>
>
> What software is available to make wiring diagrams at a reasonable cost?
>
> Eric Parlow
> RV-10 Avionics
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt & Jo" <archermj(at)swbell.net> |
Hello all.
I will be using Z-16 with my Jabiru installation. The Jab Permanat Magnet
only puts out 20 Amps and I was considering using the Kilovac EV200 since it
has a low current draw. I saw some traffic earlier that there was a noise
problem with the Kilovac. Has anyone used the EV200 sucessfully. Are there
any tricks or technequies for this uint.
Matt
www.zodiacxl.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring diagram software |
Vern,
Thanks, Exactly what I was looking for.
Your site is very helpful and I appreciate you making the program available.
ERic--
RV-10
Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Logic and experience (was about alternators) |
>Bob:
>
>I probably don't have scientific evidence of why I have
>the opinions I do or why it differs from yours. I do have
>logic and personal experience to share.
>
>We do agree that checklist are good, and from an
>electrical standpoint most alternators (not all) don't care
>if you turn them ON before or after start. OK?
>
>HOWEVER given the choice I say turn the ALT ON with
>the BAT before start and than back OFF together with the
>BAT after engine shut down. I'll explain.
>
>
>**Let me tell you all a little story first**
>One of my students many years ago was going on one of
>her solo cross country flights. Well she made one
>mistake and turned the battery on and accidentally left
>the ALT off (Cessna split switch). . .
>Bob, you can INSERT your argument in HERE that
>there should be a low volt idiot light. I agree, but that is
>POOR Airmanship to rely on idiot lights to configure the
>plane's electrical system properly.
No argument. Never was probability of an argument. The
Cessna system design (and for most GA single engine
aircraft) sucks. The anecdote cited has nothing to do
with the question that started this thread.
>
>
>If you want me to prove my opinion or explain my logic
>better than I already have, I can't. I have no top secret
>oscilloscope plots to prove my opinion. It really is not
>an electrical thing, it's more human factors.
>
>My opinion is based on 12,000 hrs flt time & counting,
>CFI, ATP, airline and engineer for Boeing, which . . .
And I might have a lifetime of picking apples but
that doesn't make me an apple horticulturist. I've
spent 50 years getting my hands dirty, figuring out
how things work, designing new products and doing
my best to keep customers happy, but that doesn't
make me a human factors expert either.
I've never asked you to prove anything, only offer logical
foundation for your assertions . . . be a teacher
for the ideas you hold dear.
>
>**Oh I throw the ALT switch after start, even though the
>checklist says otherwise, because I think it's better,
>but I forgot this time.**
>
>hummmm
>
>Can you say violation and licence revoked? I love pilots
>who are too cool to BLINDLY follow checklist. Follow the
>darn checklist. It's not trivial or just to evaluate pilots by,
>it's the safety net of aviation, use it. Some day pilots flying
>a C-150 may be in a G-V or B747 and good checklist
>discipline is critical. Its just good Airmanship and I don't
>need any data to prove standardization is goodness.
Discipline IS critical and understanding leads to
the crafting of good checklists. But when we choose to
work in the type certificated aviation, we're
subject to the will and whim of many who exert a force
based on demands for our faith and fear of reprisal
for any transgressions. More on this later . . .
>
>Experimental, do what ever you want, but suggest you try
>to consider the traditional or standard procedures as a
>starting point.
. . . agreed . . . and then EXPAND on that to see
what's supported by the science and what makes sense for
achieving our own design goals. It's also wise to
acknowledge a strong probability that government and
industry have adopted certain practices for nothing more
than the sake of adopting common practices . . . but that's
a human factors thing . . .
>
>
>Exception to the RULE - Internally regulated Alternators
>
>Again it does not matter from an electronics stand point
>for most alternators when you turn them ON or OFF except
>for internally regulated alternators. Since there's no I-VR
>alternators on factory planes, it only affects experimental
>aircraft that use them.
NEVER argued against that. This is what prompted
the design goal to craft a way that the I-R alternator
can be seamlessly integrated into the classic architectures
so that their controllability shortfall is eliminated.
>
>I always have recommended I-VR alternators be ON
>before cranking the engine and OFF after engine shut
>down. The logical reason is, I-VR alternators are based
>on an automotive application. I again ask rhetorically,
>"How many cars need the driver to activate the alternator
>separately?" The answer is none. If using a I-VR
>alternator, it's logical to operate it the same way as it
>does in the automobile, for which it was designed.
If you embrace that philosophy, fly it in comfort
and peace. My customers have asked for more and
I'll do my best to deliver on it . . .
>
>The second reason for not cycling internally regulated
>alternators while they're spinning is they can fail. From
>my experience and those of many I have helped and
>corresponded with, who had I-VR alternator problems,
>they all had a common thread, they played switch
>monkey with the ALT (IGN) switch. Anecdotal yes, but
>it's what I got, take it or leave it.
Agreed. That's what prompted the TEMPORARY withdrawal
of Z-24 until a better system can be crafted. The
system integration problem can and will be solved.
>
>Technically IC chips inside some I-VR's have delays and
>soft start functions most external voltage regulators
>don't have, including the B&C unit. By using an internal
>V-regulator to switch high amps ON/OFF is needless and
>counter to its design. Again, no scientific bench test or
>scope traces to show. Take it or leave it. Fact is I-VR's are
>microprocessor controlled in many cases and don't need
>or benefit from pilot switch monkey intervention (my opinion).
>
>Again my LOGIC, my EXPERIENCE, my OPINION and
>research into I-VR designs is the basis of my comments.
>I have no scientific proof that will make you happy Bob,
>sorry. The best I got, take it or leave it.
Thanks, but I'll have to leave it. I'm not asking you to
make me happy. I'm not even trying to convince you
of anything. Your 'research' into IR alternators from
the engineering perspective has yet to demonstrate
a depth of information necessary to assist you in
becoming an illuminating resource on the topic.
>Now Bob tell me why turning the ALT on and off as a
>separate step, post-start is superior? (Forget electrons,
>think like a pilot for a minute.)
I'm wasn't arguing superior versus inferior. The question
was, "does it matter from the perspective of physics" and
my answer was "NO . . . except for the I-R alternator's
special case . . . which WILL be dealt with in a
rational manner."
You're a teacher of pilots. Craft any syllabus and
adopt any understanding of physics you wish which
your handlers will bless. I am a teacher of designers
and a provider of products. My customers are my "handlers"
and they've expressed interest in knowing how things work
so that they may judge the worth of my ideas and products for
themselves. I hold my own teachers to the same standards.
My goals are for a shared understanding, not faith.
As we're growing up, folks who hold authority over
us MUST operate under a philosophy of faith and fear: "I'm
the adult, you're the child. Trust me to know what's
best for you but know that failure to observe the
rules of my household may prove painful."
One hopes that as we transition from child to adult, we
acquire understanding and confidence: "I understand the nature
of the problem before me and I'm confident of my ability to
deal with it in an honorable, reasoned manner that minimizes
risk."
Unfortunately, many who SHOULD have made this transition
years ago are still subject to the pressures from those
who would exert influence on our lives under the doctrines
of faith/fear. There are individuals who elevate themselves
above what they've perceived as unfortunate, un-educable
masses and take on the role of eternal parent. This is in
contrast with the transient teacher who offers the best they know
and sends folks on their way in confidence to search for
new knowledge, skills and understanding.
A too-large proportion of our fellow citizens place almost
religious faith in policy, regulation, certification,
tradition, etc. I'm only suggesting that folks
who choose to join the OBAM aviation community have already
rejected a facet of mindless worship of tradition
and government's willingness to be the the eternal parent.
In the type certificated household we're told: "I'm in
charge here, the VALUE of my contribution is irrelevant and
your understanding matters not - do as I say or be sanctioned."
You are free to teach any philosophy you wish . . .
your students pay their tuition and take their chances.
That's the way it is in the hard, cold and cruel world
of consumer/supplier relationships. If your students
are content with value-received and you've delivered
on what you promised, then there's no argument from me . . .
especially if your willing to tell them, "I don't have any
science but this is what I believe." It's called "truth in
advertising". I would only counsel that what you offer should
liberating, not binding. This is the difference between
being a teacher and a propagandist.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | The alternator drive stand . . . |
I took a short trip yesterday in 'ol blue (a truck I inherited from
Dad) to take a look at the alternator drive stand I spoke of last
week. What a magnificent machine! Motor controlled variable speed
drive, well instrumented, self contained system simulator with
batteries, really beefy carbon pile load. Minimal barn-bird-crap
and rust. Best yet, mounted on casters.
Now the down side . . . it's fitted with a 10 hp, 440v three-phase
motor. I've been digging through the catalogs for reasonable
replacements that will run from the electron-pipe that comes into
my house.
I think I've identified a 5 hp, 240v single phase with the right
shaft diameter . . . and it's only $400 plus another $100 shipping.
When you're talking this size of motor, they start getting HEAVY!
I've made an agreement with the current owner to take over his
project with the proviso that he has access to it as needed and
that if I decide to get rid of it, he has first crack at it at
the "brother-in-law" price. Sounds like a deal to me.
I may well have this puppy up and running in my shop before
the end of the year.
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 >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kilovac EV200 |
Matt and all,
>
> I will be using Z-16 with my Jabiru installation. The Jab Permanat
> Magnet only puts out 20 Amps and I was considering using the Kilovac
> EV200 since it has a low current draw. I saw some traffic earlier
> that there was a noise problem with the Kilovac. Has anyone used the
> EV200 sucessfully. Are there any tricks or technequies for this uint.
>
As I may be the one who raised the EV200 noise issue, here are some info.
The circuit I designed is based on Z-16 with two batteries and two EV-200.
The he Low Voltage light failed to illuminate when the EV-200 was in
use. After much head scraching, I concluded that the Low Volage module
did not like what the EV-200 was throwing at the circuit.
After much head scratching (the Low Voltage module worked flawlessly
when the main EV-200 was open), I replaced it with a Perihelion model,
and everything has been working perfectly for nearly two years.
More on the LVW story at http://contrails.free.fr/elec_lvwm_en.php
By the way, the study conducted on the Rotax regulator, and the
suggestion from my electrician buddy on the sense (C) wire may have led
to the recent Z-16 update.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | RG batteries with 35A generators |
Bob,
I have been doing a lot of reading lately, and somewhere I was
reading an article on RG batteries - now I cannot find it anywhere -
that said if your aircraft system is a generator instead of an
alternator, and if it is a 35A or less system, you should not use an
RG battery. I believe I remember the statement came from a Concorde
spokesperson.
Do you know anything about such a limitation?
Thanks
Dave Morris
Mooney M20A
N6030X
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hello Bob
"Now the down side . . . it's fitted with a 10 hp, 440v three-phase motor.
I've been digging through the catalogs for reasonable replacements that
will run from the electron-pipe that comes into my house."
Hello Bob
"Now the down side . . . it's fitted with a 10 hp, 440v three-phase motor.
I've been digging through the catalogs for reasonable replacements that
will run from the electron-pipe that comes into my house."
Did you check to see if you can rewire the 440v motor for 220/240?
If you can, you could run it on 220v single phase and use a capacitor or
means of getting it turning to run it on single phase. Of course if you
get any garden variety of 3 phase motors 2 or more hp if you leave it run
as a phase converter, it will allow a start with reasonable torque. The
more 3 phase motors running on single phase, the stronger the third leg.
I have a 7.5hp and 3hp (physical motor) phase converter in my garage. Home
owners will not cover if 3 phase in house by power company. The way I did
it is have phase converters plugged into a giant 220 outlet. This makes
the Ins. Co. happy, they consider it an appliance.
Then I have output plumbed into a 3 phase panel and conduit to machines.
One machine I run is a Monarch EE which has a 5HP motor that turns a DC
generator. They do hocus pocus where they manage to get very good low
speed torque, and is fully controllable. That is the way they did it in
1941.
Anyway the Monarch motor was wired for 440 and I converted it to 220. One
minor problem is since you are halving the voltage, you will draw more
amps. The heaters used for internal breakers were too powerful, i needed
to change them out. Another malady is the third leg is not absolute clean,
I had some relay chatter, by switching to another leg that cured the
problem.
Working great since 1987. There has been a few times through the years
where I needed a lot of power. The 7.5 hp and the 5hp Monarch running
together is a little less powerful than pure 3 phase. I ran my 2hp
Bridgport and 2hp sander to aid the third leg. When really loading down
the motor, you could hear that it was happier with the 2 other machines
running.
Good luck!
Ron Parigoris
BTW I have do it yourself articles for making a friction drive (with aux 1
phase motor) or a phase shift capacitor with timer relay to get 3 phase
generator going. My 7.5 hp has a timer relay, but once running you need to
throw a switch, or else bad things happen when you shut down. The 3hp has
a simple push button, push it and once running let it go. I like the
push-button better!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kilovac EV200 |
>
>Hello all.
>
>I will be using Z-16 with my Jabiru installation. The Jab Permanat Magnet
>only puts out 20 Amps and I was considering using the Kilovac EV200 since
>it has a low current draw. I saw some traffic earlier that there was a
>noise problem with the Kilovac. Has anyone used the EV200
>sucessfully. Are there any tricks or technequies for this uint.
I've heard of several cases where folks have experienced
system interference from the EV200's duty cycle limited
coil controller. But before you pop for the $high$ contactor
to save a 0.7 amps of hold current, what were you planning
to use that 0.7 amps for?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
>
>Bob,
>
>I have been doing a lot of reading lately, and somewhere I was reading an
>article on RG batteries - now I cannot find it anywhere - that said if
>your aircraft system is a generator instead of an alternator, and if it is
>a 35A or less system, you should not use an RG battery. I believe I
>remember the statement came from a Concorde spokesperson.
>
>Do you know anything about such a limitation?
I cannot imagine why . . . I'll be talking with Skip
next week on other matters, I'll ask him if this is a
bit of wisdom from Concorde. But as far as I can deduce,
the technology of the engine driven power source is not
linked to the suitability of RG vs. any other battery.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
>
>Hello Bob
>
>"Now the down side . . . it's fitted with a 10 hp, 440v three-phase motor.
>I've been digging through the catalogs for reasonable replacements that
>will run from the electron-pipe that comes into my house."
>
>Hello Bob
>
>"Now the down side . . . it's fitted with a 10 hp, 440v three-phase motor.
>I've been digging through the catalogs for reasonable replacements that
>will run from the electron-pipe that comes into my house."
>
>Did you check to see if you can rewire the 440v motor for 220/240?
I believe it can. I considered the phase converter approach. I have
a number of articles in my archives that speak to use of
an unloaded 3-phase motor and array of capacitors. One such
article is available at:
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/ph-conv/ph-conv.html
B&C uses this technique for their machine shop in Newton.
I've never gotten my hands dirty on one of these systems. I note
in the article that the converter motor should be equal to or larger
than the largest motor in the downstream system. This calls for
another 10 h.p. motor, the attendant capacitors, labor to assemble
and space to house.
After wrestling with the notion, it seemed a lower cost of ownership
solution to simply replace the existing motor with a single-phase
device albeit a smaller one. The existing motor is quite clean. I might
be able to recoup some conversion costs by selling the old motor. But
then if I kept it, I'd have a phase-converter motor available for any
future adventures into 3-phase tools. That's all I need, a 100 pound prime
piece of junque for my inventory of needful things!
>Working great since 1987. There has been a few times through the years
>where I needed a lot of power. The 7.5 hp and the 5hp Monarch running
>together is a little less powerful than pure 3 phase. I ran my 2hp
>Bridgport and 2hp sander to aid the third leg. When really loading down
>the motor, you could hear that it was happier with the 2 other machines
>running.
Yeah, your experience re-enforces the notion that the converter
motor needs to be a real pig for best performance. I'll poke around
some of the local motor houses and surplus yards. If I could get
a boss-hog 3-phase motor really cheap . . .
>BTW I have do it yourself articles for making a friction drive (with aux 1
>phase motor) or a phase shift capacitor with timer relay to get 3 phase
>generator going. My 7.5 hp has a timer relay, but once running you need to
>throw a switch, or else bad things happen when you shut down. The 3hp has
>a simple push button, push it and once running let it go. I like the
>push-button better!
I've seen converters where the builder simply couples a small
motor to the phase converter machine and leaves it mechanically
engaged and powered during normal operations. I don't see how it
would 'hurt' anything . . . but again, I suspect one would want to
time delay application of power to the idler motor for a second or
two while the starter-motor gets things in motion. Thanks for the
feedback.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hello Bob
I am not certain how your spinemthealternator machine works.
Could you not just use the 10 HP motor as the phase converter?
In other words, start up your 10 hp motor with no load from the alternator
till the 10 hp gets going, then bring on the BTU output for alternator
load.
Dart throw the 10HP motor on single phase should be at least 5 hp?? Again
start adding 3 phase motors in parallel and output from 5HP will increase.
The concept of a phase converter is simple, but essential you need to get
a 3 phase motor spinning and then run it on single phase.
If you don't need to start your 10 hp motor from dead, you may not need
another motor at all.
Principal is simple, somehow you need to get the 3 phase motor spinning
before you add single phase or it will sit there "Stupid" and hummmmm.
We discusses an aux motor to get it going, or temp. putting a phase shift
capacitor to get it going, I will suggest you try your machine with the
simplest (famous last words) by wrapping a rope around the shaft and
giving it a good pull then adding single phase power.
Lets say you need to test a 100 amp alternator, at 28V, that's 2800 watts
or ~ 1/3 of 10HP.
If you like results, go for the capacitor.
Good Luck
Ron P.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
If I recall right there's a way of using a single phase motor to turn
a 3 phase to output three power. Machinist use this as cheap 3 phase
converter when they need 3 phase for three shop at home where 3 phase
is not available or cost prohibitive.
jerb
At 11:15 AM 9/3/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>I took a short trip yesterday in 'ol blue (a truck I inherited from
>Dad) to take a look at the alternator drive stand I spoke of last
>week. What a magnificent machine! Motor controlled variable speed
>drive, well instrumented, self contained system simulator with
>batteries, really beefy carbon pile load. Minimal barn-bird-crap
>and rust. Best yet, mounted on casters.
>
>Now the down side . . . it's fitted with a 10 hp, 440v three-phase
>motor. I've been digging through the catalogs for reasonable
>replacements that will run from the electron-pipe that comes into
>my house.
>
>I think I've identified a 5 hp, 240v single phase with the right
>shaft diameter . . . and it's only $400 plus another $100 shipping.
>When you're talking this size of motor, they start getting HEAVY!
>
>I've made an agreement with the current owner to take over his
>project with the proviso that he has access to it as needed and
>that if I decide to get rid of it, he has first crack at it at
>the "brother-in-law" price. Sounds like a deal to me.
>
>I may well have this puppy up and running in my shop before
>the end of the year.
>
>
> 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
>
>Hello Bob
>
>I am not certain how your spinemthealternator machine works.
>
>Could you not just use the 10 HP motor as the phase converter?
>
>In other words, start up your 10 hp motor with no load from the alternator
>till the 10 hp gets going, then bring on the BTU output for alternator
>load.
>
>Dart throw the 10HP motor on single phase should be at least 5 hp?? Again
>start adding 3 phase motors in parallel and output from 5HP will increase.
No, single phase motors that use some form of magnetic resistor-inductive,
or capacitor-inductive phase shifting achieve what appears to the rotor
as a spinning magnetic field. Three phase motors assume there's three
120-degree shifted sources of energy that don't need to do any "fool'n".
The result is an extremely efficient motor that works without reactance in
the electrics or shaded poles in the magnetics.
>The concept of a phase converter is simple, but essential you need to get
>a 3 phase motor spinning and then run it on single phase.
>If you don't need to start your 10 hp motor from dead, you may not need
>another motor at all.
3-phase motors that are very lightly loaded (gyro motors are a good
example) will run acceptably well from a single phase supply when
augmented with some external resistances and reactances. Years
ago, I designed a single phase inverter and companion phase shift
networks to spin up military surplus, 3-phase attitude gyros.
The "fooler" supply took about 3x as long for the motor to reach
running speed on power-up . . . and the top speed was about 10%
slower than design speed compared with a true 3-phase supply
- but satisfactory.
>Principal is simple, somehow you need to get the 3 phase motor spinning
>before you add single phase or it will sit there "Stupid" and hummmmm.
True of single phase motors that have lost their start-up circuit
but 3-phase motors don't have the shading/shifting necessary for
single phase running.
>We discusses an aux motor to get it going, or temp. putting a phase shift
>capacitor to get it going, I will suggest you try your machine with the
>simplest (famous last words) by wrapping a rope around the shaft and
>giving it a good pull then adding single phase power.
If it runs at all, it will be exceedingly lacking in power. The
article I cited is an excellent example of a technique that
gets you a majority of the motor's rated capability. Passive phase
shift networks fall far short of this.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
>
>If I recall right there's a way of using a single phase motor to turn a 3
>phase to output three power. Machinist use this as cheap 3 phase
>converter when they need 3 phase for three shop at home where 3 phase is
>not available or cost prohibitive.
>jerb
No, an auxiliary 3-phase motor as shown in:
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/ph-conv/ph-conv.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Michael <jm(at)10squaredcorp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
Data point - There is an SB for Stinsons that provides a list of
current batteries that should be used in the 108 series which have
generators. RG batteries are on the list, but not the extra capacity
versions with stated reason being the charging system cannot handle
the extra capacity.
On Sunday 03 September 2006 22:04, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I have been doing a lot of reading lately, and somewhere I was
> > reading an article on RG batteries - now I cannot find it
> > anywhere - that said if your aircraft system is a generator
> > instead of an alternator, and if it is a 35A or less system, you
> > should not use an RG battery. I believe I remember the statement
> > came from a Concorde spokesperson.
> >
> >Do you know anything about such a limitation?
>
> I cannot imagine why . . . I'll be talking with Skip
> next week on other matters, I'll ask him if this is a
> bit of wisdom from Concorde. But as far as I can deduce,
> the technology of the engine driven power source is not
> linked to the suitability of RG vs. any other battery.
>
> 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: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
FYI.
McMaster Carr has a 5HP 230V single phase for $350 and a 5HP three phase
(if you want to set up a phase converter with a new motor) for $230.
Dick Tasker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> I took a short trip yesterday in 'ol blue (a truck I inherited from
> Dad) to take a look at the alternator drive stand I spoke of last
> week. What a magnificent machine! Motor controlled variable speed
> drive, well instrumented, self contained system simulator with
> batteries, really beefy carbon pile load. Minimal barn-bird-crap
> and rust. Best yet, mounted on casters.
>
> Now the down side . . . it's fitted with a 10 hp, 440v three-phase
> motor. I've been digging through the catalogs for reasonable
> replacements that will run from the electron-pipe that comes into
> my house.
>
> I think I've identified a 5 hp, 240v single phase with the right
> shaft diameter . . . and it's only $400 plus another $100 shipping.
> When you're talking this size of motor, they start getting HEAVY!
>
> I've made an agreement with the current owner to take over his
> project with the proviso that he has access to it as needed and
> that if I decide to get rid of it, he has first crack at it at
> the "brother-in-law" price. Sounds like a deal to me.
>
> I may well have this puppy up and running in my shop before
> the end of the year.
>
>
> 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 >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hello Bob
I think point of my last post got lost. I was suggesting to forget about a
phase convertor all together and run your 10hp motor on single phase.
You did not answer if you need to start the 10HP motor with a load on it
(alternator)?
If not then why not run your 10hp motor on a single phase?
According to your article a 3 phase motor run on 1 phase should produce
2/3 rated capacity. That is 6 plus hp.
I am suggesting if 6 plus hp is an acceptable power, and you can start up
the 3 phase motor with little load (alternator not producing) then forget
about a roto phase converter all together, and just run your 10 hp motor
at 2/3 rated hp.
I suggested to try it with a rope pull for a test, if it works well, then
on your 10hp motor install a capacitor to phase shift on start up only.
No question that running a 10 hp motor on single phase and producing ~ 6
hp will not be the most efficient 6 hp single phase motor in the world.
I doubt the extra energy you will consume will have much a net monetary
loss.
This is a fairly simple test, get 220 single phase to your 10hp motor,
rope pull it and add the 220 power. You should have a 6hp motor. You
mention if it runs at all??? This is exact what a roto phase is, just
running a 3 phase motor on single phase. Now if you added another 10 hp
motor to the running one, the second one could start from dead and produce
more than 2/3 rated power, but if 6 hp is enough.....
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
>
>
>FYI.
>
>McMaster Carr has a 5HP 230V single phase for $350 and a 5HP three phase
>(if you want to set up a phase converter with a new motor) for $230.
>
>Dick Tasker
Thanks! I'll check it out. I'm shaft-size critical for this
task. Half of the speed changer mechanism mounts directly on
the motor shaft so that feature has bounded my choices to
some degree. Appreciate the heads-up!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: in-rush limiters |
>
> >Oh! When choosing the wire size, do NOT go by the Mil-Spec wire size
> used in
> >wiring the plane. I would DOUBLE that wire size.
>
> Don't understand why. The current ratings for choosing wire
> size from charts like those found in AC43-13 or chapter
> 8 of the 'Connection are already de-rated for 10C temperature
> rise. The 6A lamp cited in the original post would not
> seriously warm an inductor wound with 22AWG (5A rated) wire.
>
> Bob . . .
>==================================
>Hello Bob:
>
>You have me smiling ...
>Now how did I know you were going to question this part :-)
>
>Let me start off by asking a LOADED QUESTION:
>
>What determines the current handling capabilities of a wire?
>
>I should wait at this point for a responce, but concidering that the question
>is also put the site's reading public ... I will guess at their answer and
>maybe yours.
>That being: The diameter, cross-sectional area of the wire.
>
>Does that sound like the most given answer? And it is a logical answer. But
>not the whole story. I did say it was a LOADED QUESTION.
>
>So to unload the answer:
>The Determining factor is the INSULATION, the thickness and type.
Sure. Cross section controls resistance, but says nothing
about ability to reject heat energy due to I(squared)R heating
combined heat transfer physics of the assembly.
>Here is why. You have to ask the questions: What fails? And How?
>There are two failures. As the wire heats up, it heats up so much that it
>MELTS the insulation. FAILURE ... This exposes the wire to do any
>combination
>of events: Fire, short to ground - case - airframe or melt into and short to
>another wire.
Yup.
>The other failure is crystalization of the wire from the heat. Usually
>repeated heat and that leads to the wire failing in an OPEN. This is not
>the norm.
> The norm is the insulation FAILING.
Temperature rises that put COPPER at risk are so much
beyond temperatures that damage insulation that failure
of the conductor is exceedingly low on the list of concerns.
>Now, most builders do use Mil-Spec wire and the Mil-Spec wire does have a
>higher tempature rating and dialectric rating. So what determines the
>current
>handling capabilities of a wire? INSULATION - Told ya it was Loaded!
Yup, this is discussed in Chapter 8.
>Lets switch to the coil construction I mentioned. You said 30 Turns ... Only
>30 Turns? Way Much More than 30 turns can fit on a form that has a 1/2" ID
>and a 1" OD and 2" Long ... That gives you 1/4" of room to build up and
>about 1
>1/4" length to fill. I haven't worked out the Henry's (inductance) of the
>coil and quite honestly it does not matter. Too much engineering and not
>enough
>practicality. I know the size will work.
Define "work". The goal is to add a SIGNIFICANT reduction in area under the
inrush current curve without degrading system performance. I guess I don't
know about "too much engineering" . . . it's been said that if the only tool
you have is a hammer, lots of things begin to look more and more like a
nail.
I'm an engineer and my first thoughts for working a problem DO focus on
the physics.
> How do I know? A life of
>experimentation! I have been getting my ass shocked since I was 11 years
>old :-)
>As the commercial says: Try it you'll like it. As we say here in NJ: Don't
>worry about it!
Whether one chooses to worry or not to worry, the physics
doesn't change.
>O! For the size of the wire -- I would suggest 18 or 16 AWG enameled
>(Transformer) wire. It should handle the current and both circuit heat
>and engine
>heat. And even with this large size wire you should be able to get way more
>than 30 turns.
Inrush Limiting 101
Agreed. Taking your adjustments to my mis-perceptions of the
hypothesized single layer coil, let us assume as follows:
1/2" od core 2" long wound with 5 layers of #16AWG wire
(0.050" diameter) for a depth on the order of .25" for a total
diameter of 1". 050" wire will take 40T to cover 2" of
length for each layer so 5 layers is 200T total.
Goto:
http://www.captain.at/electronics/coils/
. . . and plug in 200T, 1" and .5" and 2" (be sure to select
units to "inches" and we get about 300 microhenries. Assuming a
ferrite core with permeability of 10, we might push this inductance up
to 3 millihenries.
Let us further consider 16AWG wire with a resistance of about 4 milliohms
per foot. The 200T will have an average circumference of .75 x 3.14 or
or 2.3 inches. 200T offers a total length of 460 inches or 38 feet
and a resistance of 150 milliohms.
>Try it you'll like it. We are the EAA, Experiment!
Good idea. Went to the bench and measured the cold-resistance
of a 65W, halogen head lamp bulb and got 0.150 ohms. 12v applied
directly to the terminals of this lamp will produce an in-rush
current of 12.0 /0.15 = 80 Amps! Okay, lets wire it up with some
clip leads and a 12v battery and plot this puppy. Here we get
a curve like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Exemplar_Incandescent_Lamp_Inrush.gif
Note that the peak inrush current was not 80 amps, but just
about 38 amps. Okay, this means that circuit cold-resistance
was 12/38 or 315 milliohms. Understandable. Wire used to hook
the system up combined with about 15 milliohms of battery
resistance produces a new, higher cold-resistance.
Adding your hypothesized inductor of 3 millihenries and
150 milliohms would raise the total circuit cold resistance to
315 + 150 = 460 milliohms. Adding the inductor would produce
a drop in in-rush current to about 26 amps if it exhibited
no inductive characteristics at all!
Going back to the curve we see that the time constant (measured
to 37% of the delta between peak (38A) and static (5A) or
(38-5)*.37 + 5 = 17A. The trace crosses 17A at about 15
milliseconds. At this same time, total loop resistance is on the
order of 600 milliohms without the hypothesized inductor.
I do not doubt that you observed reductions in in-rush
current as a byproduct of the actions you suggested.
It's easy to see here that adding the hypothesized inductor
will indeed cause a significant drop in the inrush current,
NOT because it's an inductor, but because it adds a
significant resistance to the circuit. The L/R time constant
for the added inductance is still much shorter than the
15 millisecond time constant demonstrated on the bench
so that the benefits of adding the inductance are small
at best.
Inrush Limiting 102
If inrush limiting is a really big thing for the designer,
there are thermal devices offered by a several manufacturers.
Here's one example:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/GE_Sensors/CL_limiters.pdf
In this case, we're adding to the cold-resistance of the
circuit by means of a style of thermistor . . . a temperature
sensitive resistor chosen for its NEGATIVE temperature
characteristics. The hotter it gets, the lower the resistance.
Take a look at p/n CL-30. It has a cold-resistance on the order
of 2.5 ohms. Adding this resistance in series with the
hypothetical .315 ohms cited above raises the cold-resistance
of the system to about 2.8 ohms. This will reduce the in-rush
current observed to 12 / 2.8 = 4.3 amps! Nice reduction indeed.
Now, as the thermistor is allowed to heat up, we see that
when loaded to 50% of rated load (It's a an 8A device and
our 55w lamp will load it to about 4A) its operating resistance
drops to about 140 milliohms. The power tossed off under
normal operating conditions is .14 x 4 = .56 volts x 4A
2.25 Watts. This is about the same losses as for the
hypothesized inductor cited above but with a profound
effect on in-rush current.
Caveats: The CL-30 inrush limiter must be allowed to heat
up. One cannot clamp it down against a heat-sinking surface
for mechanical support lest you soak the heat energy out.
This can cause excessive dissipation internal to the device
and failure (been there, done that). On the other hand,
the critter is mounted on 18AWG solid copper leads and
not terribly resistant to breakage under vibration. On
the GP-180 program we wrapped the limiter in fiberglas
tubing before capturing it under an aluminum bracket.
In the final analysis, builder needs to decide what return
on investment is needed on an effort to mitigate in-rush.
The original goal was to increase lamp life. In the BH
era (before halogen) there was some benefit to lamp life
by considering some form of keep warm or inrush limiting.
Nowadays, I doubt that the return on investment is
positive. The bulbs are very long lived running "barefoot"
but they're still going to fail at some point in time -
in-rush limiting is not a reliability issue.
So unless your system is vulnerable to the effects of
a 40 amp, 20 millisecond transient (shame on you if it
is!), then there's no positive return on investment I
can perceived for adding special in-rush limiting
features to your landing light system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W Livingston" <livingjw(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Turning a Brushless Motor into an Alternator |
Bob, All,
I have a project coming up that needs a small, high speed (~10K RPM or
higher), light (as practically possible) alternator which will produce about
.5KW at 30-50 volts. I was thinking of converting one of the numerous
permanent spinning magnet brushless motors that are available for RC
aircraft. My thought was to introduce appropriate diodes and turn it into a
brushless alternator. Would this be a reasonably straight forward project or
is it just a crazy idea?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W Livingston" <livingjw(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Dividing one voltage by another using an op amp? |
Bob, All,
I seem to remember from my analog computer class (yeh, I'm that old) that
you can divide using an op amp. Can anyone point me a circuit which does
this? Thanks. One of my students built an AoA indicator a couple of years
ago with a cheap differential pressure chip, but he brought the signal out
and into a digital computer that we already had installed on the airplane
for storing flight data. He then divided it by the dynamic pressure using
software. It worked great. I thought it would be fun to see how simple it
could be done using analog circuits. These pressure measuring chips are just
a couple of dollars and you would need two of them. One differential for the
angle and one absolute pressure chip for the dynamic pressure.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | AF-2500 installation question (auido |
I'm getting ready to connect the audio output (pin 5 & 9 from screen
port 2, DB-9 connector) to one of the unswitched inputs of the Garmin
GMA-347. Can anyone tell me the purpose of pins 2 & 3 from that same
DB-9 connector? I have a KLN 94 GPS. Thanks in advance for your
assistance.
Bill Gill
Lee's Summit, MO
RV-7 wiring & FWF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> I took a short trip yesterday in 'ol blue (a truck I inherited from
> Dad) to take a look at the alternator drive stand I spoke of last
> week. What a magnificent machine! Motor controlled variable speed
> drive, well instrumented, self contained system simulator with
> batteries, really beefy carbon pile load. Minimal barn-bird-crap
> and rust. Best yet, mounted on casters.
>
> Now the down side . . . it's fitted with a 10 hp, 440v three-phase
> motor. I've been digging through the catalogs for reasonable
> replacements that will run from the electron-pipe that comes into
> my house.
>
> I think I've identified a 5 hp, 240v single phase with the right
> shaft diameter . . . and it's only $400 plus another $100 shipping.
> When you're talking this size of motor, they start getting HEAVY!
>
> I've made an agreement with the current owner to take over his
> project with the proviso that he has access to it as needed and
> that if I decide to get rid of it, he has first crack at it at
> the "brother-in-law" price. Sounds like a deal to me.
>
> I may well have this puppy up and running in my shop before
> the end of the year.
>
>
> Bob . . .
New versions of 3phase converters ain't as expensive as the old days ( &
ship a lot cheaper):
http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/N2DRVSH
Should be a lot easier to install, too.
I wish I had known this before I had 3phase run to my house & hangar.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
>
>
>New versions of 3phase converters ain't as expensive as the old days ( &
>ship a lot cheaper):
>
>http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/N2DRVSH
>
>Should be a lot easier to install, too.
>
>I wish I had known this before I had 3phase run to my house & hangar.
>
>Charlie
Great data point! Thanks. I'll look into this technology.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The alternator drive stand . . . |
>
>
>New versions of 3phase converters ain't as expensive as the old days ( &
>ship a lot cheaper):
>
>http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/N2DRVSH
>
>Should be a lot easier to install, too.
>
>I wish I had known this before I had 3phase run to my house & hangar.
Good info Charlie. Did some surfing on the
static converter topic and picked up some
good information. Thanks for the heads-up!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tony Gibson <umgibso1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Debating on an alternator or two batteries? |
Hi Group, my name's Tony Gibson, I've been a lurker on the list for almost a year
now and am building a Sonerai 2L - read 550lb slightly underpowered two place!
:)
I'm trying to take as much weight out of the plane as I can by keeping it simple.
There's a lot of reasons I'm considering two batteries rather than a battery
and an alternator. But saving a bit of weight isn't the main reason, the
fact that I can move the weight of battery where ever I want in the plane is
a big bonus for servicing it nevermind balancing, and ....the last thing I will
do is put lead weight back into it!
I have an ignition system that draws ~1 amp and a single fuel pump that draws
another amp. I decided against the starter and the only other amp draws will
be two small Stratomaster instruments drawing less than half an amp together.
Total draw would be less than 2.5 Amps
With the right warning system to indicate a low primary battery I'm wondering
if something like a 3 - 5 Ah battery would be large enough for a backup? What
about the primary?
The downside of course is what would I do on a crosscountry trip? Argh! :)
Thanx a lot, appreciate any help and opinions!
Tony
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
>
>Data point - There is an SB for Stinsons that provides a list of
>current batteries that should be used in the 108 series which have
>generators. RG batteries are on the list, but not the extra capacity
>versions with stated reason being the charging system cannot handle
>the extra capacity.
This is a WAG but I'd bet that the assertion developed from
a lack of understanding of a long standing "rule of thumb"
in battery/generator sizing.
While not explicit in the FARS, AC43-13 suggests that you
reserve 20% of generator/alternator capacity for the recharging
of a dead battery. Another notation in AC43-13 suggests that
a battery should be recharged in 60-90 minutes of flight. Both
of these numbers were pulled from where the sun don't shine.
Now, suppose you have a nice ol' C-140 with a 20A generator
and 24 AH battery. If you run that battery down, there's no
way that you can load the generator to 16A and recharge the
battery in 90 minutes with the 4A left over. Of course, that
airplane left the factory only with lights installed and
anyone who chose to launch with a dead battery could run
essentially 'dark' for an hour or so and get the battery back
up.
Suppose your airplane came from the factory with a 40A alternator
then according to one rule-of-thumb, we can fit the machine with
a 32A running load leaving 8A for charging. Hmmm . . . this means
we should only install a 12 a.h. battery so that 8A will get it
topped off in 90 minutes.
How about we upgrade to a 60A alternator. If the airplane left
the factory certified with 8A of headroom, logic suggests that
we could now carry a 52A running load and still meet the original
intent of recharging our 12 a.h. battery in 90 minutes. But no,
somebody will latch onto the 20% headroom statement and say
that you need to reserve 12A of headroom. Okay, now we can
recharge our tiny 12 a.h. battery in one hour. Good deal.
But suppose you want to upgrade to a 24 a.h. battery. Now
with 12A of headroom, we'll need 2 hours to recharge the 24 a.h.
battery. My bad.
Bottom line is that the best way to size an alternator/battery
combination is to know what your operating requirements are,
what the limitations are for getting the battery recharged under
the rare condition that you should decide to launch with a dead
battery. Then adjust operating conditions for the flight
meet the battery's needs in a whatever you decide is a reasonable
period of time while meeting minimum needs for operating equipment.
The prohibition for the higher capacity battery in the Stinson
is probably based on the 20% rule hat-dance and not upon any
understanding of performance by those who would prohibit or
individuals who can understand the new limitations for recharging
and adjust their operations accordingly.
It's the blind leading the deaf to follow rules by the ignorant
so that pilots are not required to understand. Grand recipe for
success, no? Sounds like groundwork for a juicy dark-n-stormy
night story.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dividing one voltage by another using an op amp? |
>
>
>Bob, All,
>
> I seem to remember from my analog computer class (yeh, I'm that old) that
>you can divide using an op amp. Can anyone point me a circuit which does
>this? Thanks. One of my students built an AoA indicator a couple of years
>ago with a cheap differential pressure chip, but he brought the signal out
>and into a digital computer that we already had installed on the airplane
>for storing flight data. He then divided it by the dynamic pressure using
>software. It worked great. I thought it would be fun to see how simple it
>could be done using analog circuits. These pressure measuring chips are just
>a couple of dollars and you would need two of them. One differential for the
>angle and one absolute pressure chip for the dynamic pressure.
It's a special class of op-amp called a four-quadrant mulitiplier.
An exemplar part is the AD633 with a data sheet at:
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/277093686AD633_e.pdf
See figure 7.
However, like all analog systems, these devices have their warts
for leakage, offset, drift, tempco, etc. etc.
A PIC microcontroller with on-board a/d could put this effort
on less mushy ground.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Schneider <plumberben(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 09/04/06 |
Bob,
I have had very good luck with the Hitachi brand VFD's. They will give you
speed control, as well as inverter capability. I have one on my band saw, I
wanted speed control and only had single phase available at the hanger. Bought
the VFD and a 3 phase motor, and it works great. I wouldn't do it any other
way. just keep in mind, motor HP (I am told) drops as the freq is reduced.
Though I have never had a problem with the bandsaw. Cheapest place to find them,
Ebay. A place called Drives Warehouse or some variation of that has them
listed all the time, new in box. Turned out to be cheapest I could find anywhere.
For what its worth.
Ben Schneider
>McMaster Carr has a 5HP 230V single phase for $350 and a 5HP three phase
>(if you want to set up a phase converter with a new motor) for $230.
>
>Dick Tasker
Thanks! I'll check it out. I'm shaft-size critical for this
task. Half of the speed changer mechanism mounts directly on
the motor shaft so that feature has bounded my choices to
some degree. Appreciate the heads-up!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turning a Brushless Motor into an Alternator |
>
>
>Bob, All,
>
> I have a project coming up that needs a small, high speed (~10K RPM or
>higher), light (as practically possible) alternator which will produce about
>.5KW at 30-50 volts. I was thinking of converting one of the numerous
>permanent spinning magnet brushless motors that are available for RC
>aircraft. My thought was to introduce appropriate diodes and turn it into a
>brushless alternator. Would this be a reasonably straight forward project or
>is it just a crazy idea?
Works for me. The motor has some characteristics called
torque, voltage and velocity constants (Kt, Ke, Kv respectively).
Your motor of choice needs to have a Kv on the order of 40v/10,000
or 40 mV per RPM. 500 watts at 40 volts is about 12.5 amps, so the
motor you choose will need to be capable of running continuously
at loads producing 12.5 amps of current flow.
If you have a motor in mind that falls in this range, then
it's a candidate for the task. Now, voltage regulation is
another issue.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turning a Brushless Motor into an Alternator |
(OOPS)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Bob, All,
>>
>> I have a project coming up that needs a small, high speed (~10K RPM or
>>higher), light (as practically possible) alternator which will produce about
>>.5KW at 30-50 volts. I was thinking of converting one of the numerous
>>permanent spinning magnet brushless motors that are available for RC
>>aircraft. My thought was to introduce appropriate diodes and turn it into a
>>brushless alternator. Would this be a reasonably straight forward project or
>>is it just a crazy idea?
>
> Works for me. The motor has some characteristics called
> torque, voltage and velocity constants (Kt, Ke, Kv respectively).
> Your motor of choice needs to have a Kv on the order of 40v/10,000
> or 40 mV per RPM. 500 watts at 40 volts is about 12.5 amps, so the
> motor you choose will need to be capable of running continuously
> at loads producing 12.5 amps of current flow.
Correction. 4 mV per RPM not 40.
> If you have a motor in mind that falls in this range, then
> it's a candidate for the task. Now, voltage regulation is
> another issue.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 09/04/06 |
>Bob,
>
> I have had very good luck with the Hitachi brand VFD's. They will give
> you speed control, as well as inverter capability. I have one on my band
> saw, I wanted speed control and only had single phase available at the
> hanger. Bought the VFD and a 3 phase motor, and it works great. I
> wouldn't do it any other way. just keep in mind, motor HP (I am told)
> drops as the freq is reduced. Though I have never had a problem with the
> bandsaw. Cheapest place to find them, Ebay. A place called Drives
> Warehouse or some variation of that has them listed all the time, new in
> box. Turned out to be cheapest I could find anywhere.
My application is already fitted with a variable speed pulley
system. My problem is that it's a 3-phase motor and a single-phase
source. Some variation on a static phase-inverter or static-rotary
phase inverter will get it running at no worse than 25% loss of
nameplate horsepower. It's a boss-hog motor at 10 h.p. Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | b AND C LR3 QUESTION |
| From: | "rlnelson5" <rlnelson-5(at)peoplepc.com> |
hELLO. I have a B and C LR-3 external alt control. I was wondering if there is
a homemade list version to make the themostatic probe for the battery without
spending the 100 or so that Band c charges for that part. Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59609#59609
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Mireley <mireley(at)msu.edu> |
*I'm looking for a dc/dc converter to power an Airmap 2000c from a 28
volt system. The best value seems to be the Kool Mate refrigerator
converter for trucks and boats. I'd like to know if anyone has
experience using one of the integreated dc to dc devices to roll their
own and the economics of the project.*
*
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Debating on an alternator or two batteries? |
>Hi Group, my name's Tony Gibson, I've been a lurker on the list for almost
>a year now and am building a Sonerai 2L - read 550lb slightly underpowered
>two place! :)
>
>I'm trying to take as much weight out of the plane as I can by keeping it
>simple. There's a lot of reasons I'm considering two batteries rather
>than a battery and an alternator. But saving a bit of weight isn't the
>main reason, the fact that I can move the weight of battery where ever I
>want in the plane is a big bonus for servicing it nevermind balancing, and
>....the last thing I will do is put lead weight back into it!
>
>I have an ignition system that draws ~1 amp and a single fuel pump that
>draws another amp. I decided against the starter and the only other amp
>draws will be two small Stratomaster instruments drawing less than half an
>amp together. Total draw would be less than 2.5 Amps
>
>With the right warning system to indicate a low primary battery I'm
>wondering if something like a 3 - 5 Ah battery would be large enough for a
>backup? What about the primary?
>
>The downside of course is what would I do on a crosscountry trip? Argh! :)
What engine/alternator combination are you considering?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: b AND C LR3 QUESTION |
>
>hELLO. I have a B and C LR-3 external alt control. I was wondering if
>there is a homemade list version to make the themostatic probe for the
>battery without spending the 100 or so that Band c charges for that part.
>Thanks
I did that design and no, I'm unaware of any DIY alternatives.
Given that the work was a fee-for-service activity for
a client, I'm not at liberty to offer the information you're
seeking.
What is your battery installation / anticipated service
situation that leads you to believe that you'd benefit
from having temperature compensation?
It's been my experience that very few (less than 1%) of
builders would benefit from adding this feature to
their systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DC/DC Converter |
>
>*I'm looking for a dc/dc converter to power an Airmap 2000c from a 28 volt
>system. The best value seems to be the Kool Mate refrigerator converter
>for trucks and boats. I'd like to know if anyone has experience using one
>of the integreated dc to dc devices to roll their own and the economics
>of the project.*
How much power are you needing? Do I interpret your request
that you have a 14v accessory you want to run from 28v system?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
http://www.astroncorp.com/dcdc.shtml
The 10A version of this is what Cessna uses for their certified
application... I'm going to use one in my Lancair, and they are only $50 if
you shop around...
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Mireley
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: DC/DC Converter
*I'm looking for a dc/dc converter to power an Airmap 2000c from a 28 volt
system. The best value seems to be the Kool Mate refrigerator converter for
trucks and boats. I'd like to know if anyone has experience using one of the
integreated dc to dc devices to roll their own and the economics of the
project.*
*
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Logic and experience (was about alternators) |
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Logic and experience (was about
>alternators)
>
>
> And I might have a lifetime of picking apples but
> that doesn't make me an apple horticulturist. I've
> spent 50 years getting my hands dirty, figuring out
> how things work, designing new products and doing
> my best to keep customers happy, but that doesn't
> make me a human factors expert either.
> I've never asked you to prove anything, only offer logical
> foundation for your assertions . . . be a teacher
> for the ideas you hold dear.
I am not sure what you mean?
I gather you are saying you are not a horticulturist,
your old with dirty hands and you are not an expert
on anything, but you are stubborn and hold on to
your antiquated ideas despite anyone else's opinion?
That is cool. I knew that already. (Its a Joke Bob, don't
take yourself too seriously, I am kidding you.)
I am no human factors expert either, but I did sit in a room
full of PhD's, astronauts and test pilots at one time who
where, when working on cockpit design and checklists.
Some may have rubbed off on me. There is always a
overnight stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
As a pilot, I study CRM, Crew Resource Management or
Cockpit Resource Management for some; part of the
study involves the interaction of man and machine. The
impetus of the CRM study came from accidents like Eastern
Flt 401, Florida Everglades. A two bit light bulb was partly
the cause. Every aspect, including systems, procedures,
switch throwing is encompassed in CRM.
Bob, just because we might disagree it does not mean I dont respect you. Just
respect others perspective,
say you understand but dont agree. Their point of view
may not be important to you Bob, but others may benefit.
Bob embrace the unique inputs from everyone on this list,
who may have a different perspective, not just me. One thing
you learn in CRM is even the junior crew member may have
good and critical info. You run a lot of people away who have
things to contribute. You may think you could not possibly
learn anything about electrical systems from me or others?
You may be surprised on occasion. Teachers need to
keep learning as well.
I already made my point on the topic, so there is no need to
repeat them over and over, again and again. I stand by them
as valid points in the context of, shall I or shan't I turn the
ALT on before or after engine start.
For the third time you are right BOB! It does not matter for
MOST alternators when you turn them on. Where we disagree
is I-VR alternator's. Why override the automatic functions
built-into the I-VR device? You still have not answered me.
That is the beauty of I-VR, is there internal logic and control.
You don't like them, despite your comments otherwise. That
is fine, and you are just stubborn. We still love you.
Me Doth Think-ith Ye protest too much.
This learning thing is suppose to be fun, right Bob. As
a teacher, as you say your are, you know if you make it
a bummer, people will turn off.
>>
>>*Oh I throw the ALT switch after start, even though the
>>checklist says otherwise, because I think it's better,
>>but I forgot this time.**
>>
>>hummmm
>>
>>Can you say violation and license revoked? I love pilots
>>who are too cool to BLINDLY follow checklist. Follow the
>>darn checklist. It's not trivial or just to evaluate pilots by,
>>it's the safety net of aviation, use it. Some day pilots flying
>>a C-150 may be in a G-V or B747 and good checklist
>>discipline is critical. Its just good Airmanship and I don't
>>need any data to prove standardization is goodness.
>
> Discipline IS critical and understanding leads to
> the crafting of good checklists. But when we choose to
> work in the type certificated aviation, we're
> subject to the will and whim of many who exert a force
> based on demands for our faith and fear of reprisal
> for any transgressions. More on this later . . .
Again I dont quite get what you mean, lots of words, but
I get that FARs and the FAA hold sway over all pilots
lives. Again experimental aircraft are called experimental
for a reason, they dont meet or need to meet standard
aircraft regs. I also appreciate the need or desire of people
such as your self to change and make wiring improvements
in little planes, as they see fit. Still my points about when
to (or not to) turn the ALT ON, stands.
I would just add, keep it simple and light as possible. Less
is more.
>>
>>Experimental, do what ever you want, but suggest you try
>>to consider the traditional or standard procedures as a
>>starting point.
>
> . . . agreed . . . and then EXPAND on that to see
> what's supported by the science and what makes sense for
> achieving our own design goals. It's also wise to
> acknowledge a strong probability that government and
> industry have adopted certain practices for nothing more
> than the sake of adopting common practices . . . but that's
> a human factors thing . . .
I agree, but in the same breath you say:
NOTHING MORE THAN THE SAKE OF ADOPTING
COMMON PRACTICES.
Nothing more?
That sounds condescending. Common practices is a corner
stone of aviation safety, it is not, NOTHING MORE.
Look, for me the goal is to FLY at some point, safely fly, not
just to make an electrical system to hang on the wall or
marvel at how complex it is. I don't trivialize your contribution
in designing the perfect DC wiring distribution diagram for light
planes; please don't discount my human factors and common
practices input. I think both perspectives are important. You
obviously like to make subtle comments about the
qualification of the person who makes the comments and boost
your own. Bob that is counter productive.
A system should contribute safety. Poor system design can
adversely affect interaction with the crew. In the case of the
ALT, I prefer a single throw double throw MASTER to assure
the ALT is ON or OFF with the BAT. Simple and protects the
pilot from inadvertently not turning it On/Off by accident.
Triple throw switches are just waiting to be misused.
>>
>>Again it does not matter from an electronics stand point
>>for most alternators when you turn them ON or OFF except
>>for internally regulated alternators. Since there's no I-VR
>>alternators on factory planes, it only affects experimental
>>aircraft that use them.
>
> NEVER argued against that. This is what prompted
> the design goal to craft a way that the I-R alternator
> can be seamlessly integrated into the classic architectures
> so that their controllable shortfall is eliminated.
Why must discussions with you become arguments. I never
said you said anything. Sometimes people say things to ADD
to the conversation that has nothing to do with YOU, Bob.
I was bringing up human factors and checklist all on my own.
I think it was good input, logical. You may (obviously) disagree.
Bob if you want to seamlessly integrate an I-R alternator into
a classic architecture it has been done already. If you want
ADDED protection on a I-R Alt, than buy a Plane Power unit
from Van's aircraft. It has an extra OV module that opens or
cuts power to the I-Regulator. The OV module is compact
and mounts right on the alternator. The beauty is there's no
E-R to mount on the firewall with all the extra wiring. Plus you
have the superior control of an I-R, which all experts agree is
better than an E-Regulator 6-feet away. In fact I-R will protect
the alternator from over heat! Cool. An E-R can not do that.
(We now have microprocessor control in alternators. Isn't the
21st century great.
With the Plane Power OV module add on, that should
satisfy you, right? You will acknowledge and compliment
the designer, Plane Power, on a job well done?
I don't think a stock I-R needs or MUST have an add on OV
module as Plane Power offers, but this should definitively
squelch any worry or complaint you or anyone has about I-R
alternators, Right? Don't you think?
There it is, the perfect alternator, and it's 1/2 the price of B&C,
with the better I-R control.
Personally a stock I-R alternator with out the Plane Power's
add on OV device is very safe and unlikely to ever have a
catastrophic OV event, if service history teaches us anything.
Again the chance of I-R Alt going wild is tiny. The few
documented OV cases where mild (16-18 volts). In most all
cases there was indiscriminate or improper pilot switch
throwing involved or the pilot was not vigilant. In the end there
was only one or two OV events that allegedly caused any
damage of some kind (the battery in one case). Although
kind of documented the conditions and cause where under
some sketchy circumstances.
The I-R protects the alternator from OV very nicely in stock form.
How many cars have you heard of experiencing a catastrophic
OV condition? There are millions I-R on the road around the
world. Most modern avionics are good for 10-30 volts and 60
volt spike BTW, so 16-18 volts is a non event. We can agree to
disagree Bob.
My solution? (really as old as the hills)
A PANEL MOUNTED B-LEAD CIRCUIT BREAKER
(PULL-ABLE), CAN AT LEAST ALLOW YOU TO
MANUALLY DISCONNECT.
Most CB's are rated to 30-60 volts, so it can provide a reliable
B-lead disconnect for a typical OV condition, which are mild as
I said. It is unlikely you will ever need to do this step. Any story
or urban legend of crazy voltages are undocumented and
unproven. Many stories start with a friend of a friend had his
I-R alternator go crazy in his Cessna 172 and all the radios
shot out of the plane like missles. Hummmm? RIght
There is risk in flying. It never will be ZERO and an alternator
is probably the least of your worries in the big scheme of things.
The dark and stormy where every instrument was fried from
an I-VR alternator in Bob's articles are unsubstantiated stories
with no facts. Right Bob? There is no data, date, time, place,
N number, analysis, pictures, NOTHING. This bothers me.
Your burden of proof is so low you accept these stories with
out question, but you demand absolute documentation and
data of everyone else. If you want me to take your seriously,
you need to meet the same standard of proof as you demand
of everyone else.
No one has shown any astronomical long duration extreme
voltage condition. WHY? Because the I-R alternator are
designed to prevent it. I guess THINGS CAN HAPPEN?
I have yet to see the proof.
Don't design by FEAR, design by FACTS.
>>
>>I always have recommended I-VR alternators be ON
>>before cranking the engine and OFF after engine shut
>>down. The logical reason is, I-VR alternators are based
>>on an automotive application. I again ask rhetorically,
>>"How many cars need the driver to activate the alternator
>>separately?" The answer is none. If using a I-VR
>>alternator, it's logical to operate it the same way as it
>>does in the automobile, for which it was designed.
>
> If you embrace that philosophy, fly it in comfort
> and peace. My customers have asked for more and
> I'll do my best to deliver on it . . .
Yep, we agree to disagree, you do your best Bob; we expect
no less.
>>
>>The second reason for not cycling internally regulated
>>alternators while they're spinning is they can fail. From
>>my experience and those of many I have helped and
>>corresponded with, who had I-VR alternator problems,
>>they all had a common thread, they played switch
>>monkey with the ALT (IGN) switch. Anecdotal yes, but
>>it's what I got, take it or leave it.
>
> Agreed. That's what prompted the TEMPORARY withdrawal
> of Z-24 until a better system can be crafted. The
> system integration problem can and will be solved.
OK, great Bob you work on that. No offense I hope your
solution does not include a big OV relay and crow bar
on the B-lead; I just hate that set-up and a nuisance
trip WILL damage I-VR alternators, as we all know. When
Richard Vangrunsven, founder of Van's Aircraft stated he
would no longer warranty alternators connected to an OV
crow-bar, you called him ignorant! You did this with no
data or discussion. Could you be wrong or miss the
point sometimes, Bob? Get the data before you call
people ignorant.
>>
>>Technically IC chips inside some I-VR's have delays and
>>soft start functions most external voltage regulators
>>don't have, including the B&C unit. By using an internal
>>V-regulator to switch high amps ON/OFF is needless and
>>counter to its design. Again, no scientific bench test or
>>scope traces to show. Take it or leave it. Fact is I-VR's are
>>microprocessor controlled in many cases and don't need
>>or benefit from pilot switch monkey intervention (my opinion).
>>
>>Again my logic, my experience, my opinion and
>>research into I-VR designs is the basis of my comments.
>>I have no scientific proof that will make you happy Bob,
>sorry. The best I got, take it or leave it.
>
> Thanks, but I'll have to leave it. I'm not asking you to
> make me happy. I'm not even trying to convince you
> of anything. Your 'research' into IR alternators from
> the engineering perspective has yet to demonstrate
> a depth of information necessary to assist you in
> becoming an illuminating resource on the topic.
Bob you always seem like you are trying to convince people
to me, if I'm going to be totally honest. Aren't you the one that
just went 9 rounds about diodes verses transorbs? Who cares.
We got it, you like diodes. Fine, but we individuals will do as
we like, and sometimes it is not what you would do. That
seems to get to you, like how dare we not follow your logic
and experience. Just my opinion. I still like you and learned
a lot from you, but you don't have all the data all the time.
As far as rejecting my input, well that's your opinion and I'll
be fine with it, but you confuse me. You already agreed
with me on this point in your previous post.
My comment about making you happy was in regards to
answering the avalanche of questions that you asked me.
You either asked those questions to gain knowledge or
just asking a barrage of questions to confuse, obfuscate
and discredit.
I dont need or desire to make you happy, but would like you
to reply directly to the topic without all the bloviating. In this
case, the topic is beat to death and beyond the scope of the
original question or points I made. It is now turned into a
discussion about YOU and your experience. Again Bob
it is not about you. It is about the facts. Sometimes the
answer is it does not matter. I have no Dog in the Fight,
I just added some nuance to the topic, which seems to
have set you off again? No one is steeling your thunder.
You are right Bob. OK. I just filled in some holes.
Just throwing out all kinds of questions makes it seem the
other person's point is questionable. It's a debate technique.
May be your are just being cantankerous. If you asked in
good faith than you have my answer, logic and supporting
points. Take it or leave it. There is no need to beat it like a
rug. How about GOOD POINT GEORGE. Instead you
defend your point to death as if nothing else matters. What
is up with that?
You seem to do that Bob, ask questions and avoid replying
directly. Do you really want to know the answer or view
point, or are you just going ignore it and bury it with more
questions.
There is no need to repeat myself. I know I'm right and happy
with my comments and conclusions.
To be honest Bob you hold other's to a very high standard
of proof to satisfy you. However that's a little frustrating for
many posters who do attempt to answer you, because you
keep asking questions about questions and criticize a single
word. It feels like hypocrisy at times. Many of your ideas and
preferences are justified by no more than your opinion. Your
past comments and horror stories of I-VR have no facts to
back them up. People accept that, and if it makes them or
you happy, that is all that counts.
Your preference Bob is not always the best for all. Sorry,
did I just say the emperor has no clothes?
>>
>>Now Bob tell me why turning the ALT on and off as a
>>separate step, post-start is superior? (Forget electrons,
>>think like a pilot for a minute.)
>
> I'm wasn't arguing superior versus inferior. The question
> was, "does it matter from the perspective of physics" and
> my answer was "NO . . . except for the I-R alternator's
> special case . . . which WILL be dealt with in a
> rational manner."
I am not arguing at all. I agree with you Bob. I just added
a different perspective to the conversation. Again it is not
all about YOU Bob. Sometimes others bring something
new to the table. The table is big and there is room for
all kinds of ideas and options.
>
> You're a teacher of pilots. Craft any syllabus and
> adopt any understanding of physics you wish which
> your handlers will bless. I am a teacher of designers
> and a provider of products. My customers are my "handlers"
> and they've expressed interest in knowing how things work
> so that they may judge the worth of my ideas and products for
> themselves. I hold my own teachers to the same standards.
> My goals are for a shared understanding, not faith.
And you do a great job, keep the work up.
>
> As we're growing up, folks who hold authority over
> us MUST operate under a philosophy of faith and fear: "I'm
> the adult, you're the child. Trust me to know what's
> best for you but know that failure to observe the
> rules of my household may prove painful."
WOW not sure what that means but I hear therapy is useful
sometimes in resolving child hood issues (ha ha ha). A sense
of humor is important. Also forgiving and not holding grudges
is also good thing. Just making a joke.
>
> One hopes that as we transition from child to adult, we
> acquire understanding and confidence: "I understand the nature
> of the problem before me and I'm confident of my ability to
> deal with it in an honorable, reasoned manner that minimizes
> risk."
Yes I am confident in my ability and reasoning and risk
management, as you clearly are in yours.
>
> Unfortunately, many who SHOULD have made this transition
> years ago are still subject to the pressures from those
> who would exert influence on our lives under the doctrines
> of faith/fear. There are individuals who elevate themselves
> above what they've perceived as unfortunate, un-educable
> masses and take on the role of eternal parent. This is in
> contrast with the transient teacher who offers the best they
> know and sends folks on their way in confidence to search
> for new knowledge, skills and understanding.
Again therapy :-). I know you dont like working for others and
feel you are oppressed at work. You write about all the time. That
is why this experimental thing is such a great thing for you. It
allows you freedom to exercise your creativity. I was also in
engineering decades ago and also was under the oppressive rules.
Now I am an airline pilot, which is even more oppressive. Doha!
You got to laugh sometimes; it's not that big of a deal. Dont take
yourself too seriously. It is for fun, its about learning.
>
> A too-large proportion of our fellow citizens place almost
> religious faith in policy, regulation, certification,
> tradition, etc. I'm only suggesting that folks
> who choose to join the OBAM aviation community have already
> rejected a facet of mindless worship of tradition
> and government's willingness to be the the eternal parent.
> In the type certificated household we're told: "I'm in
> charge here, the VALUE of my contribution is irrelevant and
> your understanding matters not - do as I say or be sanctioned."
Double WOW religion, government and parents? If the world
was run by ME things would be better. I feel your pain Bob.
Bob for president (ha ha).
>
> You are free to teach any philosophy you wish . . .
> your students pay their tuition and take their chances.
> That's the way it is in the hard, cold and cruel world
> of consumer/supplier relationships. If your students
> are content with value-received and you've delivered
> on what you promised, then there's no argument from me
> especially if your willing to tell them, "I don't have any
> science but this is what I believe." It's called "truth in
> advertising". I would only counsel that what you offer should
> liberating, not binding. This is the difference between
> being a teacher and a propagandist.
> Bob . . .
What? (no one is after your job Bob) You are in charge and
the king of DC wiring distribution in little planes.
Thanks for your permission for free speech, but I was
granted that by The First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, part of the United States Bill of Rights. Bob
your last sentience is a good one. To coin a phrase it is a
two way street.
Don't you be a dictator. Let others post opinion with out
rhetoric and oppression. A simple we agree to disagree
is all that is needed, with out things like your atrocious
Document Hazard Warning against Greg Richter of Blue
Mountain Avionics you have on your web site. You make
way too much out of small issues. It is not about winning
an argument, it is about teaching. I guess Greg said
there are atrocious examples of wiring, and some is
from following your book. Hey it is his opinion. I think
those people would be making weird stuff with or without
your book. I can't blame you book. There is a lot of info
out there. Wiring DC circuits is not new.
You are the BIG DOG, resident electrical guru and always
will be. It's your thing. You are good at it, you care about it
and have done a lot to help amateur plane builders improve
the quality of wiring. You do have a passion for over kill and
complexity, but that is just my opinion. There are a lot of
Bob *Knuckle Heads* out there who are fans, so you are
doing something right. Of course many home builder like
adding more gizmo's and switches. Many will no doubt flame
me on your behalf. Asbestos underwear on. Flame on.
Cheers Your Fan George
---------------------------------
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Oil Pressure Gauge Problem |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hello Listers,
Sorry for the length of this. Just providing background to my
questions...
I have a '58 Cessna 182.. Last year when I bought it (when the
weather was cold) I noticed a sporadic sligthly quivering oil pressure
indication (needle varies +/-5psi at ~2Hz) on the panel gauge. I
asked a couple of mechanics about it, and they said it's probably not
an issue - said it's old gauges. Well, I have never liked it...
This summer I started to noticed that when the oil temp warms (middle
of the indication), the indicated oil pressure comes down from above
50psi at cruise RPM to 30psi at cruise, and sometimes below 25psi at
idle. While this might not be something to be completely alarmed
about, it's right at the bottom limit for operating oil pressure
according to the O-470 specs.
So, I started digging into it. The gauge is an electric style with a
crankcase mounted sending unit. Over the weekend, I plumbed in
another mechanical oil pressure instrument to be able to compare
values with. What I found is that the panel instrument has significan
error - generally showing the OP to be lower than actual. The panel
instrument also seems to have significantly nonlinear (non-monotonic?)
response, unfortunately, right around the middle of the operating
range.. That's a better scenario than having a real oil pressure
problem, but it's kind of annoying.
RPM Panel Pressure External Pressure
520 22 30
650 25 35
700 27 38
1000 32 51
1200 35 55
1300 38 56
1500 38 56
It appears that the oil pressure regulator has enough oil volume to
work with at the test temperature to regulate pressure starting at
about 1200RPM. That seems totally fine.
I thought it likely that I had a bad sending unit (as it's in the
harshest environment). To verify this, I decided to take a look at
the response curve of the panel instrument.. I Googled around and
found that most of the Stewart Warner senders vary resistance between
~30-240ohm over their operating range. So, I disconnected the wire
from the sending unit and reconnected it to one leg of a variable pot.
Using an ohmmeter, I adjusted the pot to various R values, then at
each value I connected the other leg of the pot to ground and then
noted the indication on the panel meter:
Resistance OP Indication
23 108
33 100
43 95
47 93
65 80
75 68
87 60
89 41
93 38
130 20
230 0
I was surprised to find that the notchy response seemed to come from
the panel instrument - the sender may yet be good.. Around 40-60psi,
the instrument responded to a very small change in resistance with a
big jump in pressure indication..
The physical motion of the instrument is quite slow, but smooth. It
doesn't appear that the movement is draggy/jumpy. When the master is
switched on, the instrument ramps up from zero somewhat quickly at
first, but the final value isn't reached for something like 30sec. I
find this behavior interesting given that the needle also quivers
sometimes.
I measured the open circuit voltage at the sending unit to be around
12.5V (close to battery voltage).
Okay, so now for questions:
Is there any reason the instrument would be designed to have this
notchy response?
Is this a common failure mode for this kind of instrument? Has anyone
else seen one do this?
Is there anything in the wiring to the instrument that would cause a
big shift in the operating point such that this notchy behavior is now
right in the middle of the indicating range?
Can anybody suggest a way to get this fixed (or other things to check)?
Now that I have seen the response curve, I'll probably not throw very
much money at it.. The meter seems to have predictable behavior - it
actually does show changing oil pressure, though not particularly
accurately. If the gauge indicates less than 15-20psi while at operating
RPM, I should probably start getting concerned. Otherwise, it seems
nothing to be alarmed about.
Does anyone rebuild these instruments?
This week, I may plot the sending unit resistance vs. independently
measured oil pressure - just to fill in that blank - and prove that
the sending unit is behaving reasonably.
Any other thoughts?
Thanks and regards,
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Logic and experience (was about
> >alternators)
> >
>
> >
> > And I might have a lifetime of picking apples but
> > that doesn't make me an apple horticulturist. I've
> > spent 50 years getting my hands dirty, figuring out
> > how things work, designing new products and doing
> > my best to keep customers happy, but that doesn't
> > make me a human factors expert either.
> > I've never asked you to prove anything, only offer logical
> > foundation for your assertions . . . be a teacher
> > for the ideas you hold dear.
>
>
>I am not sure what you mean?
If you don't know what I mean, where do I begin?
For years on this List you've demonstrated no
ability/willingness to discuss simple-ideas based
on the physics or their assemblage into useful
systems that meet customer's design goals.
You place great value in the advertising hype for
your favorite products while demonstrating no first-
hand knowledge of the product's inner workings nor
willingness or even curiosity to find out.
As far as I know, you're retired, have no customers, and
no commitments to perform for anyone. This leaves plenty of
time to dance around poking 'sticks' into folk's cages
while hiding behind a pseudonym dressed up with lots
of alphabet soup poured over your signature line.
I don't rely on an alphabet-soup-sauce to support
my assertions. I have to demonstrate my performance in
a day-time job, in a night-time job and in service to my
customers. I have to accept consequences for my actions
in terms of tangible gains and losses. The only thing
you risk is flaming e-mails and perhaps censure.
I don't use the word "cage" in a pejorative sense. My
cage is a space I choose to occupy that sets limits
on my behavior. I aspire to the use of words that
inform and sometimes entertain. I avoid use of words
intended to persuade and certainly words intended to
hurt. I'm bound my the limits of my 'cage' from attacking
you or your property. I value my honor and the honorable
behavior of others when they go out of their way
to defend the person and property of others.
You have demonstrated no similar bounds. Even when
I take pains to acknowledge where we're in agreement,
you can still find a still longer stick to poke
with.
The fact that you totally missed the significant points in
my attempts at discussion with Mr. Richter is
ample demonstration of your existence in an parallel
universe. Mr. Richter attacked me sir but would not
cite a single paragraph in the 'Connection wherein
my words lead individuals to do "atrocious work" on
their airplanes. Many of the assertions in his document
were wrong . . . not alternate opinions but
simply wrong. But when questioned for amplification,
he would not focus on nor answer a single question.
Whatever useful information his document contained
was awash in error and unsupportable assertions.
Greg's unwillingness/inability to earn respect as a
teacher while disseminating a volume of bad data has
earned him permanent enshrinement on my website.
Like many of history's infamous documents, Greg's
work is worthy of preservation so as to be available to
serious students of the matters it purports to illuminate.
You willingly defer to the forces of regulation and certification
when it suits your argument but ridicule my goal of adapting
the automotive IR alternator into fold of traditional
(and certified) electrical systems.
When I'm skeptical of traditional regulatory and bureaucratic
management, you find fault in my irreverence but in the
next paragraph, you poke at me for adhering to some
outdated notions of how an alternator should behave in
airplanes - "let 'er run just like they do in cars, no
problem."
You've taken me to task for being critical of a "dark-n-
stormy-night" story wherein a respected test pilot suffered
the indignities, injury and expense of an off field landing
while citing alternator failure as root cause. Subsequent
conversation with him confirmed loss of stator winding as
cause of the alternator failure. Respected test pilot or not, he
was flying an electrically dependent engine wherein
loss of the alternator was all it took to bring him down.
I cannot speak to his skills as pilot but I remain skeptical
of his system design skills or the skills of his
support staff. But you made it clear that I shouldn't
be "attacking" someone's abilities - especially one so
respected - and besides, I shouldn't be piling more
indignities on his already expensive adventure. The fact
that his engine quit for the reasons cited is ample
foundation for my skepticism.
If dark-n-stormy-night stories are to have any real value,
it's in the dissection and discovery and prevention of
future of root causes - and even the most respected
individuals can stub their toe. Come to think of it,
perhaps it was Paul who raked me on this one . . . if
so, please accept my apologies for the attribution error.
In any case, you're either incapable of focusing on an issue
or just having too much fun poking through the boundaries
of my limits. Just the fact that you defend Greg
Richter's document is an overwhelming demonstration of
your dearth of understanding. Your words on the List
are already enshrined in Matronics archives so that
others may research and assess value as they see fit.
Meanwhile, I have many rewarding ways to spend my
time and discussing anything with you is not one of them.
To allow your masquerade to continue is a compromise that
will only distract a quest for the best we know how to do.
It's time to call a halt to this unproductive taxation
on my time and everyone else's patience.
I will ask you too sir to vacate the AeroElectric List.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
I second Bob's motion; now let's vote on it.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Logic and experience (was about
> >alternators)
> >
>
> >
> > And I might have a lifetime of picking apples but
> > that doesn't make me an apple horticulturist. I've
> > spent 50 years getting my hands dirty, figuring out
> > how things work, designing new products and doing
> > my best to keep customers happy, but that doesn't
> > make me a human factors expert either.
> > I've never asked you to prove anything, only offer logical
> > foundation for your assertions . . . be a teacher
> > for the ideas you hold dear.
>
>
>I am not sure what you mean?
If you don't know what I mean, where do I begin?
Meanwhile, I have many rewarding ways to spend my
time and discussing anything with you is not one of them.
To allow your masquerade to continue is a compromise that
will only distract a quest for the best we know how to do.
It's time to call a halt to this unproductive taxation
on my time and everyone else's patience.
I will ask you too sir to vacate the AeroElectric List.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
Aye, in favor of Bob's motion.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rob
Housman
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
I second Bob's motion; now let's vote on it.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Logic and experience (was about
> >alternators)
> >
>
> >
> > And I might have a lifetime of picking apples but
> > that doesn't make me an apple horticulturist. I've
> > spent 50 years getting my hands dirty, figuring out
> > how things work, designing new products and doing
> > my best to keep customers happy, but that doesn't
> > make me a human factors expert either.
> > I've never asked you to prove anything, only offer logical
> > foundation for your assertions . . . be a teacher
> > for the ideas you hold dear.
>
>
>I am not sure what you mean?
If you don't know what I mean, where do I begin?
Meanwhile, I have many rewarding ways to spend my
time and discussing anything with you is not one of them.
To allow your masquerade to continue is a compromise that
will only distract a quest for the best we know how to do.
It's time to call a halt to this unproductive taxation
on my time and everyone else's patience.
I will ask you too sir to vacate the AeroElectric List.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Baleshta" <dbaleshta(at)tru.ca> |
Aye
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold Kovac" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net> |
Bravo, another ego trip aborted.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
>
>
> Aye, in favor of Bob's motion.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rob
> Housman
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:26 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
>
>
> <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>
> I second Bob's motion; now let's vote on it.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
> A070
> Airframe complete
> Irvine, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
> L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
>
>
>
>
>> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Logic and experience (was about
>> >alternators)
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > And I might have a lifetime of picking apples but
>> > that doesn't make me an apple horticulturist. I've
>> > spent 50 years getting my hands dirty, figuring out
>> > how things work, designing new products and doing
>> > my best to keep customers happy, but that doesn't
>> > make me a human factors expert either.
>> > I've never asked you to prove anything, only offer logical
>> > foundation for your assertions . . . be a teacher
>> > for the ideas you hold dear.
>>
>>
>>I am not sure what you mean?
>
> If you don't know what I mean, where do I begin?
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, I have many rewarding ways to spend my
> time and discussing anything with you is not one of them.
> To allow your masquerade to continue is a compromise that
> will only distract a quest for the best we know how to do.
> It's time to call a halt to this unproductive taxation
> on my time and everyone else's patience.
>
> I will ask you too sir to vacate the AeroElectric List.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | methodology for avionics install |
I had no avionics or electric turn coordinator in my project aircraft.
I have now installed an audio panel and a gps/com, which seem to be working
find, no feedback or hums or other noise.
My plan is to install each additional unit and do some testing before adding
additional units.
Hopefully, if there is a problem, I can attribute it to the latest addition
for remedial measures.
Is this a sound idea? It is somewhat more timeconsuming, as opposed to
doing it all at once.
I plan to put the turn coordinator back in last, assuming it is the noisiest
electrical unit-should this be on the same ground as the other avionics? Is
mu metal a significently better shield that the sheetmetal gutter material?
Thank you, Skip Simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Old Cessna filters/capacitators/avionics |
My 1968 Cardinal has a whiskey flask sized "filter" in the middle of the
alternator output wire, a metal capacitator on each magneto, a 2 inch square
metal box filter that ties into the Zeftronics voltage regulator and a large
like a half a roll of quarters paper shell capacitator between the turn
coordinator wires.
I work under the supervision of a licensed ap mechanic.
1. what are the various filters for? I have been told that the flask size
in the middle of the alternator line is only needed if using adf or loran.
Because to filter out the ac would require a much bigger filter.
2. Would it be wise to remove them one by one and see what noises are
introduced by their removal? I could always put them back on. Will I hurt
anything if I run the aircraft and avionics sans all filters?
3. Would it be a good idea (noise wise) to run my avionics bus directly
from the battery (feed and ground).?
4. Am I correct in assuming these filters only are effective while the
engine is running?
Thank you Skip Simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
I always thought gmcjetpilot was a pseudonym used by Paul M. Hard to believe
there are two of them out there.!!! If anyone's interested I'd vote Aye -
Aye.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harold
Kovac
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
-->
Bravo, another ego trip aborted.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
>
>
> Aye, in favor of Bob's motion.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rob
> Housman
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:26 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
>
>
> <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>
> I second Bob's motion; now let's vote on it.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
> A070
> Airframe complete
> Irvine, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Robert
> L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
>
>
>
>
>> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Logic and experience (was about
>> >alternators)
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > And I might have a lifetime of picking apples but
>> > that doesn't make me an apple horticulturist. I've
>> > spent 50 years getting my hands dirty, figuring out
>> > how things work, designing new products and doing
>> > my best to keep customers happy, but that doesn't
>> > make me a human factors expert either.
>> > I've never asked you to prove anything, only offer logical
>> > foundation for your assertions . . . be a teacher for the ideas
>> > you hold dear.
>>
>>
>>I am not sure what you mean?
>
> If you don't know what I mean, where do I begin?
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, I have many rewarding ways to spend my
> time and discussing anything with you is not one of them.
> To allow your masquerade to continue is a compromise that
> will only distract a quest for the best we know how to do.
> It's time to call a halt to this unproductive taxation
> on my time and everyone else's patience.
>
> I will ask you too sir to vacate the AeroElectric List.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
batteries.
Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax 912 with a 20Amp
generater, was setting up
for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I got with
my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
Brian
Bob,
I have been doing a lot of reading lately, and somewhere I was
reading an article on RG batteries ....
Thanks
Dave Morris
Mooney M20A
N6030X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
Aye.
You should see the off list haranguing I got from him in reply to my on
list dark and stormy night story. He attacked Bob in it repeatedly while
assuring me that he likes Bob and his ideas. He called Bob (among other
things) a hypocrite and an asshole and extorted me not to be a
"Dittohead". It is many pages long and it made me slightly ill to read
it.
I'm setting my spam filter for him. I've seen enough, again.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob
Housman
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
<robh@hyperion-ef.us>
I second Bob's motion; now let's vote on it.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Logic and experience (was about
> >alternators)
> >
>
> >
> > And I might have a lifetime of picking apples but
> > that doesn't make me an apple horticulturist. I've
> > spent 50 years getting my hands dirty, figuring out
> > how things work, designing new products and doing
> > my best to keep customers happy, but that doesn't
> > make me a human factors expert either.
> > I've never asked you to prove anything, only offer logical
> > foundation for your assertions . . . be a teacher
> > for the ideas you hold dear.
>
>
>I am not sure what you mean?
If you don't know what I mean, where do I begin?
Meanwhile, I have many rewarding ways to spend my
time and discussing anything with you is not one of them.
To allow your masquerade to continue is a compromise that
will only distract a quest for the best we know how to do.
It's time to call a halt to this unproductive taxation
on my time and everyone else's patience.
I will ask you too sir to vacate the AeroElectric List.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
| Subject: | Dual radio interference |
I have 2 radios. GNS430 and GNC300XL.
Also have GMA340 audio panel and Approach Systems wiring harness.
Everything works great, I just have one annoyance. When I select both radio
to listen to and then transmit on one, the transmission is very garbled for
me. ATC reads me loud and clear but I can barely make out what I'm saying.
Happens with both radios.
Any ideas on how to fix this?
Steve
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dual radio interference |
In a message dated 9/6/06 7:52:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sjhdcl(at)kingston.net writes:
> I have 2 radios. GNS430 and GNC300XL.
> Also have GMA340 audio panel and Approach Systems wiring harness.
>
> Everything works great, I just have one annoyance. When I select both
radio
> to listen to and then transmit on one, the transmission is very garbled for
> me. ATC reads me loud and clear but I can barely make out what I'm saying.
> Happens with both radios.
>
> Any ideas on how to fix this?
>
> Steve
> RV7A
========================
Steve:
More than likely it is because of 'front end overload', a electronics term
for too much signal going into the Received radio.
There should be a pin hooked up that mutes the receive radio when the other
is transmitting. You will have to check on the schematic for the radios, the
audio panel and the Approach System.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | What I learned today |
Listers,
Folks have been bugging me about George for some time.
Over a year perhaps. They keep citing this venue as being
my list and suggested that I have full authority to manage
it in whatever way I want.
I never wanted to view this as "my list". It's always been
my fondest wish that the AeroElectric List be a joint venture,
a quest for the best-we-know-how-to-do. On the other hand,
I cannot tolerate circular arguments that perpetually
hat-dance around the simple-ideas while confusing or
misleading those who come here for practical advice.
I guess I could treat this more like a university job.
It's not my building but it is my classroom. A good
teacher must be open to consider every idea but with
absolute control over classroom decorum and a bulwark
against bad science and individuals who disrupt what
should be a calm, considered sifting of the simple-ideas.
I might liken this effort to that of accident investigator.
The real work begins after the fire trucks, ambulances
and distraught individuals have left. I've had several
occasions where folks who witnessed or were involved
in an accident came over to see what I was doing and
conversationally relive the events from their perspective.
This was always distracting and never yielded useful
information. I never asked any of those folks to leave . . .
after all, the space we shared wasn't my personal property.
In retrospect I'm coming to understand that "space"
comes in many forms and just because someone has
a fundamental right to co exist with us in a physical
space doesn't give them a right to invade (and stir up
trouble) in folk's intellectual space. I promise not
to allow such situations to carry on so long again.
We all have better ways to invest our most precious
commodity, time.
Thank you all for your understanding and support of
the AeroElectric List mission. I learn from the List
every day and I believe it to be a powerful tool for
advancing the state of our art and science in crafting
the best airplanes to have ever flown.
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: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
Ah, yes, there it is in AOPA Pilot, September issue, page 136:
"The low internal resistance of RG batteries is the second reason
(more plate area is the first) they deliver more power and why they
accept a charge faster. Accepting more charge can cause small
generators to overheat. Skip Koss of Concorde Battery said any
airplane with a generator with an output of less than 50 amps should
use flooded-cell batteries for this reason."
Presumably that would apply only if the battery were needing a large
charge and Charge + Other Load was greater than the rating of the generator?
I have a 1960 Mooney M20A with a 35A generator, and I would think
that as long as I'm not taking off at night into the ice with a fully
discharged battery, needing my landing lights and pitot heat and a
heavy battery charge, this battery should be OK.
Dave Morris
N6030X
At 11:44 PM 9/5/2006, you wrote:
>The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on
>aircraft batteries.
>Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and
>later near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a
>rotax 912 with a 20Amp generater, was setting up
>for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I
>got with my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
>
>Brian
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I have been doing a lot of reading lately, and somewhere I was
>reading an article on RG batteries ....
>
>Thanks
>Dave Morris
>Mooney M20A
>N6030X
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
>The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
>batteries.
>Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
>near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax 912 with a
>20Amp generater, was setting up
>for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I got with
>my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
appreciate it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: methodology for avionics install |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________
>
>
>From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: methodology for avionics install
>
>I had no avionics or electric turn coordinator in my project aircraft.
>
>I have now installed an audio panel and a gps/com, which seem to be working
>find, no feedback or hums or other noise.
>
>My plan is to install each additional unit and do some testing before adding
>additional units.
>
>Hopefully, if there is a problem, I can attribute it to the latest addition
>for remedial measures.
>
>Is this a sound idea? It is somewhat more timeconsuming, as opposed to
>doing it all at once.
>
>
>
It seems like it would be slower and more time consuming than installing
everything at once and throwing the master switch, but that is just a
mirage. Your plan will actually save you many, MANY hours of
troubleshooting, debugging, and pulling the instruments back out, one by
one, as you try to discover which one of those many wires got crossed
and caused the problem. It's a case of "slow down so you can get done
faster."
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Old Cessna filters/capacitors/avionics |
>My 1968 Cardinal has a whiskey flask sized "filter" in the middle of the
>alternator output wire, a metal capacitator on each magneto, a 2 inch
>square metal box filter that ties into the Zeftronics voltage regulator
>and a large like a half a roll of quarters paper shell capacitator between
>the turn coordinator wires.
>
>I work under the supervision of a licensed ap mechanic.
>
>1. what are the various filters for? I have been told that the flask
>size in the middle of the alternator line is only needed if using adf or
>loran. Because to filter out the ac would require a much bigger filter.
That is correct. When that airplane rolled off the assembly
line, DO-160 testing was but a gleam in the eye of some
seasoned veteran of the Systems Integration Wars. Interestingly
enough, while aviation readily thumbed its nose at "automotive"
technologies, in may respects we lagged far behind the car guys
in understanding and implementation of rudimentary science. In
this picture . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Screen_Room_circa_1935.jpg
. . . we see a screen-room used in the early '30s to identify
and mitigate noise issues on cars. In 1968 our primary source
of test data was from the test pilot's squawk sheets. Pilots who
wore headphones could be counted on to hear and complain about
noises that were never heard through the cabin speaker.
Under this environment, many things were done to mitigate
complaints without benefit of knowing the exact nature of
a noise source, propagation mode and victim vulnerabilities.
A byproduct of this ignorance is manifested in what you see
on your airplane. Alternator filters and shielding of alternator
wiring were added to mitigate perceived noises in ADF receivers.
Turns out that shielding had no beneficial effects but the
experiments were not differential with respect to filter capacitors
and shielding. They went in together, the pilot smiled, they
stayed on the drawings for decades hence.
>
>2. Would it be wise to remove them one by one and see what noises are
>introduced by their removal? I could always put them back on. Will I
>hurt anything if I run the aircraft and avionics sans all filters?
Excellent idea! Do the science. There are no risks to
any hardware for having removed noise filters.
>
>3. Would it be a good idea (noise wise) to run my avionics bus directly
>from the battery (feed and ground).?
No. Doing what you suggest might have been considered and even
tried by someone in some factory in 1965. It's unlikely that
an action of that type would have made a test pilot any
happier; we don't see airplane production drawings that
call for that particular noise mitigation technique.
>
>4. Am I correct in assuming these filters only are effective while the
>engine is running?
Yes . . . for alternator and magneto filters.
Suggest you review the chapter in the 'Connection on noise
and then mount an orderly exploratory activity to deduce
effectiveness (and ultimate necessity) for any of the filters
you have on board. Remove one at a time and survey the
performance of your intercom and radios. Certainly listening
with headphones as opposed to cabin speaker. If you don't
hear any deleterious effects for having removed a filter,
you may rationally consider removing it permanently.
Your evaluation in 2006 is just as valid (if not more) than
the opinion of the good fellow who flew that airplane for
the first time in 1968.
Please get back to us and share your findings. Also, if you
DO identify a noise issue that begs attention, let us work
with you to try some things with a goal of increasing
the working knowledge of all the List members.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
I'm mystified by this. Alternators are inherently current limited.
A 'cold' alternator will put out only a handful of amps over and above
the nameplate rating. Generators have no such inherent protection and
require current sensing and control feature as part of the regulator.
This is accomplished with the center of three relay-looking thingys
in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/GenReg_2A.jpg
As a systems integrator looking over the specs of a generator/regulator
combination, I'd be disappointed if the data said something like, "Caution,
do not operate this system in the current limited mode for extended
periods of time." Obviously, current limiting is there to protect the
generator from it's willingness to self-destruct . . . but I'm mystified
as to why we should take special notice of current limited operations
to run systems aboard the airplane as opposed to charging a "too big"
battery.
If there are issues with respect to extended current limited operations
for generators, I'd expect these to be covered in the hot-day, max-load,
min-cooling tests customarily conducted at cert-time for the generator.
I've forwarded a copy of this note to Skip. I have no doubt that he
will come forward and enlighten us as to the underlying reasons for
Concorde's suggestion.
Bob . . .
>
>Ah, yes, there it is in AOPA Pilot, September issue, page 136:
>
>"The low internal resistance of RG batteries is the second reason (more
>plate area is the first) they deliver more power and why they accept a
>charge faster. Accepting more charge can cause small generators to
>overheat. Skip Koss of Concorde Battery said any airplane with a
>generator with an output of less than 50 amps should use flooded-cell
>batteries for this reason."
>
>Presumably that would apply only if the battery were needing a large
>charge and Charge + Other Load was greater than the rating of the generator?
>
>I have a 1960 Mooney M20A with a 35A generator, and I would think that as
>long as I'm not taking off at night into the ice with a fully discharged
>battery, needing my landing lights and pitot heat and a heavy battery
>charge, this battery should be OK.
>
>Dave Morris
>N6030X
>
>At 11:44 PM 9/5/2006, you wrote:
>>The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
>>batteries.
>>Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
>>near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax 912 with
>>a 20Amp generater, was setting up
>>for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I got
>>with my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
>>
>>Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
I, along with many others have had significant backline discussions with
"George."
Like Ed, his reply to me was filled with name calling and degrading
statements. Doug reports that he has had dozens of complaints about him
and has given him fair warnings. The most recent was on the RV10 section
of the Forums. Of course, George's knowledge of the RV10 was far greater
than those actually involved.
He is supposedely an airline pilot which absolutely scares the hell out
of me. So much so that on the occasional airline flights I do take I ask
who the pilot is. If it were George I would not take the flight. I'm
confident that his "No Fly" list is so long that the only people that
will fly with him are the newest guys.If I knew which airline he flew
for I would forward my series of correspondence to their Chief Pilot and
HR manager for evaluation. This guy is clearly not all there.
Another interesting point, who knows this guy? I've never heard of
anyone who has been to his house to visit his alleged project, saw him
at a fly in or otherwise had any contect with him other than on an email
list. Did anyone see him at Oshkosh? He certainly didn't say anything
about Oshkosh. Certainly, a person of his stature and iconish self
image, wouldn't miss something as significant as Oshkosh. Then he could
approach all of these companies he blasts in person. I can hear it now,
"Security, Exhibit hall C, Security, Exhibit hall C."
He needs to go away.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>
>
> >The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
> >batteries.
> >Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
> >near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax 912 with a
> >20Amp generater, was setting up
> >for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I got with
> >my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
>
> I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
> the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
> it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
> appreciate it.
>
> Bob . . .
Listers,
The relevent article is on page 133 of the September issue
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Unfortunately, AOPA hasn't chosen to put that article on line, yet. It was
written by Steven Ells. It apparently gives www.aeroelectric.com and the
two battery companies web links. Title is "Charge It" under their Airframe
and Power Plant column.
>> I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
>> the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
>> it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
>> appreciate it.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
> Listers,
> The relevent article is on page 133 of the September issue
> Charlie Kuss
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Count me as one who thinks that banning people from the list discloses a failure
of process. I think there is a clash of styles that destroys the exchange of
ideas here. Too bad.
My personal style is to state what I believe, and why; and then go away. Arrogance
comes quite naturally to me. After a while what I believed is usually accepted
as obvious--I get no credit for it--and that is just fine. I rarely read
these bazing disagreements. My Attention Deficit Disorder coupled with Time Management
skills I think....
Bob--I might have done the same thing. But I think I would have tried to avoid
having to do it much harder. These are damned smart guys.
"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
- E. Stobblehouse
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59992#59992
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-av(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm mystified by this. Alternators are inherently current limited.
> A 'cold' alternator will put out only a handful of amps over and above
> the nameplate rating. Generators have no such inherent protection and
> require current sensing and control feature as part of the regulator.
> This is accomplished with the center of three relay-looking thingys
> in . . .
Well, here is some speculation, worth every penny you are paying for it.
The actual generating part of a generator is the armature, not the
stator. Less surface area from which to rid itself of heat. Also, the
generator has the commutator and its brushes. These are pretty lossy and
they don't have a good way to get rid of heat either, hence another
bottle neck. You are also likely to have less wire in the armature so
you don't have as much I*R loss to limit current.
I also suspect that even though alternators and generators have output
ratings, what they spec as "continuous duty" is probably not really
continuous duty. I suspect that the real, "you can run it this hard
until the cows come home," value is something smaller.
If you just knew the temperature rise of the various components you
could probably figure out what the real ratings are.
And his is an interesting but probably not-to-useful observation on
limits. The Chinese actually put multiple maximum limits on their
engines. It is like, "you can run it this hard for 5 minutes, this hard
for 10 minutes, this hard for 15 minutes, this hard for one hour, and
this hard for ever and ever." This makes a LOT of sense to me.
Brian Lloyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Count me as one who thinks that banning people from the list discloses a
>failure of process. I think there is a clash of styles that destroys the
>exchange of ideas here. Too bad.
>
>My personal style is to state what I believe, and why; and then go away.
>Arrogance comes quite naturally to me. After a while what I believed is
>usually accepted as obvious--I get no credit for it--and that is just
>fine. I rarely read these bazing disagreements. My Attention Deficit
>Disorder coupled with Time Management skills I think....
>
>Bob--I might have done the same thing. But I think I would have tried to
>avoid having to do it much harder. These are damned smart guys.
I was of that illusion too . . . the decision did not
come easy and it took YEARS. However, in the time since folks have
e-mailed me privately. Some have forwarded copies of e-mails sent
by George in what I'm sure George believes is a rebuttal of things
I wrote. Had his words dealt with simple-ideas and alternative
ways to assemble them into useful systems, one might properly
classify his behavior as vigorous debate. In fact much of what
he writes to others revealed a breadth and depth of dishonor
I would not have guessed.
I did not "ban" him, I asked him to leave. If he is an honorable
person (which recent revelations places in doubt) he will leave
and make an physical blocking of his membership unnecessary.
>"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
>smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
> - E. Stobblehouse
An admirable sentiment. But if you believe George embraces
this philosophy, then you've been bamboozled far worse than
many of us. If you suggesting any degree of arrogance on
my part, please note that arrogant folks cut a wide swath through
any and all individuals or groups who challenge their authority and/or
ideas.
All the way through the so-called debates with George we had
but two debatable issues. (1) He refused to acknowledge a modern alternator
could experience a gross OV failure in spite of demonstrations
to the contrary. (2) He brushed aside my oft stated design goals
for providing seamless integration of his favorite product (the
IR alternator) into classic aircraft electrical systems. In virtually
every other point with respect to these fine products, we were in
absolute agreement and I said so. I've produced dozens of pages of
explanation for my assertions which he summarily ignored and yet
he produced not one essay of his own to explain his assertions.
We did our level best to invite George into the process and
on his point we disagree . . . the process did not fail.
He was the one cutting the wide swath while I and others were
sifting through the noise for any ideas that were attractive,
i.e. WORTHY of exchange.
If you believe George has been mis-interpreted then you're welcome
to produce any article you like to translate George-speak into terms
that more of us understand. You know the goals: Assemble simple-ideas
(indisputable fact) into useful inventions. Only then may we compare
with similar inventions to see which advances the best-we-know-how-to-do.
At the same time, be mindful of design goals of those who will spend
$time$ to put these ideas into practice. Use words that inform and
perhaps entertain. Avoid words that persuade or injure. That my friend
is "The Process".
The Process is foolproof. Failures are exclusively assignable
to individuals who either do not understand or choose not to
embrace it . . . and that sir, is a demonstrable byproduct
of arrogance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net> |
My problem with gmc is that he wastes time, both Bobs and everyone else who
subscribes. I for one have had enough on picking flyspecks out of pepper.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
>
>
> Count me as one who thinks that banning people from the list discloses a
> failure of process. I think there is a clash of styles that destroys the
> exchange of ideas here. Too bad.
>
> My personal style is to state what I believe, and why; and then go away.
> Arrogance comes quite naturally to me. After a while what I believed is
> usually accepted as obvious--I get no credit for it--and that is just
> fine. I rarely read these bazing disagreements. My Attention Deficit
> Disorder coupled with Time Management skills I think....
>
> Bob--I might have done the same thing. But I think I would have tried to
> avoid having to do it much harder. These are damned smart guys.
>
> "The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
> smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
> - E. Stobblehouse
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59992#59992
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
Smart is not enough. You can have the best idea or knowledge base in
the world, but if you cannot communicate, it is worthless. There are
plenty of "damned smart guys" on the list who can communicate. I'll
listen to them.
Best Regards,
Steve Thomas
SteveT.Net
805-569-0336 Office
________________________________________________________________________
On Sep 6, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> These are damned smart guys.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
Bob,
I think your analogy of operating a classroom is right on the money. Those
who disagree so vehemently with the instructor are free to drop the class,
or even start their own class if they can convince the school. They do not
have the right to disrupt the class for the other folks who have come to
discuss and learn. I'd suggest going ahead with the actual blocking -
getting him off of this list can't happen too soon for me.
William Slaughter
Yes! I'll actually put my name on my posts! ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Process
-->
>-->
>
>Count me as one who thinks that banning people from the list discloses
>a
>failure of process. I think there is a clash of styles that destroys the
>exchange of ideas here. Too bad.
>
>My personal style is to state what I believe, and why; and then go
>away.
>Arrogance comes quite naturally to me. After a while what I believed is
>usually accepted as obvious--I get no credit for it--and that is just
>fine. I rarely read these bazing disagreements. My Attention Deficit
>Disorder coupled with Time Management skills I think....
>
>Bob--I might have done the same thing. But I think I would have tried
>to
>avoid having to do it much harder. These are damned smart guys.
I was of that illusion too . . . the decision did not
come easy and it took YEARS. However, in the time since folks have
e-mailed me privately. Some have forwarded copies of e-mails sent
by George in what I'm sure George believes is a rebuttal of things
I wrote. Had his words dealt with simple-ideas and alternative
ways to assemble them into useful systems, one might properly
classify his behavior as vigorous debate. In fact much of what
he writes to others revealed a breadth and depth of dishonor
I would not have guessed.
I did not "ban" him, I asked him to leave. If he is an honorable
person (which recent revelations places in doubt) he will leave
and make an physical blocking of his membership unnecessary.
>"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to
>be smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
> - E. Stobblehouse
An admirable sentiment. But if you believe George embraces
this philosophy, then you've been bamboozled far worse than
many of us. If you suggesting any degree of arrogance on
my part, please note that arrogant folks cut a wide swath through
any and all individuals or groups who challenge their authority and/or
ideas.
All the way through the so-called debates with George we had
but two debatable issues. (1) He refused to acknowledge a modern
alternator
could experience a gross OV failure in spite of demonstrations
to the contrary. (2) He brushed aside my oft stated design goals
for providing seamless integration of his favorite product (the
IR alternator) into classic aircraft electrical systems. In virtually
every other point with respect to these fine products, we were in
absolute agreement and I said so. I've produced dozens of pages of
explanation for my assertions which he summarily ignored and yet
he produced not one essay of his own to explain his assertions.
We did our level best to invite George into the process and
on his point we disagree . . . the process did not fail.
He was the one cutting the wide swath while I and others were
sifting through the noise for any ideas that were attractive,
i.e. WORTHY of exchange.
If you believe George has been mis-interpreted then you're welcome
to produce any article you like to translate George-speak into terms
that more of us understand. You know the goals: Assemble simple-ideas
(indisputable fact) into useful inventions. Only then may we compare
with similar inventions to see which advances the
best-we-know-how-to-do.
At the same time, be mindful of design goals of those who will spend
$time$ to put these ideas into practice. Use words that inform and
perhaps entertain. Avoid words that persuade or injure. That my friend
is "The Process".
The Process is foolproof. Failures are exclusively assignable
to individuals who either do not understand or choose not to
embrace it . . . and that sir, is a demonstrable byproduct
of arrogance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG batteries with 35A generators |
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm mystified by this. Alternators are inherently current limited.
> > A 'cold' alternator will put out only a handful of amps over and above
> > the nameplate rating. Generators have no such inherent protection and
> > require current sensing and control feature as part of the regulator.
> > This is accomplished with the center of three relay-looking thingys
> > in . . .
>
>Well, here is some speculation, worth every penny you are paying for it.
>
>The actual generating part of a generator is the armature, not the
>stator. Less surface area from which to rid itself of heat. Also, the
>generator has the commutator and its brushes. These are pretty lossy and
>they don't have a good way to get rid of heat either, hence another
>bottle neck. You are also likely to have less wire in the armature so
>you don't have as much I*R loss to limit current.
Understand . . . and agree
>I also suspect that even though alternators and generators have output
>ratings, what they spec as "continuous duty" is probably not really
>continuous duty. I suspect that the real, "you can run it this hard
>until the cows come home," value is something smaller.
>
>If you just knew the temperature rise of the various components you
>could probably figure out what the real ratings are.
That's where I get crosswise in the road. In TC aviation, one
is generally expected to deliver to requirements and to fully
explain ratings and limits for products.
>And his is an interesting but probably not-to-useful observation on
>limits. The Chinese actually put multiple maximum limits on their
>engines. It is like, "you can run it this hard for 5 minutes, this hard
>for 10 minutes, this hard for 15 minutes, this hard for one hour, and
>this hard for ever and ever." This makes a LOT of sense to me.
Yup, we do that too. Starter generators on some of our
products are qualified for continuous duty performance
(nameplate value) and then tested for short term overloads
under certain conditions . . . like a 30-minute requirement
for getting down from altitude with one generator dead and all
the de-ice equipment turned on.
I've been herding electrons in this venue for a long time
and Skip's assertions about battery sizing due to some failure
of the generator to meet nameplate performance continuously
is a first. Certification generally demands that you make
ALL limits known to both system integrators and ultimately
pilots . . . if the knowledge is necessary to prevent accidental
damage to hardware.
Now, it may well be that Skip reports some instances where
folks have put fat RG batteries into 1946 C-140's with
20A generators and the customer had "problems". I'm skeptical
that any detailed failure analysis was conducted and I'll
further confess to no knowledge of how generators were certified
in 1946. I do have a copy of CAR3 somewhere, I'll go dig that
out.
Not a really big deal for us alternator drivers but I would
like to understand more. Will let you know what I find out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | AOPA battery article |
>---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
> > >batteries.
> > >Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
> > >near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax 912
> with a
> > >20Amp generater, was setting up
> > >for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I got
> with
> > >my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
> >
> > I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
> > the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
> > it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
> > appreciate it.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Listers,
> The relevent article is on page 133 of the September issue
>Charlie Kuss
Dave sent me a copy. It's an innocuous piece and relatively
accurate. If I were to expand beyond where it stopped short
would be to explain the value in KNOWING what your endurance
loads are and KNOWING if your battery is likely to support
this load for whatever endurance YOU decide.
There was one rather glaring error on the top of page
138 where it's stated that a 1C rated battery is discharged
at 2C, it will deliver energy for 1/2 hour. Twice the
load is ALWAYS less than half the previous capacity. By
the same token, 0.1C load is always more than 10X the
1C label capacity.
Exemplar capacity vs. discharge rates are illustrated
in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/37AH_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_Capcity_vs_Load.gif
These graphs from manufacturer's data show that increasing
loads increases internal losses and that apparent
capacity drops as load increases.
Our perpetual parents on the TC side have decided that
"30 minutes" is the magic number for endurance and
"85% of label capacity" is end of life for the battery.
This makes the certification effort easy and makes FBOs
task of selling batteries easier. This is an excellent example of
standardization that benefits the manufacturers and
regulators while limiting the owner's ability to tailor
realistic targets to match his/her own mission requirements.
Neither one of the 30-minute/85% assertions suggest that
the owner/operator of an airplane might possess tools and
be willing to acquire skills needed increase personal endurance
target to say 1 hour. Or, take the time to monitor a battery
with an eye toward meeting the endurance level such that
70% of label capacity is the TRUE end of life for the battery
in that particular airplane.
Aren't you guys glad you don't have to salute those
flags? I still like "duration of fuel aboard" for
endurance and "pitch it when e-bus loads cannot be
supported for duration of fuel aboard." Of course,
on the OBAM side of the house we're free to select
and operate to our personal design goals.
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: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Debating on an alternator or two batteries? |
Hello Tony
Personally with an electric dependant engine, I'd happily trade 4 lbs
or so of battery for a small permanent magnet alternator and I suspect
the alternator would be the lighter option if you have a few hours of
fuel on board.
Bob just posted some references on battery discharging that you will
want to look at.
For a primary battery with no alternator I'd suggest multiplying your
hours of fuel by 2.5 amps and then picking a battery that can supply
that (from its spec. sheet) and then doubling it. Another battery
characteristic is that the deeper you discharge them, the fewer
discharge - charge cycles they last so planning for a 50% discharge when
the fuel runs out might be reasonable. That would also allow for other
sub optimal conditions such as temperature.
Ken
Tony Gibson wrote:
> Hi Group, my name's Tony Gibson, I've been a lurker on the list for
> almost a year now and am building a Sonerai 2L - read 550lb slightly
> underpowered two place! :)
>
> I'm trying to take as much weight out of the plane as I can by keeping
> it simple. There's a lot of reasons I'm considering two batteries
> rather than a battery and an alternator. But saving a bit of weight
> isn't the main reason, the fact that I can move the weight of battery
> where ever I want in the plane is a big bonus for servicing it
> nevermind balancing, and ....the last thing I will do is put lead
> weight back into it!
>
> I have an ignition system that draws ~1 amp and a single fuel pump
> that draws another amp. I decided against the starter and the only
> other amp draws will be two small Stratomaster instruments drawing
> less than half an amp together. Total draw would be less than 2.5 Amps
>
> With the right warning system to indicate a low primary battery
> I'm wondering if something like a 3 - 5 Ah battery would be large
> enough for a backup? What about the primary?
>
> The downside of course is what would I do on a crosscountry trip?
> Argh! :)
>
> Thanx a lot, appreciate any help and opinions!
> Tony
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Entertainment Audio Switching |
I am upgrading my entertainment audio to add XM input and also a jack for
future audio input from an iPod. I already have a CD changer. That part is
easy, just a DP3P switch should do it.
At the same time I decided to change (complicate) the output options. The
problem is I have an audio panel that has separate entertainment audio inputs
for the front seats and the rear seats (two inputs). I would like to have a
switch that switches between front/all/rear. All I could figure out was to
use a 4P3P rotary switch or two separate DPST switches.
Any ideas?
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | gmcjetpilot's legacy |
OK. The guy was/is a blowhard, with obviously way to much time on his hands to
be able to write long rambling dissertations with no point; however....maybe
there is a diamond or two amoungst all that pig....stuff.
Bob wrote:
(1) He refused to acknowledge a modern alternator could experience a gross OV failure
in spite of demonstrations to the contrary. (2) He brushed aside my oft
stated design goals for providing seamless integration of his favorite product
(the IR alternator) into classic aircraft electrical systems.
It irritated the snot out of me that he would never simply state an alternative
set of design goals. He did expound on the benefits that an IVR has...temp compensation,
slow start, etc. I think those are desirable, but not if they don't
fit in with the rest of the design goals. Bob has clearly and succinctly
stated that the design goal is that the pilot have complete control of the charging
system. It seems to me that simply modifying one word would open the door
for IVR systems and maintain or increase the current level of safety. Do we
really need 'complete' control, or will 'ultimate' control suffice? That is,
we allow the IVR to work it's magic was the IVR designers have seen fit to have
the magic performed, but the pilot has "all rights reserved". (S)he can hit
the kill switch and take it out of the system at any time. Yes that might
break the alternator, but isn't it being taken offline because it's already broke?
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder antenna location |
Has anyone tried mounting a transponder antenna on the bottom of the
rear fuselage? That location (about 2/3 of the length of the fuselage
back) slopes upward on a Rebel but it is the location least blanked by
large gear fairings, and metal radiator ducting. Unfortunately the worst
signal would likely be forward to where the ground station I'm trying to
reply to is likely to be during first contact. I am willing to mount the
transponder behind me to keep the coax within the 8.8 feet max specified
by Garmin.
The other option seems to be on the roof. That is apparently not
recommended and it would be near skylights and my head which I'm not
comfortable with. I could get it the minimum recommended 3 feet away
from the VHF antenna but the high wing might tend to blank ground
stations to the side. I suspect that roof mounting would provide a
better signal to other aircraft which is probably more important to me
than a signal to ground so I guess I could put the antenna on the roof
back near the tail. It seems silly to invest in a transponder though
unless it is likely to perform well with both ATC and also traffic
warning devices on other aircraft.
thanks for any comments
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cleone Markwell <cleone(at)rr1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AOPA battery article |
Bob, What does OBAM mean?
At 09:29 PM 9/6/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>> III"
>> >
>> >
>> > >The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
>> > >batteries.
>> > >Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
>> > >near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax
>> 912 with a
>> > >20Amp generater, was setting up
>> > >for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box
>> I got with
>> > >my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
>> >
>> > I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
>> > the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
>> > it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
>> > appreciate it.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>>
>>Listers,
>> The relevent article is on page 133 of the September issue
>>Charlie Kuss
>
> Dave sent me a copy. It's an innocuous piece and relatively
> accurate. If I were to expand beyond where it stopped short
> would be to explain the value in KNOWING what your endurance
> loads are and KNOWING if your battery is likely to support
> this load for whatever endurance YOU decide.
>
> There was one rather glaring error on the top of page
> 138 where it's stated that a 1C rated battery is discharged
> at 2C, it will deliver energy for 1/2 hour. Twice the
> load is ALWAYS less than half the previous capacity. By
> the same token, 0.1C load is always more than 10X the
> 1C label capacity.
>
> Exemplar capacity vs. discharge rates are illustrated
> in . . .
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/37AH_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
>
> and
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_Capcity_vs_Load.gif
>
> These graphs from manufacturer's data show that increasing
> loads increases internal losses and that apparent
> capacity drops as load increases.
>
> Our perpetual parents on the TC side have decided that
> "30 minutes" is the magic number for endurance and
> "85% of label capacity" is end of life for the battery.
> This makes the certification effort easy and makes FBOs
> task of selling batteries easier. This is an excellent example of
> standardization that benefits the manufacturers and
> regulators while limiting the owner's ability to tailor
> realistic targets to match his/her own mission requirements.
>
> Neither one of the 30-minute/85% assertions suggest that
> the owner/operator of an airplane might possess tools and
> be willing to acquire skills needed increase personal endurance
> target to say 1 hour. Or, take the time to monitor a battery
> with an eye toward meeting the endurance level such that
> 70% of label capacity is the TRUE end of life for the battery
> in that particular airplane.
>
> Aren't you guys glad you don't have to salute those
> flags? I still like "duration of fuel aboard" for
> endurance and "pitch it when e-bus loads cannot be
> supported for duration of fuel aboard." Of course,
> on the OBAM side of the house we're free to select
> and operate to our personal design goals.
>
>
> 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | An exercise in establishment of and compliance with |
design goals
>
>
>OK. The guy was/is a blowhard, with obviously way to much time on his
>hands to be able to write long rambling dissertations with no
>point; however....maybe there is a diamond or two amoungst all that
>pig....stuff.
>
>Bob wrote:
>(1) He refused to acknowledge a modern alternator could experience a gross
>OV failure in spite of demonstrations to the contrary. (2) He brushed
>aside my oft stated design goals for providing seamless integration of his
>favorite product (the IR alternator) into classic aircraft electrical systems.
>It irritated the snot out of me that he would never simply state an
>alternative set of design goals. He did expound on the benefits that an
>IVR has...temp compensation, slow start, etc. I think those are
>desirable, but not if they don't fit in with the rest of the design
>goals. Bob has clearly and succinctly stated that the design goal is that
>the pilot have complete control of the charging system. It seems to me
>that simply modifying one word would open the door for IVR systems and
>maintain or increase the current level of safety. Do we really need
>'complete' control, or will 'ultimate' control suffice?
Not sure as to the distinction here. Let's reduce it to
the simplest terms: (1) The pilot should be able to operate
an alternator control switch at any time under any
conditions without concern for damage to the alternator
or other components of the system and (2) operation of
that switch is a sure bet - OFF means OFF and ON means ON.
>That is, we allow the IVR to work it's magic was the IVR designers have
>seen fit to have the magic performed,
This has been an interesting study . . . at least for
internal regulation products wherein the manufacturer
offers to "tell all." See the data sheets for a
Freescale (Motorola) MC33032 . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A.pdf
a little study of this document shows that while the
circuit overs "over voltage indication" there is
no provision for "over voltage shutdown". Further,
circuitry tasked with over voltage detection is
SHARED with circuitry for voltage control. This
violates aviation philosophies for separation of
annunciation and control.
An yes, there's a collection of bells-and-whistles
that look and sound good . . . but what has been
the cost of ownership to the aviation community
(or even the automotive community) for NOT having
those bells-and-whistles in the past?
Is there risk of lower reliability due to higher
parts count to acquire features with no demonstrable
benefits?
Now, how closely does the internal regulator of
any popular alternator mimic what we're privileged
to examine on the MC33092? I haven't a clue.
To date, nobody has come forward with clarifying
information on any other product.
The study is being conducted NOT to validate
the features of anyone's product but to illustrate
the depth to which data must be searched to validate
hardware suitability to the task of meeting
design goals.
Bottom line is that a study of the MC33092 is academically
satisfying but lends no insight to support any
claims anyone might make about other products.
My personal design philosophy (approved by
my employers) suggests we assume nothing. If you
have a device capable of dumping out LOTS of energy
in an uncontrollable mode, you put systems in place
to stand off and annunciate that event . . . unless
you can justify a failure rate of less than 1 per
billion flight hours.
> but the pilot has "all rights reserved". (S)he can hit the kill switch
> and take it out of the system at any time. Yes that might break the
> alternator, but isn't it being taken offline because it's already broke?
That was the philosophy behind the original publication
of Z-24. An unanticipated and unhappy consequence was
that Z-24 offered an ability to control the alternator
under conditions that did not meet design goal
(1) above.
Further, since anecdotal data from the field
says that failures greater than 1 per billion
flight hours have been observed, I accepted the task
of crafting a system consistent with the design
goals that assumes a OV runaway condition is
possible.
Now, a secondary design goal is to contrive an
arrangement that is easy to add to existing
installations. Further, cost of acquisition
and ownership should be equal to or lower than any
offering by any other manufacturer.
This was never intended to be a trashing of the
IR alternator . . . but simply an admission that I
didn't have a way to integrate a demonstrably
fine product into classical system design philosophies
we've adopted over the years. Now that I have an
idea and a means coming to validate it, proof
of the system is in the repeatable experiment.
It will happen.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder antenna location |
>
>Has anyone tried mounting a transponder antenna on the bottom of the rear
>fuselage? That location (about 2/3 of the length of the fuselage back)
>slopes upward on a Rebel but it is the location least blanked by large
>gear fairings, and metal radiator ducting. Unfortunately the worst signal
>would likely be forward to where the ground station I'm trying to reply to
>is likely to be during first contact. I am willing to mount the
>transponder behind me to keep the coax within the 8.8 feet max specified
>by Garmin.
>
>The other option seems to be on the roof. That is apparently not
>recommended and it would be near skylights and my head which I'm not
>comfortable with. I could get it the minimum recommended 3 feet away from
>the VHF antenna but the high wing might tend to blank ground stations to
>the side. I suspect that roof mounting would provide a better signal to
>other aircraft which is probably more important to me than a signal to
>ground so I guess I could put the antenna on the roof back near the
>tail. It seems silly to invest in a transponder though unless it is
>likely to perform well with both ATC and also traffic warning devices on
>other aircraft.
Any place on the bottom would be preferable to top mounted.
The aft fuselage location you cited would be fine.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AOPA battery article |
>
>Bob, What does OBAM mean?
"Owner Built and Maintained" as opposed to "Amateur Built" or "Experimental"
See archives at:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/search.html
Search the AeroElectric List for the phrase
"ABEA"
August 28, 2006 - September 07, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gb