AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gz
June 08, 2007 - June 21, 2007
>>LED by shorting its supply voltage to ground. With 13 volts supplied,
>>this would be about 30mA through the MOSFET when it is gated on, probably
>>not resulting in a new-clee-ur event. Problem is, I assume Bob is
>>referring to the resistor normally used to control LED current and since
>>in the LB series switches this resistor is built into the LED, connecting
>>the MOSFET to the LED supply voltage would essentially result in a dead
>>short (minus MOSFET internal resistance) to ground. I'd surmise Mr.
>>MOSFET would melt?
>
> See if this helps:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/FiveOnOnePW.jpg
>
> Try the same technique as suggested before except the external
> resistor needs to be fairly low resistance and handle a bit of
> power . . . like just under 1 watt. The added resistance will
> make the internal LED a tad dimmer but I suspect not so much that
> it would be unsatisfactory. This is simpler than a relay and
> easier to fabricate. You can put all the stuff on a "perf board"
> from Radio Shack. They probably have all the parts too.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Annunciator HELP! |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 09:51 6/8/2007, you wrote:
>No offense to Bob or his design, but using a 1W resistor to
>dissipate 1W is not a recipe for a long and reliable life for the
>resistor. When we design electronics circuits we always de-rate
>components significantly, which Bob also normally does.
Here's a link to an Ohmite pdf used for selecting and derating resistors.
http://ohmite.com/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?product=appnotes_res_select.pdf&kw=resistor_selection__pdf_version_only_
The chart suggests no altitude derating below 5000 ft, increasing to
~.84 at FL250.
Other derating factors and a good old-fashioned nomograph is even included.
That one watt device really won't be happy with ~14 volts across it.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Annunciator HELP! |
>No offense to Bob or his design, but using a 1W resistor to dissipate 1W
>is not a recipe for a long and reliable life for the resistor. When we
>design electronics circuits we always de-rate components significantly,
>which Bob also normally does.
>
>I would suggest the attached circuit (I hope it attaches), all components
>of which are readily available at Radio Shack or a number of other
>component houses. While it uses a couple additional parts, they are cheap
>and easy to use. This circuit will do what you want and not dissipate
>much of anything in either state.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Dick Tasker
That works too. The 220 ohm was running a bit warm. 270 would be better.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Annunciator HELP! |
In a message dated 6/8/2007 9:52:21 AM Central Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
The added resistance will
make the internal LED a tad dimmer
Probably not a problem, but if necessary NKK offers internal LEDs w/o the
resistor, but was hoping to keep all annunciator PBs the same.
Power to these lamps is via a PWM dimmer...
_http://fdatasystems.com/LC_40.htm_ (http://fdatasystems.com/LC_40.htm)
...which they claim is "low frequency" without giving actual freq. My
reading indicates MOSFETs operate well even at high freqs, so I suspect not a
problem. Would this affect operation in any way i.e. extra heat?
With MOSFET on and dimmer at full power, current should be about 64 mA or
about .9watts (if my bad math is close)- should I heatsink this thing or can I
just screw it to a support rib behind the panel (with a dab of h/s compound)
with short wires (pigtail) soldered to legs, covered in heatshrink to insulate
them?
Thanks again!
Mark
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Annunciator HELP! |
It runs at approximately 170-180 Hz.
Dick Tasker
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/8/2007 9:52:21 AM Central Daylight Time,
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
>
> The added resistance will
> make the internal LED a tad dimmer
>
> Probably not a problem, but if necessary NKK offers internal LEDs w/o
> the resistor, but was hoping to keep all annunciator PBs the same.
>
> Power to these lamps is via a PWM dimmer...
>
> http://fdatasystems.com/LC_40.htm
>
> ...which they claim is "low frequency" without giving actual freq. My
> reading indicates MOSFETs operate well even at high freqs, so I
> suspect not a problem. Would this affect operation in any way i.e.
> extra heat?
>
> With MOSFET on and dimmer at full power, current should be about 64 mA
> or about .9watts (if my bad math is close)- should I heatsink this
> thing or can I just screw it to a support rib behind the panel (with a
> dab of h/s compound) with short wires (pigtail) soldered to legs,
> covered in heatshrink to insulate them?
>
> Thanks again!
> Mark
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what's free at AOL.com
> <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>.
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Annunciator HELP! |
Also <> or the several components of
Dick Tasker < can't even get my mind around ONE of the stupid things-
could you elaborate? Better yet, send me a schematic, part#s etc>> but
wouldn't the following work?
Change Bob's 220 (or 270) ohm resistor to 5k or maybe even 10k. Insert
one identical FET between the resistor and the switch. The junction of
the 1st Drain and the replaced resistor goes to the gate of the 2nd
FET. The drain of the 2nd FET is connected to lamp power (as is the
high end of the replaced resistor), the source goes to the high input of
the switch LED. The other end of the switch LED goes to ground as in
the original circuit.
So when the TruTrak pin 6 is high the 1st FET conducts. The current
through the new resistor lowers the voltage to the 2nd FET's gate and
turns it off, turning off the lamp. When the pin 6 is low the 1st FET
is off. Lamp power high goes through the 5k resistor to the 2nd FET
gate and turns it on, turning on the switch LED. This eliminates the
dimming of the lamp by running its power through a high wattage resistor.
Don't have the facilities to draw and attach a schematic but the change
to Bob's drawing is hopefully simple enough to be clear.
Tom Kuffel
AL7AU
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Annunciator HELP! |
Kinda like this if you like FETs better... Both schematics attached.
Dick Tasker
The Kuffels wrote:
>
>
> Also <> or the several components of
> Dick Tasker < can't even get my mind around ONE of the stupid things-
> could you elaborate? Better yet, send me a schematic, part#s etc>>
> but wouldn't the following work?
>
> Change Bob's 220 (or 270) ohm resistor to 5k or maybe even 10k.
> Insert one identical FET between the resistor and the switch. The
> junction of the 1st Drain and the replaced resistor goes to the gate
> of the 2nd FET. The drain of the 2nd FET is connected to lamp power
> (as is the high end of the replaced resistor), the source goes to the
> high input of the switch LED. The other end of the switch LED goes to
> ground as in the original circuit.
>
> So when the TruTrak pin 6 is high the 1st FET conducts. The current
> through the new resistor lowers the voltage to the 2nd FET's gate and
> turns it off, turning off the lamp. When the pin 6 is low the 1st FET
> is off. Lamp power high goes through the 5k resistor to the 2nd FET
> gate and turns it on, turning on the switch LED. This eliminates the
> dimming of the lamp by running its power through a high wattage resistor.
>
> Don't have the facilities to draw and attach a schematic but the
> change to Bob's drawing is hopefully simple enough to be clear.
>
> Tom Kuffel
> AL7AU
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Runaway trim |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
john(at)ballofshame.com wrote:
>
> Another thing to consider which I haven't seen anyone do is a warning tone whenever
the trim or flaps are energized. -John
> www.ballofshame.com
John, you haven't looked hard enough. :o The Vertical Power system shows on
the pilot display when either trim or flaps is running, and will have audio tones
as well. There are no mechanical relays - each flap and trim control circuit
uses two solid state switches in series, so that if one fails you don't have
a runaway condition. We also stop the motor if opposite trim or flap is commanded
- so if the down trim wire shorts for example, you press the up trim button
and the motor stops. Hold this for 3 seconds and the trim switch is disconnected.
You can then run the trim & flaps from the display (using the soft keys)
as a backup. We also suggest putting a mechanical switch in line with the
trim motor as an additional disconnect if you so choose.
Runaway trim is a very bad condition, and we really wanted to design a system that
makes electric trim safe yet easy to wire. Come by and take a look at OSH.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=117391#117391
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Runaway trim |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
A couple years ago I designed a domino-size circuit that forced the trim motor
to neutralize the trim flap upon loss of power. This loss of power could have
been caused either by short circuit, a blown fuse or the pilot pulling a breaker
in a runaway-trim event. It is easy (maybe easier) to design a trim box circuit
that reverts the trim to the "where it was some short time before" position.
This seems better.
It does not, however, solve a possible failure inside the MAC/RAC trim box, or
linkages, or the control surface, or the tiny control circuit itself.
I believe there exists a simple solution for those who are really worried about
a stuck trim airfoil and would be satisfied with a disconnected trim airfoil--explosive
bolts.
A less exciting alternative would be to arrange a cotter spring pin so that it
can be extracted remotely via fishing line or actuating cable from the clevis
pin that attaches the trim flap arm to the mechanism.
I agree that keeping it simple is the best approach. Backups for backups leads
to a system that has unpredictable failure modes. Making sure the airplane still
flies with a jammed trim is good design. Well-designed aircraft should fly
with a failure of any single control or trim surface. Otherwise wear a parachute.
"...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
and cornbread; nothing else...."
--Will Rogers
--------
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=117465#117465
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Hi Eric,
You can also just put in physical limits to the trim travel. That
would give you max min. travel that could be controlled if the system
went to an extreme.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | SL-30 discontinued.....NOT |
Dean,
The SL-70 has been long discontinued. A final note to you is that the
last medical that you pass will have dust on it before the final ILS
system is decommissioned. So I think the Nav portion of you Nav/Com
will get use well into the future. Besides, other then approaches who
still continues to use VOR for enroute navigation today other then
backup?
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DEAN
PSIROPOULOS
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 discontinued.....NOT
Sorry about the false alarm folks, I meant to say that Garmin has
discontinued the SL-70 transponder, NOT the SL-30 Nav/Com. The SL-30 is
a
real winner and Garmin knows that so they're going to keep it around for
a
while (at least until all the VORs get decommissioned then it'll only be
good for com).
Dean
--
3:15 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | It's an airplane question for the RC type. |
I was wondering if anyone has any good ideas to solve a Radio Control
receiver problem in the hobby market that has just recently come about.
For years in the Radio Control world (RC) the aircraft have been
controlled with and analog radio receiver on the 72mhz band. Some new
equipment to recently hit the market is a radio system that uses the
2.4Ghz band with digital processing. I won't get into to too many of
the details unless someone wants me to. The new systems were originally
tested with gas or liquid fueled aircraft only which provided a separate
source of power solely for the receivers. The latest versions of
aircraft that are coming into the marked place are electric (battery)
powered airplanes. For the last year as these new systems were coming
into the market the first electric airplanes that use this new system
were small park flyers that typically used 3 or 4 small servos that
pulled aprox. 1 amp or less of power from the power bus of the radio
receiver.
The radio system on electric aircraft typically use a motor (brushless)
with a speed control, LiPo battery, servos, and a motor speed control
with power a regulator for the receiver power. The typical output of
the average speed control to the receiver has been regulated to 4.8
volts with the ability to support about 2 amps.
In the past with the analog systems, as the servos pulled the voltage
down during use, the holding power of the servo would go down but the
receiver would continue to function. But with the introduction of the
new digital receivers this no longer works. What has been happening is
when the voltage is pulled below aprox. 3.6 volts the processor in the
receiver shuts down. The restart time for the processor to re-link is
about 2 seconds. In most cases this fatal to the aircraft being flown.
The obvious fix would be to provided the receiver with its own power
source but due to weight and power consideration this is not possible or
desirable.
My question, is their any way to provided a method of stabilizing (by
short term storage) the voltage during the transient voltage spikes that
would be easy to build and keep in a very small package and would not be
reliant on the battery voltage going into the speed control?
Mike Larkin
--
3:15 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: It's an airplane question for the RC type. |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hello Mike
We made our own BEC for a 16 cell beast a while back. Not very difficult
and incorporated a nice heat sink. For the most part I think that you can
run servos on 6V, although they will draw a little more power. Would this
extra voltage get you over the hump? My gut feeling is you could probably
overdrive both the servos and receiver by a bit more.
Chances are your BEC is too marginal, and can't handle the amps. I havn't
been following too close for some years, but there are BECs sold seperate,
could try one of those.
For the scope of what you are trying to do, you could probably wire your
receiver direct to a portion of your batteries, the draw will slight
discharge those cells, but probably moot. You could put a low head space
regulator to control voltage off the battery pack, in other woerds make a
receiver specific BEC (~6+ volts). You could put a seperate mini battery
for receiver. If it is a parkflier, and cheap and easy is the key, you
could try dropping voltage to your servos, it will drop amp draw, as well
as a bit of servo speed and torque. Your servos also may be throwing some
noise to the receiver that it does not like, also the BEC/ESC combo may be
making some noise, or the motor itself. Best first course is contact the
receiver Mfg. And ask them their opinion on what best to do.
Did you already try antenna repositioning, wrapping the receiver, twisting
servo and receiver leads, wrapping the ESC, does it do it with motor off?,
Can you add another cell to your battery pack?
Ron P.
" My question, is their any way to provided a method of stabilizing (by
> short term storage) the voltage during the transient voltage spikes that
> would be easy to build and keep in a very small package and would not be
> reliant on the battery voltage going into the speed control?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Runaway trim |
On 9 Jun 2007, at 12:29, James H Nelson wrote:
>
>
> Hi Eric,
> You can also just put in physical limits to the trim
> travel. That
> would give you max min. travel that could be controlled if the system
> went to an extreme.
There is certainly no point to having more trim travel than is needed
for the extreme cases in the normal flight envelope. The nose down
trim extreme case is VNE at aft CG. The nose up trim extreme case is
approach speed at forward CG. If the trim travel is greater than is
needed for these two extreme cases, it just makes the runaway
emergency even more serious, without providing any benefit during
normal operations.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Fultz" <dfultz7(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Need a wiring diagram |
Does anyone have a wiring diagram for a Pointer 3000-11 Elt for the remote
switch. I bought a used one it came wired however there is two small wires
on at each end of the harness that were cut I need to find out if they need
connected together or connected to power and ground... Thanks Dale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Need a wiring diagram |
Dale,
Try this link: http://www.pointeravionics.com/manual.php
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Fultz
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Need a wiring diagram
Does anyone have a wiring diagram for a Pointer 3000-11 Elt for the
remote
switch. I bought a used one it came wired however there is two small
wires
on at each end of the harness that were cut I need to find out if they
need
connected together or connected to power and ground... Thanks Dale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | George is still at it . . . |
I got a phone call from a worried builder who read one of
George's posts last March to the Van's Air Force Forum. It's
a call I'm getting tired of having to address in detail every
time. I've posted a permanent set of documents
to address what has become a tiresome nuisance. If folks who are
members of other forums and lists would cross-post these links,
I would sincerely appreciate it. I'm not going to enter into
any further discussions about George's convoluted offerings
but refer folks to these documents:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/The_Truth_about_Crowbar_OV_Protection.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | George is still at it . . . |
Bob,
I don't know how you have the patience to suffer that kind of uninformed
rhetoric when it is aimed at your totally generous and valuable work.
I have a couple more also uninformed questions re the operation of the crow
bar ie when it trips as in Z-21A and Z-25 are we not interrupting the B lead
and likely to cause load dumping.? If the PM alternator/regulator is runaway
and the crowbar tripped would we expect that energy to cook what is left of
the regulator?
Thanks
Peter (slow learner)
-----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: Sunday, 10 June 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: George is still at it . . .
I got a phone call from a worried builder who read one of
George's posts last March to the Van's Air Force Forum. It's
a call I'm getting tired of having to address in detail every
time. I've posted a permanent set of documents
to address what has become a tiresome nuisance. If folks who are
members of other forums and lists would cross-post these links,
I would sincerely appreciate it. I'm not going to enter into
any further discussions about George's convoluted offerings
but refer folks to these documents:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/The_Truth_about_Crowbar_OV_Protection.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How hard is it to wire a panel? |
Hi all,
I am finishing the airframe of my RV 8 and want to install an IFR panel. I
have been looking at various glass panel options. I spoke with a shop that
does plug and play panels to your specification. They told me it would be a
$7000 in labor to have them wire up the panel. While there are certainly some
advantages to having the panel wired, tested and ready to go, that is a lot
of shekels. So I would like to put out the question to those who have done
this:
If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder, autopilot,
etc., just how hard would it be to wire all of this together and get it to
work? Would one of Bob's seminars teach me all I needed to know to do this?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Fuselage
San Ramon, CA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | glide slope antenna |
I recently added a Garmin 430 WAAS to my RV8, and used a Bob Archer
antenna in the wing tip, with a splitter for VLOC and Glide slope. The
signal strength is OK for the VLOC, however it's too weak to drive the
Glide slope, until right on top of the runway threshold. The avionics
shop put the tester on on it, and it checks OK, but with the long RG58
run, and a splitter there just isn't enough gain.
So I guess the fix is another (G/S) antenna. I don't want anything else
dangling in the breeze, so I'm thinking about a RST Technologies dipole
antenna (kit) glassed into the lower cowl.
My question is: has anyone had any experience with this type antenna,
and are there any sources besides RST, as when I called them for advise,
they where unwilling to answer questions, or provide any help.
Thanks
cjhukill(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | How hard is it to wire a panel? |
Michael
Have a look at http://www.approachfaststack.com/ I'm planning to do this.
Bevan
RV7A
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MLWynn(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
Hi all,
I am finishing the airframe of my RV 8 and want to install an IFR panel. I
have been looking at various glass panel options. I spoke with a shop that
does plug and play panels to your specification. They told me it would be a
$7000 in labor to have them wire up the panel. While there are certainly
some advantages to having the panel wired, tested and ready to go, that is a
lot of shekels. So I would like to put out the question to those who have
done this:
If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder, autopilot,
etc., just how hard would it be to wire all of this together and get it to
work? Would one of Bob's seminars teach me all I needed to know to do this?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Fuselage
San Ramon, CA
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
That price seems a little excessive to me (or maybe a lot excessive).
Wiring the panel is not so much hard as very tedious. You have to be
very organized and make a record (schematic or pictorial diagram) of
your wiring connections so you know where everything goes and so you
would be able to troubleshoot the system if anything goes wrong in the
future, or if you want to make changes in the future..
While I haven't been to one of Bob's seminars, I suspect that it would
give you the knowledge you need to do the wiring. If you have not
purchased the Aeroelectric connection booklet that is the first thing
you should do.
In a lot of respects this is just like any other task in building your
plane. There are a few specialized tools you will need and other than
that just approach it methodically and in an organized fashion.
Dick Tasker
MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am finishing the airframe of my RV 8 and want to install an IFR
> panel. I have been looking at various glass panel options. I spoke
> with a shop that does plug and play panels to your specification.
> They told me it would be a $7000 in labor to have them wire up the
> panel. While there are certainly some advantages to having the panel
> wired, tested and ready to go, that is a lot of shekels. So I would
> like to put out the question to those who have done this:
>
> If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder,
> autopilot, etc., just how hard would it be to wire all of this
> together and get it to work? Would one of Bob's seminars teach me all
> I needed to know to do this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV 8 Fuselage
> San Ramon, CA
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what's free at AOL.com
> <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>.
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
--
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.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | glide slope antenna |
Swap out that RG-58 cable with RG-400 before you change antennas. It
might
give you enough extra gain that the old antenna will work.
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 Chris
Hukill
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: glide slope antenna
I recently added a Garmin 430 WAAS to my RV8, and used a Bob Archer
antenna
in the wing tip, with a splitter for VLOC and Glide slope. The signal
strength is OK for the VLOC, however it's too weak to drive the Glide
slope,
until right on top of the runway threshold. The avionics shop put the
tester
on on it, and it checks OK, but with the long RG58 run, and a splitter
there
just isn't enough gain.
So I guess the fix is another (G/S) antenna. I don't want anything else
dangling in the breeze, so I'm thinking about a RST Technologies dipole
antenna (kit) glassed into the lower cowl.
My question is: has anyone had any experience with this type antenna,
and
are there any sources besides RST, as when I called them for advise,
they
where unwilling to answer questions, or provide any help.
Thanks
cjhukill(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | How hard is it to wire a panel? |
Michael,
It's not difficult, but very time consuming.and fun. If you have someone
that has been-there-done-that to ask a few questions to get you started,
that will HELP a BUNCH. Other than that, use this list. A friend
inquired about a plug-n-play IFR panel for an RV-7 from a vendor often
used by us experimentals.$8000 was his quote. The Garmin products are
sold pre-wired (on the radio end).
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MLWynn(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
Hi all,
I am finishing the airframe of my RV 8 and want to install an IFR panel.
I have been looking at various glass panel options. I spoke with a shop
that does plug and play panels to your specification. They told me it
would be a $7000 in labor to have them wire up the panel. While there
are certainly some advantages to having the panel wired, tested and
ready to go, that is a lot of shekels. So I would like to put out the
question to those who have done this:
If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder,
autopilot, etc., just how hard would it be to wire all of this together
and get it to work? Would one of Bob's seminars teach me all I needed
to know to do this?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Fuselage
San Ramon, CA
_____
See what's free at AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | How hard is it to wire a panel? |
Michael,
I just asked the same question on the GRT Yahoo list. What I gathered from
those responses is that the wiring is fairly easy; just go one wire at a
time. I also understood it takes quite some time to complete the wiring,
hence the $7k quote which compares to quotes I received. Assuming a shop
rate of $65/hr, that equates to over 100 hours for someone that does it day
in and day out. I don't know about you, but I estimated it would take me at
least twice that long since my experience/proficiency is low.
Another option is to use the Approach Systems Fast Stack
(http://www.approachfaststack.com/index.html). Everyone I contacted who had
actually used this system and is flying with it was very positive about the
time saved, quality of the work, customer service, and how well their
avionics are working and ease of upgrades. I heard rumors of a few
customers that said they wouldn't use it again, but when I contacted them
directly, I got nothing but glowing reviews. Several of the builders I
contacted were very experienced and one was on his 12th plane. I'm not
recommending this as I have no experience with it, but it is another option
to consider. I was quoted about $1,200 for a GRT dual sport system with
Garmin radios and TT AP. You would still have to take care of all the DC
wiring, however.
Mike Creek
Elko, NV
Bearhawk, QB
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MLWynn(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
Hi all,
I am finishing the airframe of my RV 8 and want to install an IFR panel. I
have been looking at various glass panel options. I spoke with a shop that
does plug and play panels to your specification. They told me it would be a
$7000 in labor to have them wire up the panel. While there are certainly
some advantages to having the panel wired, tested and ready to go, that is a
lot of shekels. So I would like to put out the question to those who have
done this:
If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder, autopilot,
etc., just how hard would it be to wire all of this together and get it to
work? Would one of Bob's seminars teach me all I needed to know to do this?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Fuselage
San Ramon, CA
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
Michael,
How much is your time worth per hour. Figure at least 100 hours to wire your panel.
On the other hand when you do wire it you understand it.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
Hi all,
I am finishing the airframe of my RV 8 and want to install an IFR panel. I have
been looking at various glass panel options. I spoke with a shop that does
plug and play panels to your specification. They told me it would be a $7000
in labor to have them wire up the panel. While there are certainly some advantages
to having the panel wired, tested and ready to go, that is a lot of shekels.
So I would like to put out the question to those who have done this:
If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder, autopilot, etc.,
just how hard would it be to wire all of this together and get it to work?
Would one of Bob's seminars teach me all I needed to know to do this?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Fuselage
San Ramon, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what's free at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | glide slope antenna |
Am I the only one recieving multiple copies of the same emails from all
of
the Matronics list servers?
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 Bruce
Gray
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: glide slope antenna
Swap out that RG-58 cable with RG-400 before you change antennas. It
might
give you enough extra gain that the old antenna will work.
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 Chris
Hukill
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: glide slope antenna
I recently added a Garmin 430 WAAS to my RV8, and used a Bob Archer
antenna
in the wing tip, with a splitter for VLOC and Glide slope. The signal
strength is OK for the VLOC, however it's too weak to drive the Glide
slope,
until right on top of the runway threshold. The avionics shop put the
tester
on on it, and it checks OK, but with the long RG58 run, and a splitter
there
just isn't enough gain.
So I guess the fix is another (G/S) antenna. I don't want anything else
dangling in the breeze, so I'm thinking about a RST Technologies dipole
antenna (kit) glassed into the lower cowl.
My question is: has anyone had any experience with this type antenna,
and
are there any sources besides RST, as when I called them for advise,
they
where unwilling to answer questions, or provide any help.
Thanks
cjhukill(at)cox.net
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
You might consider just having an avionics tech wire the EFIS, AP,
Nav/Com, GPS, etc, so that they all talk nice to each other, and you do
all the switches, CBs/Fuses, grounds, etc. You can save a bunch that way
because there's a lot of tedious labor in doing all those repetitive
power/ground connections. SteinAir and Stark will work with you that way
and I'm sure there are others.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <psiegel(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | Runaway Trim Solution ? |
This was posted as a possible solution to runaway trim:
"I believe there exists a simple solution for those who are really worried about
a stuck trim airfoil and would be satisfied with a disconnected trim
airfoil--explosive
bolts. "
"A less exciting alternative would be to arrange a cotter spring pin so that it
can be extracted remotely via fishing line or actuating cable from the clevis
pin that attaches the trim flap arm to the mechanism."
A potential problem with disconnecting the linkage to a trim tab is
catastrophic aerodynamic control surface flutter.
Paul Siegel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why not?) |
Bob:
Me Think Doth Protest Ye Too Much,
Bob there you go again, lugubrious as usual, exercising mass
rhetoric and demagoguery. You have out done your self. I have
to say I'm flattered at your ad-hominem attack. Thanks. You make
everything personal Bob and it's not. Facts Bob, facts please.
Of course a builder was in a state of panic, they read your manifesto.
I'd be scared to, hearing how terrible internally regulated alternators
are according to you. (ha-ha) I just think you are wrong, all right.
Peace Bob, I don't want to fight with you and I am not. They
are my opinions based on building, flying and maintaining
many experimental aircraft and actually listening to all your
advice, plus my research and my engineering back-ground. Of
course engineers are stupid according to you, but I digress.
If you are this sensitive to any criticism or disagreement from
your edicts and decrees, it really says more than I could say
about you in a 10,000 words my friend. It's just an alternator.
Bob, you misconstrue, distort and use "straw-man" arguments
to make your points, which just misdirects and distracts from
the point. You seem to say, "I never said", a lot? Bob no one
said you did say it. I'm only providing my unique insight,
because you didn't say it. It seems to me you can't grip the
concept that someone else has unique ideas, which you did
not consider or think of. Disagree, fine, but not all thought and
ideas come from you Bob. Hard to believe, I know.
I'll read your manifesto when I get a chance. I'm sure I will
enjoy it. However the vitriol and pettiness is unwarranted.
Everything I said is true about you Bob, and I appreciate all the
cool stuff and info you provide, just not crow-bars on internally
regulated alternators, sorry, and why? (with plane power units)
I could write a word-by-word nit-pick reply of everything you have
said now and in the past, but I have a life. If the "crow-bar" on an
internally regulated alternator is a good idea to you, more power to
you, but you really don't understand how they are designed, work
and fail. Actually you admitted that in your own words a year or so
ago. So how can you make a band-aid for a device you don't
understand? You can't. You can antagonize me with a 10,000,
words but I reply.....it's getting boring, ho-hum, u make me laugh.
Keep scaring those builders and panic them with gloom-n-doom.
You know if you don't use a crow-bar, the terrorist will win.
(joking of course). BTW, congrats on your new career move.
Take care, God Bless
George (the 1st) ATP,CFI-II-ME, MSME, B7375767, RV-4/7
PS: My "George is still at it..." advice:
My advice to builders is actually the same as Bob's, get an externally
regulated alternator if you are worried or your mission requires it, aka
IFR. The only thing I add is use a solid state regulator (Transpo
V1200) with solid state OV protection, not a 1970's something Ford
unit with a crow-bar add-on. There is no reason to involve a CB with
solid state relay technology. B&C is crazy expensive, so forget that.
My alternative (really 1st) recommendation is use Plane Power units.
They have better fans and brushes than stock or B&C units, and they
offer both internally and externally regulated units. The beauty of
their internal units is they add an elegant secondary OV protection
device, which I think is very suitable for any critical EFIS or IFR
mission plane. My opinion of course, but RV builders love their Plane
Power alternators. They are an excellent value. I have looked into it,
and they offer an outstanding product. (sorry B&C no offense too $$$)
Bob, you say you have data, but you don't put forth any information;
just very strong rhetoric. I assume you don't have it, mostly hyped
stories you heard second hand. That's not very scientific of you and it
scares people. A stock high quality ND clone alternator installed &
operated properly is very reliable and benign, with out an OV relay.
Disagree, fine, but show me some facts. I don't have hard data
either, but I'm not a hypocrite pretending I do, hiding behind a large
soap box. Even after a product like Plane Power comes out, you still
push the crow-bars on ND alternators. Don't get it, so with respect I
agree to disagree. (Note: Van's Aircraft will not warranty any ND
alternator you buy from them, if you put a crow bar on it, hint.)
What part of, I think a crow-bar and OV relay is a bad idea on an
internally regulated ND alternator don't understand? My opinion, sue
me. Nuff said.
Cheers, G (U all are too up-tight, relax this is suppose to be fun, gee.)
>From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: George is still at it . . .
>
>I'm not going to enter into any further discussions about
>George's convoluted offerings but refer folks to these
>documents (edit: GOOD):
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/The_Truth_about_Crowbar_OV_Protection.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why not?) |
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 7:11 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why
not?)
Take care, God Bless
George (the 1st) ATP,CFI-II-ME, MSME, B7375767, RV-4/7
George,
Just out of curiosity, what is your real first and last name and where do
you live? It would be nice to know who everyone is on these lists.
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
LEZ N-44LZ
Oviedo, FL 32765 USA
Copyright C 2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: glide slope antenna |
You might try a pre-amp on the glideslope side - after the splitter, to
boost the signal. I thought RVs were all aluminum; thus a cowl antenna
inside wouldn't work. Check out QST (the ham journal) for sources for
preamps - we hams use them a lot on VHF and UHF work
bobf
On 6/9/07, Chris Hukill wrote:
>
> I recently added a Garmin 430 WAAS to my RV8, and used a Bob Archer
> antenna in the wing tip, with a splitter for VLOC and Glide slope. The
> signal strength is OK for the VLOC, however it's too weak to drive the Glide
> slope, until right on top of the runway threshold. The avionics shop put the
> tester on on it, and it checks OK, but with the long RG58 run, and a
> splitter there just isn't enough gain.
> So I guess the fix is another (G/S) antenna. I don't want anything else
> dangling in the breeze, so I'm thinking about a RST Technologies dipole
> antenna (kit) glassed into the lower cowl.
> My question is: has anyone had any experience with this type antenna, and
> are there any sources besides RST, as when I called them for advise, they
> where unwilling to answer questions, or provide any help.
> Thanks
> cjhukill(at)cox.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why not?) |
| From: | "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net> |
George,
I am impressed. Bob has posted your very own article about you. You now have joined
the ranks of the famous along with Greg Richter.
Last time I tweaked Bobs nose for being less than civil in his responses all I
got were a couple of hateful e mails from his groupies.
Maybe I should have asked the e mailers for their last names. But then again I
just do not see where that would be of any help.
Keep at it George I enjoy your posts here and on the Vans Air Force forums. I find
most of them informative and useful.
> what has become a tiresome nuisance....George's convoluted offerings
Great response Bob. Ever the bully.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
website http://www.excaliburaviation.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=117585#117585
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: glide slope antenna |
Good Morning bobf,
Way out of my area of expertise, but I would look at replacing the wing tip
antenna.
I have never used one, but I have used hundreds of conventional antennas.
Fifty years ago, our VHF Navigation receivers required a pretty strong signal.
However, the modern day sets can get an adequate signal from a wet noodle!
I have often fed two Localizer/VORs and two glide slope receivers from one
set of blades on the tail or one flying V style antenna. I understand that
others have gotten suitable signals from wing tip antennas. Rather than patch on
a repair to a non-performing antenna, I would locate a better antenna.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/10/2007 7:36:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bobf(at)feldtman.com writes:
You might try a pre-amp on the glideslope side - after the splitter, to
boost the signal. I thought RVs were all aluminum; thus a cowl antenna inside
wouldn't work. Check out QST (the ham journal) for sources for preamps - we hams
use them a lot on VHF and UHF work
bobf
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Runaway trim |
Kevin,
Good point. Normally, I would tweak the trim into takeoff position which
would verify proper operation. I have a checklist item for that purpose,
but it is easy to see how actual operation of the trim setting could be
overlooked (e.g., already set at takeoff trim position)..
However, even overlooking this step would not be the equivalent of the trim
going to extreme and should be totally controllable for slow a go-around and
landing to address the problem.
Regards, Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Sent: Thursday, 07 June, 2007 14:34
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Runaway trim
>
>
> On 7 Jun 2007, at 15:47, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>
>> Use two (on)-off-(on) rocker switches, installed side by side. The 1st
>> switch is the power control switch. The 2nd switch is the servo control
>> switch. Both must be activated simultaneously to move the servo. Wire
>> the outputs [(on)] of the first switch to together and input to the 2nd
>> switch [off] and any relays or other components in the trim system
>> needing power. Unless the power switch is moved to either (on) position,
>> there is no power to the trim system and it should not go anywhere; no
>> need to get into a reactive situation, or have a pullable breaker.
>>
>
> If you go down this road, you should add a first flight of the day ground
> test to confirm that the power switch has not failed in the hot position.
> This would be a dormant failure, which would defeat the protection
> provided by this design, and would only be detected by a specific test.
>
> Kevin Horton
> RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
| From: | "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com> |
Michael,
Above represents some of the best advice you can get....
> Have a look at http://www.approachfaststack.com/ I'm planning to do this.
>
> Bevan
> RV7A
> Wiring the panel is not so much hard as very tedious. You have to be
> very organized and make a record (schematic or pictorial diagram) of
> your wiring connections so you know where everything goes and so you
> would be able to troubleshoot the system if anything goes wrong in the
> future, or if you want to make changes in the future..
>
> While I haven't been to one of Bob's seminars, I suspect that it would
> give you the knowledge you need to do the wiring. If you have not
> purchased the Aeroelectric connection booklet that is the first thing
> you should do.
>
> In a lot of respects this is just like any other task in building your
> plane. There are a few specialized tools you will need and other than
> that just approach it methodically and in an organized fashion.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> If you have someone that has been-there-done-that to ask a few questions to get
you started
> Bill
>
> How much is your time worth per hour. Figure at least 100 hours to wire your
panel.
>
> On the other hand when you do wire it you understand it.
>
> Mike
>
>
I wired my own panel with 2 BMA EFISs and Garmin Transponder, Nav Comm and audio
panel. I had a remote avionics background (vacuum tube era) and I found it to
be tedious, time consuming, and frustrating.
But in the end it was very rewarding and as mentioned above knowing the system
has made trouble shooting a breeze.
While I did not use it, having mostly Garmin the fast stack approach system would
work well and be a huge timesaver, in my opinion well worth the expense.
Looking back at my builders log I spent 85 hours wiring the panel and about 260
hours wiring the panel to the plane and building, installing, and wiring all
of the aircrafts electrical systems. You will not regret wiring it yourself.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=117605#117605
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Abrahamson <dave(at)abrahamson.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
Michael,
I am the Napoleon's corporal of electronics. Yet, I installed a GRT
dual EFIS and EIS, Garmins 430, SL30, GTX330, GMA340, and Trutrak
Digiflight II VSGV myself, making only one benign wiring error out of
hundreds of connections. I bought the Garmins from Stark who
assembled that harness, and used the GRT and SteinAir-produced AP
harnesses. With help from Stark, GRT, and Trutrak's techs, I was
able to resolve all installation challenges. What I don't understand
about having a panel made is that many parts of the harnesses have to
be routed through the sub-panel assembly, and several "panel"
components -- such as the encoder, voltage regulator(s), AHRS, and
magnetometer end up being installed on the airframe. This means that
after spending seven grand, you'll still face a substantial amount of
work and challenges. I seems to me that if you have available time
and interest, doing it yourself is a far better proposition.
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
I really want to thank all who responded to this question.
Year ago, I was a repairman for Heathkit, the home build-it-yourself
electronics company. I have no fear about my ability to solder and wire, just
mystification about the process as applied to avionics. It sounds like this is
no
different than my fear of riveting. Got over it and am quite good at it now.
$7K is a big bite out of my budget. I think that I will take everyone's
advice and do this myself. I would much rather know how it is all done and be
able to fix a glitch than be dependent on someone else to fix problems.
I am about six months away from the panel wiring. You will probably hear
from me again on the subject. Again my thanks
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Fuselage
San Ramon, CA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Abrahamson <dave(at)abrahamson.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
oh and... without Bob's book, I would have had no choice but to
throw myself on the mercy of a panel builder -- and would have had an
infinitely harder time setting up a working electrical system. I
used Z12 and have been very happy with it.
D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: It's an airplane question for the RC type. |
Hey Mike,
We were talking about this last weekend at the International Hand Launch
Glider Festival in San Diego. The key seems to be getting a speed
control with the proper BEC that keeps the voltage at higher levels. Not
sure which one that is but I'm sure someone on RCGroups would have an
answer.
I can tell you the new Futaba 2.4 stuff does not suffer from the same.
Their chip was designed for the purpose. The other stuff was off the
shelf chips that were not designed for power fluctuations. The XPS
system for example uses a chip from wireless routers. That is part of
the reason they are not working well in a variety of environments. The
only system that has work in a very crowded environment is the Futaba
stuff.
I'm holding on to all of my 72 stuff until there is some milage on the
2.4 equipment. The more that go to 2.4 the less that will be on 72.
(Mike, give me a call)
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Runaway trim |
I'm not sure if I've misunderstood your intended design, or if you
have misunderstood my point.
I understood the intended design to require two switches to be
activated to make the trim move. One switch controls power to the
whole system, and the other controls the signal to the servo. The
idea is that both switches need to fail to trigger a runaway trim
(and, a wiring fault can't trigger a runaway trim, as there is no
power in the wires unless switch #1 is selected).
My concern is that if you just use the system normally, you can't
detect the failure case where switch #1 has failed in the hot
position. In this failure case, the trim will still work normally -
it will move in the selected direction, and it will only move when
switch #2 is selected. But, this failure has negated the protections
provided by this design. If you are concerned enough about runaway
trim to install this design architecture, then you should devise some
sort of periodic test to confirm that switch #1 has not failed in the
hot position. E.g., leave switch #1 in the neutral position, and
push switch #2 - the trim should not move. If the trim moves, this
tells you that switch #1 has failed in the hot position.
Kevin
On 10 Jun 2007, at 09:55, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>
>
> Kevin,
>
> Good point. Normally, I would tweak the trim into takeoff position
> which would verify proper operation. I have a checklist item for
> that purpose, but it is easy to see how actual operation of the
> trim setting could be overlooked (e.g., already set at takeoff trim
> position)..
>
> However, even overlooking this step would not be the equivalent of
> the trim going to extreme and should be totally controllable for
> slow a go-around and landing to address the problem.
>
> Regards, Doug
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Horton"
>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 07 June, 2007 14:34
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Runaway trim
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 7 Jun 2007, at 15:47, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>>
>>> Use two (on)-off-(on) rocker switches, installed side by side.
>>> The 1st switch is the power control switch. The 2nd switch is
>>> the servo control switch. Both must be activated simultaneously
>>> to move the servo. Wire the outputs [(on)] of the first switch
>>> to together and input to the 2nd switch [off] and any relays or
>>> other components in the trim system needing power. Unless the
>>> power switch is moved to either (on) position, there is no power
>>> to the trim system and it should not go anywhere; no need to get
>>> into a reactive situation, or have a pullable breaker.
>>>
>>
>> If you go down this road, you should add a first flight of the
>> day ground test to confirm that the power switch has not failed
>> in the hot position. This would be a dormant failure, which would
>> defeat the protection provided by this design, and would only be
>> detected by a specific test.
>>
>> Kevin Horton
>> RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
>> Ottawa, Canada
>> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
I have a Ray Allen Company (RAC) trim servo on each of the three trim
tabs on my Lancair Legacy. When I was doing my electrical design, I
talked with one of the principals at RAC, who claimed that the design of
the servo makes "runway" within the servo impossible. Since almost
anything is possible, I interpreted his statement to mean that it was
very unlikely.
I think the most likely way to get runaway trim in my airplane is a
stuck trim switch. I expect that physically forcing the switch to the
opposite position would likely unstick the switch and allow control of
the trim tab until landing.
Another, less likely, cause of runway trim would be shorted wires
between the electrical bus and the servo. I've tried to minimize that
risk by careful termination of the wires and attention to supporting the
wire bundles and preventing chafing.
I've also tried to simplify the trim systems to keep the parts count
down. For example, I do not have anything to defeat the copilot's trim
switch; both stick grips are "hot" all the time. I brief passengers on
what the buttons on the copilot stick grip do and the need to avoid
inadvertent actuation during the preflight passenger briefing. I do not
have electro/mechanical relays in the system.
For my system, I feel runaway trim is a very low probability risk and
that my time and energy is better focused on other, higher probability
risks. However, this discussion has reminded me that I need to complete
my flight testing plan to fully explore the edges of the envelope
related to trim travel and controllability.
Best,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy, now flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Wiring Your Own Panel |
I wired my own panel on my Lancair Legacy. It is an IFR panel, with
dual Cheltons. I enjoyed it and felt a good sense of accomplishment
when I was done. (Well, actually, I'm still waiting for the 2.25"
TruTrak ADI, so I guess I'm not really done yet.) The biggest benefit
of wiring my own panel is that I understand, more or less, how
everything is hooked up. I often talk with other builders who do not
know relatively basic things about their instrument panel and therefore
don't have a clue how to begin to troubleshoot a problem.
On the downside, it was a huge project, taking months of effort. And
despite my best efforts to bundle the wires neatly, the back side of my
panel doesn't look nearly as professional as ones that SteinAir does
(for example). Those are real works of art and probably translate into
at least slightly better reliability.
I think everyone building his or her own airplane should attend Bob's
seminar. Even if you attend the seminar, you also need to study Bob's
book. I can't tell you how many times I've read it, and each time I get
something more out of it. It's not focused specifically on instrument
panel wiring, but provides the basic foundation you'll need.
If you enjoy tedious tasks and have the discipline to create a plan and
then follow it, you can do it. But, either way, I wouldn't recommend
doing it just to save money.
Good luck,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy, now flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
Michael:
Per others, the Garmins must be "installed" by the dealer. For OBAM, that means
they either do the panel or sell a harness with the component ready to be connected
by you.
I priced out Garmin dealer harnesses and Fast stack harnesses and found the dealer
made harnesss to be about 25-30% less than Faststack. I just finished with
my panel and had a lot of fun. I know how everything works and connects so I
can do future repairs and upgrades.
I farmed out portions when appropriate:
Bought an Affordable Panel modular panel which came nicely laser cut for my specific
design, about $450.
Harnesses for the following:
GTX-327 $70
KMD-150 MFD W/GPS $50
SL-30 $175
SL-40 $50
PMA-8000B $325
The harnesses are nicly made and each wire is marked to identify what it is and
where you should terminate it.
Add wire, fuses, fuse blocks, CBs, switches, pitot/static connectors and other
assundry items for about $700.
The GRT Horizon 1 and EIS are dirt simple to install. They come with a harness
that you can easily modify to your needs.
In all, I spent about $1800 on mine not counting the actual components.
I wired up a TruTrak DigiFLight 11, TruTrak ADI with battery, AoA myself. Proved
very easy.
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=117642#117642
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why |
not?)
>
>George,
>
>I am impressed. Bob has posted your very own article about you. You now
>have joined the ranks of the famous along with Greg Richter.
>
>Last time I tweaked Bobs nose for being less than civil in his responses
>all I got were a couple of hateful e mails from his groupies.
>
>Maybe I should have asked the e mailers for their last names. But then
>again I just do not see where that would be of any help.
>
>Keep at it George I enjoy your posts here and on the Vans Air Force
>forums. I find most of them informative and useful.
>
>
> > what has become a tiresome nuisance....George's convoluted offerings
>
>
>Great response Bob. Ever the bully.
Have we met sir? Obviously not or you would know
that your assessment is in error.
How is it that one individual who has a multi-year
history of dispensing bad science and personal attacks
while hiding behind a pseudonym can garner your support?
If you were attacked personally or professionally on
this List, I would be among the first to come to your
defense.
Honorable people are proud of what they do and who they
are is not a secret.
Come to one of my seminars (remind me of this exchange
and I'll comp your tuition), or drop by the tents at
OSH this year and I'd be pleased for you to discover for
yourself how utterly wrong you are.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: glide slope antenna |
>Good Morning bobf,
>
>Way out of my area of expertise, but I would look at replacing the wing
>tip antenna.
>
>I have never used one, but I have used hundreds of conventional antennas.
>Fifty years ago, our VHF Navigation receivers required a pretty strong
>signal. However, the modern day sets can get an adequate signal from a wet
>noodle!
>
>I have often fed two Localizer/VORs and two glide slope receivers from one
>set of blades on the tail or one flying V style antenna. I understand
>that others have gotten suitable signals from wing tip antennas. Rather
>than patch on a repair to a non-performing antenna, I would locate a
>better antenna.
You beat me to it Robert. I was mystified as to why
the installation cited was proving inadequate. As you've
correctly noted, the LOC/GS signals off the approach end
of the runway are huge . . . a simple two-band splitter
would have to be REALLY bad to cut the GS useful range
from 15 miles down to 7 . . . but to squash it all the
way to the threshold strongly suggests some factor
or combination of factors unrelated to the architecture.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why |
not?)
>Bob:
>
>
>I'll read your manifesto when I get a chance. I'm sure I will
>enjoy it.
Please don't bother sir. It wasn't intended for you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | glide slope antenna |
>Am I the only one recieving multiple copies of the same emails from all of
>the Matronics list servers?
The only way I can think this might happen is that your e-mail
address got duplicated in the server's file of recipients. Try
going to . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
put your email address in the box, hit the "find" button
followed by "execute". You should get a dump of all the lists
to which you've subscribed.
Now hit "uncheck all" and hit execute again. This should clear
all your subscriptions. Go back and do the find again an see if
you're still listed. If so, you've probably cleared out the duplicate
listing. If not, then recheck all the list services you're interested
in and "execute". If this exercise doesn't clear the problem,
drop a note to Matt Dralle. The fix may require a manual editing
effort on the file of subscribed addresses.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
In a message dated 6/9/2007 11:06:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net writes:
If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder, autopilot,
etc., just how hard would it be to wire all of this together and get it to work?
>>>
I recently received a harness from Red Dog Aero at Conroe TX (CXO) for a
dual-Horizon, 430W, PMA8000B, TruTrak A/P, SL30 & GTX327 for under $3K. Remaining
connections were power/gnd, headset jacks, antennae, EIS4000 connects etc.
which you'd have to hook up anyway, but enough wire was integrated into the
harness to make all destinations. Looks like nice work so far, but haven't done
the smoke test yet. Talk to Dick Stevens at: _http://reddogaero.com/_
(http://reddogaero.com/)
John Stark in Columbus GA does similar work with a good reputation and I hear
is competitive price-wise.
_http://www.starkavionics.com/products.htm_
(http://www.starkavionics.com/products.htm)
Might want to give these folks a holler...
Mark
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Fultz" <dfultz7(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need a wiring diagram |
Thanks Bill ,, I tried that route ,, you have to register to view the files
which I did but still haven't been able to access the file I need to view. I
am running out of time was trying to get done to make Oshkosh. Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Need a wiring diagram
>
>
> Dale,
>
> Try this link: http://www.pointeravionics.com/manual.php
>
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
> Fultz
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 1:29 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Need a wiring diagram
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a wiring diagram for a Pointer 3000-11 Elt for the
> remote
> switch. I bought a used one it came wired however there is two small
> wires
> on at each end of the harness that were cut I need to find out if they
> need
> connected together or connected to power and ground... Thanks Dale
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | How hard to wire panel-Approach HUB |
My thoughts on the Approach System and wiring your own panel:
1. Everything goes into and then out of the "Hub". I would prefer that
some items be wired direct, for instance the cdi to navcom, instead of from the
cdi to the Hub and then to the navcom, or from the encoder to Hub to
transponder vs. encoder to transponder direct.
2. From the Approach website, cost for my panel: Pro Hub 589; PSE audio
panel to hub 99; Intercom cable 99; Garmin GNC300 to Hub 149; Ki 202 Cdi
to hub 99; ;Annunciator to hub 149; Kns80 to hub 149; KI 206 cdi to Hub
99; Icom 200 to hub 99; Txpr to hub 79; Enc. to hub 79; The 202 and 206
aren't listed so I used the regular cdi price, I assume the connectors and
pins f?or these would be additional cost since they are special., I'm guessing
75 per cable more. So, estimated $1611 list price before discounts for the
above, maybe the smaller Hub will work, .
3. I bought a premade $200 harness for the audio panel/marker
beacon/intercom. I kept the audio inputs wires separate from the intercom wiring
so that
I can upgrade avionics later without cutting into the intercom wiring (there
is one common ground commection, however). I did have to put the other
"output" ends on for the garmin, kns80 and will on Icom; dsubs and molex, about
16 in all. The encoder came with its own harness, took me about an hour to
put the transponder end and gps end is just 1 wire (d-subs). You would
save the time of the encoder wiring and 16 dsubs/molex connectors by using the
HUB.
3. As already mentioned, you still are left with the antennas cable
connections, power, ground, breakers, lights, dimmer, ptt, and other switches,
whether you use the HUB or not.
4. My wiring experience is 8 track stereo and keeping a small office
network and telephone lines working, and old cars running, and household wiring.
Mostly A to B, not much theory.
This is my first aircraft project. You will need at least the antenna and
amp crimpers even if you use the HUB, and I can't imagine not having a dsub
crimper anyway. I have a hard time with the molex pins.
5. I would verify wire layouts before powering up, whether I used HUB or
not. So not much time savings unless you just plug and play.
6. I might buy a harness for the cdi's, estimate $200 for 2 and I will
insert into the connectors myself.
7. Of course the big benefit to the HUB is future upgrades are just a cable
change away. Good luck. Skip
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Vandegrift <citabriapilot(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | SPA-400 intercom |
Bob,
I have fried several resistors/diodes (don't ask, lets just say the
previous professional approved installation choice of protection had
something to do with it) in the unit to the point I can not tell what
they are or their values. There is a cluster of 4 passives, a diode,
capacitor, ? and ? located just behind the on/off switch on the
board. Would you have access to a schematic or and old unit to help
me determine what they are. They will be easy to replace and repair
the unit.
Thanks
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Need a wiring diagram |
Hello Dale,
You have to register to view the Maintenance Manuals, but not the
Installation Manuals toward the bottom of the page. I attached the
Install Manual for the 3000-11 ELT remote switch from that site.
I had hoped to be done before OSH, but that's a huge stretch given the
current pace.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Fultz
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need a wiring diagram
Thanks Bill ,, I tried that route ,, you have to register to view the
files
which I did but still haven't been able to access the file I need to
view. I
am running out of time was trying to get done to make Oshkosh. Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Need a wiring diagram
>
>
> Dale,
>
> Try this link: http://www.pointeravionics.com/manual.php
>
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Dale
> Fultz
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 1:29 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Need a wiring diagram
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a wiring diagram for a Pointer 3000-11 Elt for the
> remote
> switch. I bought a used one it came wired however there is two small
> wires
> on at each end of the harness that were cut I need to find out if they
> need
> connected together or connected to power and ground... Thanks Dale
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why not?) |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
These arguments would not be so pointless if we adhered to the policy of simply
labeling fallacious arguments. I suggest the following list:
1. Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
2. Affirming The Consequent
3. Amazing Familiarity
4. Ambiguous Assertion
5. Appeal To Anonymous Authority
6. Appeal To Authority
7. Appeal To Coincidence
8. Appeal To Complexity
9. Appeal To False Authority
10. Appeal To Force
11. Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument)
12. Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer
Pressure, Appeal To Common Practice)
13. Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People)
14. Argument By Fast Talking
15. Argument By Generalization
16. Argument By Gibberish (Bafflement)
17. Argument By Half Truth (Suppressed Evidence)
18. Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)
19. Argument By Personal Charm
20. Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)
21. Argument By Poetic Language
22. Argument By Prestigious Jargon
23. Argument By Question
24. Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
25. Argument by Rhetorical Question
26. Argument By Scenario
27. Argument By Selective Observation
28. Argument By Selective Reading
29. Argument By Slogan
30. Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal
To Fear, Scare Tactics)
31. Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients)
32. Argument From Authority
33. Argument From False Authority
34. Argument From Small Numbers
35. Argument From Spurious Similarity
36. Argument Of The Beard
37. Argument To The Future
38. Bad Analogy
39. Begging The Question (Assuming The
Answer, Tautology)
40. Burden Of Proof
41. Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause)
42. Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring,
Misdirection, False Emphasis)
43. Cliche Thinking
44. Common Sense
45. Complex Question (Tying)
46. Confusing Correlation And Causation
47. Disproof By Fallacy
48. Equivocation
49. Error Of Fact
50. Euphemism
51. Exception That Proves The Rule
52. Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty
Dilemma, Bifurcation)
53. Extended Analogy
54. Failure To State
55. Fallacy Of Composition
56. Fallacy Of Division
57. Fallacy Of The General Rule
58. Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment
59. False Cause
60. False Compromise
61. Genetic Fallacy (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue)
62. Having Your Cake (Failure To Assert, or Diminished Claim)
63. Hypothesis Contrary To Fact
64. Inconsistency
65. Inflation Of Conflict
66. Internal Contradiction
67. Least Plausible Hypothesis
68. Lies
69. Meaningless Questions
70. Misunderstanding The Nature Of Statistics
71. Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By
Demanding Impossible Perfection)
72. Needling
73. Non Sequitur
74. Not Invented Here
75. Outdated Information
76. Pious Fraud
77. Poisoning The Wells
78. Psychogenetic Fallacy
79. Reductio Ad Absurdum
80. Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification)
81. Reifying
82. Short Term Versus Long Term
83. Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camel's Nose)
84. Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck)
85. Statement Of Conversion
86. Stolen Concept
87. Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)
88. Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too)
89. Weasel Wording
And I am not kidding. By the way, I am on George's side in this. I sell a NON-crowbar
OV module, and have indured Bob's ire on many occassions so now I post
only infrequently.
"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an
injury to one's self-esteem...."
-Thomas Szasz
--------
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=117707#117707
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Alternator Load-Dump |
>
>
>Bob,
>I don't know how you have the patience to suffer that kind of uninformed
>rhetoric when it is aimed at your totally generous and valuable work.
A wise man suggested to me some years ago that I have absolute
and total control over what some folks would find insulting. He observed
that good critical review is factual, logical and worthy of considered
attention. Tossed cabbages representing illogical thought, erroneous
ideas or vindictive intent are the tools of those who simply can not
or choose not to behave honorably. It's perfectly okay to ignore them.
It's also okay to offer what you can as teacher to correct errors. But
to expend emotional capital on such individuals is a wasted effort. I.e,
don't
give anyone permission to insult you. I KNOW that the gentleman who
considered me to be a bully is simply wrong and if he is interested,
I'd be pleased to correct his erroneous assumption. But if he chooses
not to, I'm not going to loose any sleep over it . . . nor will I bother
to expend any emotional capital on the matter.
It's truly amazing how calming this philosophy can be.
>
>I have a couple more also uninformed questions re the operation of the crow
>bar ie when it trips as in Z-21A and Z-25 are we not interrupting the B lead
>and likely to cause load dumping.? If the PM alternator/regulator is runaway
>and the crowbar tripped would we expect that energy to cook what is left of
>the regulator?
No. Your query focused on PM alternators and the same principles
apply but let's explore the skinny on load-dump in the general
case for wound-field alternators.
Suppose you're given a rope to hold that has a string of 1# weights
attached to it. You're asked to hold your arm out horizontal
and maintain it as close to horizontal as you can no matter
what. Suppose someone then cuts away the bottom weight. The force
necessary to hold the horizontal position is suddenly reduced by
1 pound. It takes a bit for your senses to detect the reduction
in weight so your presently applied force momentarily lifts the
remaining weights until you've hand time to adjust to a new,
lighter force and restore your arm to horizontal.
Now, suppose we cut away 5 of the weights. It's intuitively
obvious that the momentary upward transient during this adjustment
would be larger than the demonstrated excursion for the 1 pound
adjustment.
Translating this useful analogy to an alternator (or any other
servo controlled power generation source), let's assume
a 60A alternator is loaded to 10A. This requires so many amps
of field flux and rpm to support the load at the desired setpoint
of say 14.2 volts. Now, let's suddenly reduce the load to zero
and it's easy to see how the regulator (deliberately damped for
smooth response) will take a few milliseconds to sense the rise
in output voltage and adjust the field current as need to restore
order. The little "bump" in output voltage is the effect of a
10A load dump.
Now, load the same alternator to 60 amps and repeat the experiment.
It's intuitively obvious that the voltage "bump" in the second
experiment will be substantially greater than the first experiment.
In the piece I posted at . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
consider the first diagram Z-24. We could establish a design goal
of being able to turn the IR alternator OFF and ON at will just as
the ER alternators and generators have behaved before them. So
let's take the crowbar OV module out.
Note that the act of turning the alternator OFF physically
disconnects the alternator from the ship's load and from
the battery. The transient mitigating qualities of load cited
by George have been isolated. Further, the transient mitigating
qualities of the battery (attributed to "benign" regulator
failure by George) are also gone.
EVERY engine driven power source will demonstrate some "bump"
in output-terminal voltage depending on a combination of alternator
rpm, load at the time the disconnect occurs and most importantly,
the DYNAMICS of the regulator-alternator combination in responding
to a sudden rise in output voltage.
For some combinations, this can be a substantial transient
rising to 40v or more for tens of milliseconds.
Now, it's my best guess that a stock automotive alternator/
regulator of reputable design is capable of withstanding
its own shortcomings with respect to load dump response. However,
if the alternator has been repaired . . . particularly with a
regulator not designed with the same dynamics AND ability to
stand off it's own load dump response, then there is risk that
folks who shut the alternator off under load will experience
exactly the event cited by Van's customers.
What is not well understood by the most vocal critics is that
damage to the alternator was NOT caused by the crowbar OV
protection system but by the transient instability of the
alternator/regulator combination combined with a vulnerability
to products of that instability.
It may very well be that factory stock alternators would not
suffer this indignity . . . don't know. I don't have the
resources to test them all nor will any of the designers
share such data. After all, they would much rather we not
put this product in an airplane at at!
We can now choose to put the crowbar OV module back into
the circuit and the same contactor intended to provide
CONTROL now contributes to the task of OV protection as
well. Critics would have you believe I've suggested that
the IR alternator is somehow "bad" or "inferior". Not so.
They are fine, very reliable products . . . but the failure
rates are not known unless one chooses to restrict their
alternator choices to those devices KNOWN to exhibit
what ever failure rate the installer considers acceptable.
My goal is to take any alternator and install it in an
airplane with CONTROL and OV Protection . . . the very
same design goals we've worked toward since the first generator
and battery went into an airplane. This isn't about who's
good, who's bad, which alternator is better, or who is
willing to fly not having met those design goals. Certainly,
many OBAM aircraft are flying without having achieve those
goals and most owners will suffer no deleterious consequences.
But the risks are not insignificant (ten to the minus 6 failures
per flight hour).
However, depending on a whole raft of indeterminable variables
not the least of which is the pedigree of the particular
alternator, it will require some thoughtful experimentation
and design exemplified by the second schematic in the piece
cited above.
For the Z-figures you cited, the load dump phenomenon for
unhooking a PM alternator under load is still present and
it MIGHT present a hazard to the regulator . . . don't know
and it's unlikely that we'll have an opportunity to craft
the repeatable experiment to find out.
However, whether you're working with and IR alternator installed
per the original Z-24 or the proposed Z-24A or a PM alternator
wired per any of the Z-figures. There's no need to switch
a loaded alternator OFF except for unusual cases that are
controlled by circumstances for which the CONTROL and OV
Protection systems were crafted in the first place. Having
offered that, it's also my belief that your risks are quite
low compared to the situation that started this thread
some years ago when builders DID unload their alternators
and DID experience failures which were NOT a design flaw
in the proposed OV protection system.
My suggestion is that you install as depicted in the Z-figures
and refrain from idle switch-flipping while knowing that
you have the control and protections cited in the design
goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SPA-400 intercom |
>
>
>Bob,
> I have fried several resistors/diodes (don't ask, lets just say the
>previous professional approved installation choice of protection had
>something to do with it) in the unit to the point I can not tell what
>they are or their values. There is a cluster of 4 passives, a diode,
>capacitor, ? and ? located just behind the on/off switch on the
>board. Would you have access to a schematic or and old unit to help
>me determine what they are. They will be easy to replace and repair
>the unit.
>Thanks
>Bob
I'm sorry. I don't have access to the resources necessary
to be useful. You might call the folks at Sigtronics. It's
been years since my last conversation with them and I recall
that they were friendly and helpful. They may not supply a
schematic but if you sent them a picture of the damaged area
of the board, they might suggest repairs. Alternatively,
I seem to recall that they had some pretty reasonable flat-rates
for repairs. I'd recommend you start there.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen Reynolds" <stephen.j.reyn(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | how hard is it to wire a panel |
I am just about finished mine so am in a good position to comment. I also
trained as an electrician & have spent plenty of time working on large
industrial control panels - how hard can it be!!.
I started mine at the end of March & thought it would take me a month. Funny
that huh. If you go the standard route then maybe 100 hrs would be OK, I was
at Pacific Coast Avionics the other day speaking to the guy who does the
panels for Glastar's 2 weeks to taxi program. He has got them down to 90 hrs
& does it on a frame out of the aircraft. For a 1st timer at least 2 maybe
three times as long. My panel has AFS 35 & 3400, TT A/Pilot, GNS 430 with a
Garmin Transponder & Audio Panel. When I bought the Avionics I had Stark
wire the interconnects for the Avionics, I have changed it a little since I
moved some of the kit added more. Then at the last moment I added a Icom
A200. All this rests on a Fiberglass panel with Aluminum Inserts. At our
hanger I have seen 6 panels done by Aerotronics, they arrive tested with a
manual & are hooked up in about 3 days with Cannon plugs & they really are
1st class. You can spend tonnes of time chasing wire, special pins, tools
etc etc. I spent half a day on Friday trying to get hold of the tech dept of
the traffic monitor I installed, trying to make the thing beep so I can test
the Audio circuit. Also I have 26 circuit breakers, 14 rocker switches & I
still haven't painted the inserts, installed the transfers & clear coated
the finished product.
It's been interesting doing it but adding anything takes a lot of extra
time, I suppose if you are doing a very basic panel & didn't care too much
about how it looked then you could do it really quick but its what you are
going to spend your time looking at. Maybe save some money on the paint job
& have it done for you.
Anyway hope that helps
Stephen
RV7 N570Z
Wiring - nearly done
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why |
not?)
>
>These arguments would not be so pointless if we adhered to the policy of
>simply labeling fallacious arguments. I suggest the following list:
>
>1. Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
>2. Affirming The Consequent
>3. Amazing Familiarity
>87. Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)
>88. Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too)
>89. Weasel Wording
>
>And I am not kidding. By the way, I am on George's side in this. I sell a
>NON-crowbar OV module, and have indured Bob's ire on many occassions so
>now I post only infrequently.
Your list of rhetorical floobydust offers no enlightenment
or understanding. If it's your intent to stir up anything
other than mystified amusement then you've shot yourself
in the foot. If you're NOT kidding, then you ARE embarrassing.
I'm aware of no shortcomings in the design of your product
or your business practices in marketing it. It was mentioned
in my response to George's latest crap-dump because HE cited
it first as an alternative to "Bob's Alternator Killing OV Protection
System". Your offering avoided being "Eric's Alternator Killing OV
Protection System" because you did not embrace the design
goal for CONTROL and left out the switch. The point being that
damage to the alternator(s) had nothing to do with style
of OV protection . . . or even whether or not OV protection
was installed. It had to do with a desire to effect orderly
CONTROL over an alternator that could not be controlled without
committing suicide by load-dump overshoot.
If you have an argument on any mater of logic or fact
in any posting I've made with respect to George's posts or your
own, then cite it and refute it. If you cannot compete in
the arena of logical assemblage of simple-ideas, then pick
another arena. Step up to the bar and behave like a talented
designer or go find a bar where folks enjoy wallowing in
ideas like that which you cite below . . .
>"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an
>injury to one's self-esteem...."
> -Thomas Szasz
B.S.
We've spoken about this guy's outlook on life and society
before. See my post of 11/23/2006. If you perceive this individual's
ideas as valuable anchors for honorable behavior and optimistic
endeavor, then your future and the future of those who revere your
teachings is in doubt. Szasz is about as inspirational to honorable
folks as Brush Hog driver at a flower show.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | How hard is it to wire a panel? |
As one who wanted and looked forward to doing all the wiring myself (after
spending several years doing sheet metal work), I will tell you Michael that
this task is NON-TRIVIAL. I'm just putting the finishing touches on my all
UPS AT (now Garmin) full IFR electrical system. I attended the very first
seminar that Bob gave, it was way back in 1996 in Portland Oregon (I
understand that Bob now presents a lot more material in the latest
seminars). Ten years later, my airplane was sitting on the landing gear in
a hangar with the wings on and no wiring.
So I set up my old Pentium II computer with Windowa98 and Autocad 2000 and
start working on my drawings. I bought Bob's latest Aeroelectric Connection
book and also picked up his CD. I used the Autocad drawings on Bob's CD as
a starting point and went to work. It took 1.5 to 2 months of nights and
weekends to create the wire book with all my gear in it. In that time I also
had to decide on how to implement some of the custom things I put in my
airplane/panel (warning lights, E-bus, Elect Ign, AOA etc) , get questions
answered and get them in the schematics. This list was invaluable for
getting things ironed out (the equipment vendors were very helpful too).
The Autocad exercise (drawing the schematics) forced me to understand how
every piece of gear was supposed to work so that it was wired correctly, the
FIRST TIME. From there we started spending time at the hangar again, a fair
amount of time was spent making my own panel mount with removable instrument
panel on the right side and engine monitoring on the left, as well as a
lower subpanel for the switches/breakers/engine controls and air vents
(there is a company that makes these modular panels for RV-7/9/10 I don't
know about the -8, I have an RV-6 so had to do my own, more time less
money).
Once all the instrument cutouts were made, the instruments were mounted and
whole assembly temporarily installed to get a feel for wire routing and
lengths. For me quite a bit of time was spent looking at what I equipment I
had vs forward fuselage structure and how I would route and secure the
wiring to make the cleanest install. Summer was spent working the VM-1000
wiring install which had problems to solve on both sides of the firewall.
Finally got the two harnesses made up(appx 40+ wires plus installing pins
and connectors, crimping and soldering, after, I figured out how the routing
was going to go and installed the cushion clamps etc in the airframe).
Early fall spent on figuring basic power and ground wiring and routing and
installing with the appropriate clamps and securing hardware. Late fall and
early winter was spent on the radio stack, by far the most work intensive.
Several evenings marking, crimping and soldering and installing wire into
connectors. I also spent weekends working on wiring IN the airplane. I
bought about $1000 worth of wiring, tools and associated stuff, mostly from
Stienair and B&C.
Around January of this year I was finally to a point that I took the
instruments out of the panel and took all the panel parts down to a powder
coater for final color. It took about two weeks and although powder coat
finish isn't quite as smooth as paint, it's tough as nails. So, back to the
airplane and install radio trays and remainder of the wires behind the
panel. All the radio finish wiring and routing and installing terminals,
soldering etc has taken the last few months of my spare time. I still have
a dozen wires left but they are already run and just need to install
terminals/pins and connect.
It's been a fairly long journey for me. And to put some perspective on it
you should get some data points from other builders too. I have been
working on this RV-6A for 10.5 years and it looks like it will finally fly
this year. It's been a little frustrating because the average build time
was touted as 4 years (slow build kit, not prepunched) and I have not done
much flying since I started the build. I'm probably a bit out of the norm
as many people have built them in a lot less time and I admittedly have set
a goal to do the best job I can (even though I'm not looking to have the
airplane be an award winner) which has meant I probably took more time on
things than most people, electrical included (most people I talk to have an
avionics shop do some basic harness build up, I did NOT).
A few price points from my experiences. As I said, I bought about $1000 of
stuff from Steinair and B&C for this (I'm not including the B&C alternator
and regulator in this cost). If you are planning anything other than basic
VFR panel, do NOT get the wiring kit from Vans, you'll need lots more than
what they supply and you'll end up reworking most of their harness, a waste.
When I was in Portland, our EAA chapter had the folks at Pacific Coast
Avionics come by and talk to us. This was appx 5-6 years ago and at that
time VFR panels started at $10k and IFR panels started at $30k if Pacific
Coast did all the work (seemed like a lot to me then, not now). I looked at
the approach systems at Sun N Fun a couple years ago and again $1500 just
for the radios seemed like a lot (not any more). And finally Steinair
started doing panel harnesses full time so I got a quote for around $2k from
them, again just for the radio stack. Off the top of my head I would say my
time spent on the wiring portion this past year is 300-500 hours (that
should put the $7k in labor into perspective, but my labor includes
installing in the airplane and theirs probably doesn't).
So that's a data point from someone who had to do EVERYTHING in his
airplane. Would I do it again, probably not. I have missed flying a lot, it
was a great stress reliever when I was working on my IFR ticket but I
couldn't get the airplane I wanted without building it myself. Since the
RVs are all prepunch these days I know I could build a new airframe in short
order. I would however, seriously consider the approachfaststack or even a
partially built harness from Steinair or an Avionics shop, especially if you
don't have the time or another airplane to fly and you want to get in the
air quicker. If you are on a tight budget you CAN do everything, you just
have to commit the time. Somedays I spent several hours trying to get coax
cables routed secured and made up (making sure the ends were prepared
properly so the connectors will go together and doing a test piece if I
hadn't done the operation before or not familiar with the type of connector)
and wondered if the airplane would ever get done(it will). If you enjoy the
building process and are not intimidated by electrons then by all means have
at it. This list and Bobs book and training should give you the tools you
need if you're ready for the challenge.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Electrons about to flow
__________________________ Original Message________________________________
>MLWynn(at)aol.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
>Hi all,
>.......I spoke with a shop that does plug and play panels to your
>specification. They told me it would be a $7000 in labor to have them wire
>up the panel. While there are certainly some advantages to having the
>panel wired, tested and ready to go, that is a lot of shekels. So I would
>like to put out the question to those who have done this:
>If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder, autopilot,
>etc., just how hard would it be to wire all of this together and get it to
>work?
>Would one of Bob's seminars teach me all I needed to know to do this?
Michael Wynn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | How hard is it to wire a panel? |
As one who wanted and looked forward to doing all the wiring myself (after
spending several years doing sheet metal work), I will tell you Michael that
this task is NON-TRIVIAL. I'm just putting the finishing touches on my all
UPS AT (now Garmin) full IFR electrical system. I attended the very first
seminar that Bob gave, it was way back in 1996 in Portland Oregon (I
understand that Bob now presents a lot more material in the latest
seminars). Ten years later, my airplane was sitting on the landing gear in
a hangar with the wings on and no wiring.
So I set up my old Pentium II computer with Windowa98 and Autocad 2000 and
start working on my drawings. I bought Bob's latest Aeroelectric Connection
book and also picked up his CD. I used the Autocad drawings on Bob's CD as
a starting point and went to work. It took 1.5 to 2 months of nights and
weekends to create the wire book with all my gear in it. In that time I also
had to decide on how to implement some of the custom things I put in my
airplane/panel (warning lights, E-bus, Elect Ign, AOA etc) , get questions
answered and get them in the schematics. This list was invaluable for
getting things ironed out (the equipment vendors were very helpful too).
The Autocad exercise (drawing the schematics) forced me to understand how
every piece of gear was supposed to work so that it was wired correctly, the
FIRST TIME. From there we started spending time at the hangar again, a fair
amount of time was spent making my own panel mount with removable instrument
panel on the right side and engine monitoring on the left, as well as a
lower subpanel for the switches/breakers/engine controls and air vents
(there is a company that makes these modular panels for RV-7/9/10 I don't
know about the -8, I have an RV-6 so had to do my own, more time less
money).
Once all the instrument cutouts were made, the instruments were mounted and
whole assembly temporarily installed to get a feel for wire routing and
lengths. For me quite a bit of time was spent looking at what I equipment I
had vs forward fuselage structure and how I would route and secure the
wiring to make the cleanest install. Summer was spent working the VM-1000
wiring install which had problems to solve on both sides of the firewall.
Finally got the two harnesses made up(appx 40+ wires plus installing pins
and connectors, crimping and soldering, after, I figured out how the routing
was going to go and installed the cushion clamps etc in the airframe).
Early fall spent on figuring basic power and ground wiring and routing and
installing with the appropriate clamps and securing hardware. Late fall and
early winter was spent on the radio stack, by far the most work intensive.
Several evenings marking, crimping and soldering and installing wire into
connectors. I also spent weekends working on wiring IN the airplane. I
bought about $1000 worth of wiring, tools and associated stuff, mostly from
Stienair and B&C.
Around January of this year I was finally to a point that I took the
instruments out of the panel and took all the panel parts down to a powder
coater for final color. It took about two weeks and although powder coat
finish isn't quite as smooth as paint, it's tough as nails. So, back to the
airplane and install radio trays and remainder of the wires behind the
panel. All the radio finish wiring and routing and installing terminals,
soldering etc has taken the last few months of my spare time. I still have
a dozen wires left but they are already run and just need to install
terminals/pins and connect.
It's been a fairly long journey for me. And to put some perspective on it
you should get some data points from other builders too. I have been
working on this RV-6A for 10.5 years and it looks like it will finally fly
this year. It's been a little frustrating because the average build time
was touted as 4 years (slow build kit, not prepunched) and I have not done
much flying since I started the build. I'm probably a bit out of the norm
as many people have built them in a lot less time and I admittedly have set
a goal to do the best job I can (even though I'm not looking to have the
airplane be an award winner) which has meant I probably took more time on
things than most people, electrical included (most people I talk to have an
avionics shop do some basic harness build up, I did NOT).
A few price points from my experiences. As I said, I bought about $1000 of
stuff from Steinair and B&C for this (I'm not including the B&C alternator
and regulator in this cost). If you are planning anything other than basic
VFR panel, do NOT get the wiring kit from Vans, you'll need lots more than
what they supply and you'll end up reworking most of their harness, a waste.
When I was in Portland, our EAA chapter had the folks at Pacific Coast
Avionics come by and talk to us. This was appx 5-6 years ago and at that
time VFR panels started at $10k and IFR panels started at $30k if Pacific
Coast did all the work (seemed like a lot to me then, not now). I looked at
the approach systems at Sun N Fun a couple years ago and again $1500 just
for the radios seemed like a lot (not any more). And finally Steinair
started doing panel harnesses full time so I got a quote for around $2k from
them, again just for the radio stack. Off the top of my head I would say my
time spent on the wiring portion this past year is 300-500 hours (that
should put the $7k in labor into perspective, but my labor includes
installing in the airplane and theirs probably doesn't).
So that's a data point from someone who had to do EVERYTHING in his
airplane. Would I do it again, probably not. I have missed flying a lot, it
was a great stress reliever when I was working on my IFR ticket but I
couldn't get the airplane I wanted without building it myself. Since the
RVs are all prepunch these days I know I could build a new airframe in short
order. I would however, seriously consider the approachfaststack or even a
partially built harness from Steinair or an Avionics shop, especially if you
don't have the time or another airplane to fly and you want to get in the
air quicker. If you are on a tight budget you CAN do everything, you just
have to commit the time. Somedays I spent several hours trying to get coax
cables routed secured and made up (making sure the ends were prepared
properly so the connectors will go together and doing a test piece if I
hadn't done the operation before or not familiar with the type of connector)
and wondered if the airplane would ever get done(it will). If you enjoy the
building process and are not intimidated by electrons then by all means have
at it. This list and Bobs book and training should give you the tools you
need if you're ready for the challenge.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Electrons about to flow
__________________________ Original Message________________________________
>MLWynn(at)aol.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
>Hi all,
>.......I spoke with a shop that does plug and play panels to your
>specification. They told me it would be a $7000 in labor to have them wire
>up the panel. While there are certainly some advantages to having the
>panel wired, tested and ready to go, that is a lot of shekels. So I would
>like to put out the question to those who have done this:
>If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder, autopilot,
>etc., just how hard would it be to wire all of this together and get it to
>work?
>Would one of Bob's seminars teach me all I needed to know to do this?
Michael Wynn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | GX-65 apollo error msg |
Got a msg - internal battery fail - turn unit off and return for
service..... Kept working fine, book says either high or low volts can cause
this - I was looking at the volts - 14.6 the whole time - it is rated from
10-40 volts. I expect the garmin tech rep will say to send it in. Any
experience with this error message out there? It's my only panel mounted
comm/gps and hat the pull it out if not need be.
thanks
bobf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GX-65 apollo error msg |
This one's in the archives - somewhere...I had this issue a year or so ago.
Yes - they said send it in and they'll replace the battery - it was criminally
expensive. Next time, I'll quietly replace it myself....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Feldtman <bobf(at)feldtman.com>
>Sent: Jun 11, 2007 7:59 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GX-65 apollo error msg
>
>Got a msg - internal battery fail - turn unit off and return for
>service..... Kept working fine, book says either high or low volts can cause
>this - I was looking at the volts - 14.6 the whole time - it is rated from
>10-40 volts. I expect the garmin tech rep will say to send it in. Any
>experience with this error message out there? It's my only panel mounted
>comm/gps and hat the pull it out if not need be.
>
>thanks
>
>bobf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I am about six months away from the panel wiring. You will probably
> hear from me again on the subject. Again my thanks
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV 8 Fuselage
> San Ramon, CA
One of the things that takes a lot of time when doing the wiring is
swapping tools. You measure out a wire. Clip it. Strip it. Crimp a
connector. One wire at at time. You spend more time swapping tools
than running wire.
It will go faster if you cut a bunch of wires then sit down in front of
the TV. Strip all the ends at one time. Then crimp connectors, all at
one time. You waste a little more wire, but not excessively so.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why |
not?)
Bob, I realize this is your list to do as you see fit. But really, could you
three keep your overblown rhetoric BS between you guys and out of everyone else's
view. I mean come on this is a bit much! Quite frankly every personal attack,
whether from you, George, or whoever, eats into each other's credibility.
I hate to tell you this but your over reaching use of language is no more
or less "floobydust" or "enlightening" than Eric's or George's. I mean really,
do we need timeouts or something on the list so everyone act's just a bit more
civil? You ever hear the old saying about arguing on the Internet because
it is really starting to apply when you and George go at it.
Now, would you guys just agree to disagree, buy each other a beer like normal
adults, and give it a rest already. Geeze
-----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: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why not?)
>
>These arguments would not be so pointless if we adhered to the policy of
>simply labeling fallacious arguments. I suggest the following list:
>
>1. Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
>2. Affirming The Consequent
>3. Amazing Familiarity
>87. Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)
>88. Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too)
>89. Weasel Wording
>
>And I am not kidding. By the way, I am on George's side in this. I sell a
>NON-crowbar OV module, and have indured Bob's ire on many occassions so
>now I post only infrequently.
Your list of rhetorical floobydust offers no enlightenment
or understanding. If it's your intent to stir up anything
other than mystified amusement then you've shot yourself
in the foot. If you're NOT kidding, then you ARE embarrassing.
I'm aware of no shortcomings in the design of your product
or your business practices in marketing it. It was mentioned
in my response to George's latest crap-dump because HE cited
it first as an alternative to "Bob's Alternator Killing OV Protection
System". Your offering avoided being "Eric's Alternator Killing OV
Protection System" because you did not embrace the design
goal for CONTROL and left out the switch. The point being that
damage to the alternator(s) had nothing to do with style
of OV protection . . . or even whether or not OV protection
was installed. It had to do with a desire to effect orderly
CONTROL over an alternator that could not be controlled without
committing suicide by load-dump overshoot.
If you have an argument on any mater of logic or fact
in any posting I've made with respect to George's posts or your
own, then cite it and refute it. If you cannot compete in
the arena of logical assemblage of simple-ideas, then pick
another arena. Step up to the bar and behave like a talented
designer or go find a bar where folks enjoy wallowing in
ideas like that which you cite below . . .
>"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an
>injury to one's self-esteem...."
> -Thomas Szasz
B.S.
We've spoken about this guy's outlook on life and society
before. See my post of 11/23/2006. If you perceive this individual's
ideas as valuable anchors for honorable behavior and optimistic
endeavor, then your future and the future of those who revere your
teachings is in doubt. Szasz is about as inspirational to honorable
folks as Brush Hog driver at a flower show.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
>
>
>MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>>I am about six months away from the panel wiring. You will probably hear
>>from me again on the subject. Again my thanks
>>
>>Michael Wynn
>>RV 8 Fuselage
>>San Ramon, CA
>
>One of the things that takes a lot of time when doing the wiring is
>swapping tools. You measure out a wire. Clip it. Strip it. Crimp a
>connector. One wire at at time. You spend more time swapping tools than
>running wire.
>
>It will go faster if you cut a bunch of wires then sit down in front of
>the TV. Strip all the ends at one time. Then crimp connectors, all at
>one time. You waste a little more wire, but not excessively so.
This can work well when building a bundle of same-length wires.
I have access to machines that will spool off wires cut to
specific lengths and stripped to specific lengths at both ends.
The last time I was able to use this machine was about ten
years ago. The problem is that few wiring tasks within the
project are bundles of same length wires. Even when building
something like a harness with multiple branches and different
connectors on each end, one seldom encounters a lot of wires
prepared exactly the same way.
For example, I ALWAYS leave long pigtails on a bundle that
goes to a large (37 or 50 pin) d-sub because the wires that
come out of the bundle to central pins are shorter than
wires that connect to the outside pins. If you want your
wires to lay in orderly bundles and make graceful exits to
their final attach points, the only way I've found is to
cut, strip and terminate after the wire's pathway is life
is fixtured.
In production we have machines that not only measure,
cut and strip wires . . . it installs the appropriate
terminal/pin on each end and marks the wire with it's
numbering according to the engineering callouts. Even
in this environment, production can and does tailor
the lengths of wires to the nearest 0.1" so as to achieve
the nice lay of strands in the finished producdt.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <steerr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why |
not?)
Actually, it isn't Bob's list, it's Matt's list. I belong to several
lists, and this is the only one where almost all traffic is focused on
one individual. All of the other lists are communities of
similarly-interested individuals who share ideas and help each other
solve problems. Yes, they get off on tangents and yes, they have
disagreements, but very seldom are there personal attacks and juvenile
name-calling incidents.
Bill
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>
> Bob, I realize this is your list to do as you see fit. But really, could you
three keep your overblown rhetoric BS between you guys and out of everyone
else's view. I mean come
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
I bought most of my avionics from Stark and had them
prewire as much of it as they could. I gave them approximate
measurements. GRT also sent me their units somewhat prewired. Some of it
is double wired by both companies. I have sorted through the maze but
have yet to get started on the final wiring. It does not appear to be
that big of a deal putting it all together this way. Just have to trim
some wires, repin others and cut the intercom ends down to length and
put the ends on and mount the jacks. I think stark charged me around
$800 and I believe GRT threw it in as part of the deal. This included a
3 GRT mfd, PMA8000b, GTX330, SL30, Trutrak DG2,. I have never wired a
panel before but have some experience with wiring industrial panels. It
is still intimidating looking at the bundle of wiring to deal with but
if taken one at a time being careful to make sure of the pin out then it
does'nt look all that bad.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Creek
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
Michael,
I just asked the same question on the GRT Yahoo list. What I gathered
from those responses is that the wiring is fairly easy; just go one wire
at a time. I also understood it takes quite some time to complete the
wiring, hence the $7k quote which compares to quotes I received.
Assuming a shop rate of $65/hr, that equates to over 100 hours for
someone that does it day in and day out. I don't know about you, but I
estimated it would take me at least twice that long since my
experience/proficiency is low.
Another option is to use the Approach Systems Fast Stack
(http://www.approachfaststack.com/index.html). Everyone I contacted who
had actually used this system and is flying with it was very positive
about the time saved, quality of the work, customer service, and how
well their avionics are working and ease of upgrades. I heard rumors of
a few customers that said they wouldn't use it again, but when I
contacted them directly, I got nothing but glowing reviews. Several of
the builders I contacted were very experienced and one was on his 12th
plane. I'm not recommending this as I have no experience with it, but
it is another option to consider. I was quoted about $1,200 for a GRT
dual sport system with Garmin radios and TT AP. You would still have to
take care of all the DC wiring, however.
Mike Creek
Elko, NV
Bearhawk, QB
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MLWynn(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:05 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
Hi all,
I am finishing the airframe of my RV 8 and want to install an IFR
panel. I have been looking at various glass panel options. I spoke
with a shop that does plug and play panels to your specification. They
told me it would be a $7000 in labor to have them wire up the panel.
While there are certainly some advantages to having the panel wired,
tested and ready to go, that is a lot of shekels. So I would like to put
out the question to those who have done this:
If I bought a GRT EFIS, a couple of Garmin radios, transponder,
autopilot, etc., just how hard would it be to wire all of this together
and get it to work? Would one of Bob's seminars teach me all I needed
to know to do this?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Fuselage
San Ramon, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel? |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> One of the things that takes a lot of time when doing the wiring is
>> swapping tools. You measure out a wire. Clip it. Strip it. Crimp
>> a connector. One wire at at time. You spend more time swapping
>> tools than running wire.
>>
>> It will go faster if you cut a bunch of wires then sit down in front
>> of the TV. Strip all the ends at one time. Then crimp connectors,
>> all at one time. You waste a little more wire, but not excessively so.
>
> This can work well when building a bundle of same-length wires.
> I have access to machines that will spool off wires cut to
> specific lengths and stripped to specific lengths at both ends.
> The last time I was able to use this machine was about ten
> years ago. The problem is that few wiring tasks within the
> project are bundles of same length wires.
I don't think I conveyed the suggestion very well. The idea is to cut
all the wire at some random measurement, like maybe 3ft. That's what I
meant by wasting wire. You do all the connectors on one side, leaving
the other hanging. Yeah, sort of a critical point, but it's not the
biggest dufus screw-up I've made today (dang these stupid Cisco routers).
>
>
> For example, I ALWAYS leave long pigtails on a bundle that
> goes to a large (37 or 50 pin) d-sub because the wires that
> come out of the bundle to central pins are shorter than
> wires that connect to the outside pins.
In this case, strip and crimp 50 wires while comfortably waving at the
neighbors from your front porch. Maybe even populate the connector if
you're labeling the wires anyway. Install the connector, temporarily
route all the wires, then cut each to length. Now take the connector
back to the front porch and crimp the pins to the other side.
I do the same when building a circuit board. Don't install one
component at a time. Stick a bunch in, bending the legs at a 45 angle
to hold them in place. Snip all the excess lead lengths. Then come
back with the iron and solder a bunch at once. The time saved in
rigging the part, clip the lead, picking up the iron, cleaning it, then
switching back to the previous mode is considerable.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why |
not?)
>
>
> Bob, I realize this is your list to do as you see fit. But really,
> could you three keep your overblown rhetoric BS between you guys and out
> of everyone else's view. I mean come on this is a bit much! Quite
> frankly every personal attack, whether from you, George, or whoever, eats
> into each other's credibility. I hate to tell you this but your over
> reaching use of language is no more or less "floobydust" or
> "enlightening" than Eric's or George's. I mean really, do we need
> timeouts or something on the list so everyone act's just a bit more
> civil? You ever hear the old saying about arguing on the Internet
> because it is really starting to apply when you and George go at it.
>
> Now, would you guys just agree to disagree, buy each other a beer like
> normal adults, and give it a rest already. Geeze
I'd be pleased to do that . . . but my antagonists
choose to make pronouncements on me personally and
professionally and then wrap themselves in cloaks of
"free speech in a public forum". But I'll suggest
that I am obligated to defend myself and to expose
bad science and poor logic. I would have "given it
a rest" except that individuals involved continue to
stoke the fires. If you cannot perceive the difference
between my attempts to discuss the art and science of
our art and their attempts to make me the bad guy for
disagreeing with their unsubstantiated opinions, I'd
be pleased to help you understand.
As ever and always, take any statement I've made and
show me where it's wrong. This isn't about George and
Bob, it's about irrefutable truths, the simple-ideas
upon which we base good products.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and |
why not?)
>
>Actually, it isn't Bob's list, it's Matt's list. I belong to several
>lists, and this is the only one where almost all traffic is focused on one
>individual. All of the other lists are communities of
>similarly-interested individuals who share ideas and help each other solve
>problems. Yes, they get off on tangents and yes, they have disagreements,
>but very seldom are there personal attacks and juvenile name-calling incidents.
>
>Bill
I restricted my conduct under the notion of this being a
public forum on Matt's system for a number of years before
I came to realize that the problematic individuals were no
different than unruly students in a classroom who are free
to cause any manner of trouble they choose without consequences
to themselves. Public school teachers are forced to accommodate
unruly children in the spirit of "diversity of thought and deed
in a public service environment." The byproduct of loss
of command and control in the classroom is now obvious as
two generations of students struggle to even survive much less
thrive in an increasingly technical world.
A few months ago I decided that if my service to this community
was to achieve the greatest value, I would have to take back
command and control of this classroom. George and others were
politely asked to leave. Yes, they stepped outside but continue
to toss tomatoes and cabbages in through the windows and doors.
Before you start pasting me with that public-servant-in-
an-open-forum brush, I'll invite you to study the exchanges in
the items I've posted. Not one word offered by my antagonists
advances a simple idea nor do they offer considered critical
review a single invention based on demonstrable and measurable
simple-ideas.
This isn't about achieving consensus on the science . . .
science stands on its own and requires nobody's consensus.
If you perceive an error in my offering of the science, I'd
be pleased to hear about it. But if you're simply defending
some perceived right of individuals to make lots of noise,
graffiti the walls and leave their beer cans behind, you're
not going to get any sympathy or support from me.
. . . and I will continue to defend both my person and the
decorum in this classroom.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and |
why not?)
>
>Actually, it isn't Bob's list, it's Matt's list. I belong to several
>lists, and this is the only one where almost all traffic is focused on one
>individual. All of the other lists are communities of
>similarly-interested individuals who share ideas and help each other solve
>problems. Yes, they get off on tangents and yes, they have disagreements,
>but very seldom are there personal attacks and juvenile name-calling incidents.
>
>Bill
I restricted my conduct under the notion of this being a
public forum on Matt's system for a number of years before
I came to realize that the problematic individuals were no
different than unruly students in a classroom who are free
to cause any manner of trouble they choose without consequences
to themselves. Public school teachers are forced to accommodate
unruly children in the spirit of "diversity of thought and deed
in a public service environment." The byproduct of loss
of command and control in the classroom is now obvious as
two generations of students struggle to even survive much less
thrive in an increasingly technical world.
A few months ago I decided that if my service to this community
was to achieve the greatest value, I would have to take back
command and control of this classroom. George and others were
politely asked to leave. Yes, they stepped outside but continue
to toss tomatoes and cabbages in through the windows and doors.
Before you start pasting me with that public-servant-in-
an-open-forum brush, I'll invite you to study the exchanges in
the items I've posted. Not one word offered by my antagonists
advances a simple idea nor do they offer considered critical
review a single invention based on demonstrable and measurable
simple-ideas.
This isn't about achieving consensus on the science . . .
science stands on its own and requires nobody's consensus.
If you perceive an error in my offering of the science, I'd
be pleased to hear about it. But if you're simply defending
some perceived right of individuals to make lots of noise,
graffiti the walls and leave their beer cans behind, you're
not going to get any sympathy or support from me.
. . . and I will continue to defend both my person and the
decorum in this classroom.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel |
Let me jump in here with a huge "DITTO"... When I started wiring, GRT,
TruTrak, 2x ICOM's, Dynon, XPDR, I knew nothing about it except how to change
a
wall outlet. Good friend Bob Haan suggested Bob's book and I never looked back.
Using Z-11 as a basis and excellent/free schematic software from
_http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCBHtm/Download.htm_
(http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCBHtm/Download.htm) I wired my now-flying RV-6a. I've had a
couple glitches and the schematics prove invaluable. No guessing which wire does
what as they are all marked on the schematic as well as the wire itself.
HTH,
Jerry Cochran
From: David Abrahamson <dave(at)abrahamson.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
oh and... without Bob's book, I would have had no choice but to
throw myself on the mercy of a panel builder -- and would have had an
infinitely harder time setting up a working electrical system. I
used Z12 and have been very happy with it.
D
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest:Runaway Trim |
Having experienced the vagaries of electric trim in a shared RV-6a, and
finding it difficult to get the trim "just right", I opted for manual trim on my
new -6a. Very easy to get perfect and no worries about runaway. Makes me
wonder why so many opt for the more complex and maybe unreliable electric version.
Of course, the manual adds a tad more weight...
Jerry Cochran
From: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Runaway Trim
I have a Ray Allen Company (RAC) trim servo on each of the three trim
tabs on my Lancair Legacy. When I was doing my electrical design, I
talked with one of the principals at RAC, who claimed that the design of
the servo makes "runway" within the servo impossible. Since almost
anything is possible, I interpreted his statement to mean that it was
very unlikely.
I think the most likely way to get runaway trim in my airplane is a
stuck trim switch. I expect that physically forcing the switch to the
opposite position would likely unstick the switch and allow control of
the trim tab until landing.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buckaroo Banzai <ornerycuss2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | SL-30 discontinued.....NOT |
Lest the FAA get the wrong impression from your question, many of us still use
VORs for enroute navigation. At least, in the IFR system where a VFR GPS can't
legally be used for navigation.
Greg
Dean,
The SL-70 has been long discontinued. A final note to you is that the
last medical that you pass will have dust on it before the final ILS
system is decommissioned. So I think the Nav portion of you Nav/Com
will get use well into the future. Besides, other then approaches who
still continues to use VOR for enroute navigation today other then
backup?
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DEAN
PSIROPOULOS
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:05 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 discontinued.....NOT
Sorry about the false alarm folks, I meant to say that Garmin has
discontinued the SL-70 transponder, NOT the SL-30 Nav/Com. The SL-30 is
a
real winner and Garmin knows that so they're going to keep it around for
a
while (at least until all the VORs get decommissioned then it'll only be
good for com).
Dean
--
3:15 PM
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Baleshta" <DBaleshta(at)tru.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel |
Hi, one of my anti-virus programs is showing this program infected with
Malware - Adware.Win32.DM.I Does anyone one else have experience with
this? (It was downloaded from the West Coast Server).
Doug
>>> Jerry2DT(at)aol.com 11/06/2007 9:56 am >>>
Let me jump in here with a huge "DITTO"... When I started wiring, GRT,
TruTrak, 2x ICOM's, Dynon, XPDR, I knew nothing about it except how to
change a wall outlet. Good friend Bob Haan suggested Bob's book and I
never looked back. Using Z-11 as a basis and excellent/free schematic
software from
http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCBHtm/Download.htm I wired my
now-flying RV-6a. I've had a couple glitches and the schematics prove
invaluable. No guessing which wire does what as they are all marked on
the schematic as well as the wire itself.
HTH,
Jerry Cochran
From: David Abrahamson <dave(at)abrahamson.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
oh and... without Bob's book, I would have had no choice but to
throw myself on the mercy of a panel builder -- and would have had an
infinitely harder time setting up a working electrical system. I
used Z12 and have been very happy with it.
D
See what's free at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How hard is it to wire a panel |
I might add..
After talking to Lanciar, Stark and Stien etc. etc and getting generally
scared off by their pricing, I looked locally and found a very good
avionics shop who was willing to work with me and didn't require I ship
things back and forth to as well as guess measurements etc. Buy your
stuff, drill the holes and mount everything yourself. Now, buy as many
of the GRT/Dynon or whatever pre-made harnesses you can find. From there
a good shop will charge you a much more reasonable fee to hook it up.
Look locally, you'll find a great technician who has all the know how
and someone you can go back to if there is a problem.
In the end you will learn a little about the art, save a bunch of money,
make your own decisions and be assured of reading a minimum number of
eMails on this website to fix problems that are keeping you on the
ground. This concept may also reduce smoke in the cockpit.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug
Baleshta
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel
Hi, one of my anti-virus programs is showing this program
infected with Malware - Adware.Win32.DM.I Does anyone one else have
experience with this? (It was downloaded from the West Coast Server).
Doug
>>> Jerry2DT(at)aol.com 11/06/2007 9:56 am >>>
Let me jump in here with a huge "DITTO"... When I started
wiring, GRT, TruTrak, 2x ICOM's, Dynon, XPDR, I knew nothing about it
except how to change a wall outlet. Good friend Bob Haan suggested Bob's
book and I never looked back. Using Z-11 as a basis and excellent/free
schematic software from
http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCBHtm/Download.htm I wired my
now-flying RV-6a. I've had a couple glitches and the schematics prove
invaluable. No guessing which wire does what as they are all marked on
the schematic as well as the wire itself.
HTH,
Jerry Cochran
From: David Abrahamson <dave(at)abrahamson.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a
panel?
oh and... without Bob's book, I would have had no
choice but to
throw myself on the mercy of a panel builder -- and
would have had an
infinitely harder time setting up a working electrical
system. I
used Z12 and have been very happy with it.
D
________________________________
See what's free at AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
ist">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
ics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Mueller <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and why |
not?)
Hi Bob,
Great job. Built some Heathkits 40 years ago (I was 13) and have
stayed interested (hobbyist) in electrics/electronics since. Keep up
the good work.
I completely agree with your views on the educational system. As a
business owner I get job apps that are TERRIBLE. One high school
graduate couldn't even spell the name of the city correctly where he
lives and the business is based. Errors everywhere in the
applications.
I about fell off my chair laughing at the quote about brush hogs.
"Szasz is about as inspirational to honorable
folks as Brush Hog driver at a flower show"
Ed Mueller
RV10 Builder
About fell off my chair
On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Szasz is about as inspirational to honorable
> folks as Brush Hog driver at a flower show
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Settle <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel |
Oh Great..! I just downloaded it.
Bill Settle
>
> From: "Doug Baleshta" <DBaleshta(at)tru.ca>
> Date: 2007/06/11 Mon PM 12:43:22 EST
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel
>
> Hi, one of my anti-virus programs is showing this program infected with
> Malware - Adware.Win32.DM.I Does anyone one else have experience with
> this? (It was downloaded from the West Coast Server).
>
> Doug
>
> >>> Jerry2DT(at)aol.com 11/06/2007 9:56 am >>>
>
> Let me jump in here with a huge "DITTO"... When I started wiring, GRT,
> TruTrak, 2x ICOM's, Dynon, XPDR, I knew nothing about it except how to
> change a wall outlet. Good friend Bob Haan suggested Bob's book and I
> never looked back. Using Z-11 as a basis and excellent/free schematic
> software from
> http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCBHtm/Download.htm I wired my
> now-flying RV-6a. I've had a couple glitches and the schematics prove
> invaluable. No guessing which wire does what as they are all marked on
> the schematic as well as the wire itself.
>
> HTH,
> Jerry Cochran
> From: David Abrahamson <dave(at)abrahamson.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
>
>
> oh and... without Bob's book, I would have had no choice but to
> throw myself on the mercy of a panel builder -- and would have had an
> infinitely harder time setting up a working electrical system. I
> used Z12 and have been very happy with it.
> D
>
>
>
>
>
> See what's free at AOL.com.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel |
Bill, Doug, et al....
No problem...I just downloaded it as well, and after seeing your posts,
I checked it...and nothing was found. We've run into other false
positives either here or on the Cadd forum I'm also a member of ...it
can happen quite regularly with some detection programs.
Returning false positives is fairly common with many virus/adware/spy
detection programs. Which is why I use AVG (and Ad-aware and Spybot).
AVG (unlike McAffee , AOL, Norton and Symantec) has a history of being
able to accurately distinguish false readings from real ones, not to
mention it's continuous 100% detection record of the nasties!
The link apparently had nothing in it or attached to it.
Harley Dixon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Settle wrote:
>
> Oh Great..! I just downloaded it.
>
> Bill Settle
>
>
>> From: "Doug Baleshta" <DBaleshta(at)tru.ca>
>> Date: 2007/06/11 Mon PM 12:43:22 EST
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel
>>
>> Hi, one of my anti-virus programs is showing this program infected with
>> Malware - Adware.Win32.DM.I Does anyone one else have experience with
>> this? (It was downloaded from the West Coast Server).
>>
>> Doug
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | starter/battery contactor wiring and choices |
>Comments/Questions: Bob,
>I would appreciate your making a statement summarizing the reasons for
>running starter current through a "Battery Contactor". I have tried to
>glean an answer to this question from your posts on this subject, but it
>seems to be related to other considerations that I found confusing.
>I am planning to run starter current from battery through a Tyco LEV200
>contactor that has a 500A continuous rating and a peak rating of 2500A.
>The starter is a Jabiru 1500W motor. Jabiru has very little information on
>its characteristics, so I am not ready to accept their statement that they
>manufacture it. The battery is an Odyssey PC680.
If you believe that you NEED that battery contactor
based on an assessment of its stellar RATINGS, know
that the battery contactor of choice in light aircraft
for nearly 70 years has been a $20 device with a 70A
rating. Contactors and switches are rated for their
ability to make and break certain kinds of loads at
various voltages. A battery contactor seldom needs to
make and break a significant load and then only once
per flight cycle. Hence, what appears to be an
"under-rated", el-cheeso contactor is a choice that
scores well on the cost-of-ownership study.
Now, if your focus is on running current, the Tyco
product has some appeal for its built in electronics
designed to reduce holding current to a fraction of
that needed to pull the contactor in. This too may
be a driving consideration in you selection of parts
but know that builders have reported that various
systems on their airplanes have be influenced by the
noise generated by the pull-in/hold controller. This
part has not been looked at in the lab to evaluate
suitability for use aboard aircraft.
The real ratings for Jabiru's starter are relatively
immaterial. Like all small starter motors, they'll
generate inrush currents that will scare your socks
off and draw running currents that are pretty spectacular
when compared with the demands of other accessories
aboard the airplane. These numbers can be largely
ignored when you understand that ALL starters do
this, all batteries have to DELIVER to this demand,
battery contactors have to CARRY the loads, and
starter contactors have to SWITCH the loads. This
is discussed in the chapters of AeroElectric Connection
on Batteries and Contactors.
The reason for putting the battery contactor in
series with the cranking circuit is simple. The
battery contactor (or battery switch) has a first
duty of being able to make 99.7% of the ship's
wiring go 'cold' when the master is off. This is why
the battery contactor is mounted right at the battery.
The second task is to back up the starter contactor
should the starter contactor "stick". The battery
contactor allows you to bring order to a starter
run-on situation that is pretty exciting to control
by any other means.
Unless you're really hard over on the current draw
thing, it's my best recommendation that you not depart
from those products suggested in the Z-figures
and other writings on aeroelectric.com website. It's
been my observation that reasons given by most
builders for breaking new ground are not well
researched or confirmed by repeatable experiment.
If it's your goal to become a good researcher, then
by all means, try anything you like. However, if
it's your goal to achieve first daylight under the
wheels with a minimum of time and risk to future
cost of ownership, then you're on solid ground by
sticking with parts and architectures proven in
the field on thousands of aircraft.
I'll recommend you join us on the AeroElectric-List
for still more comprehensive support of your questions.
Best yet, the answers can be shared with hundreds of
other builders.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel |
>
>
>Oh Great..! I just downloaded it.
This software is from a very reputable source. I've been
using the current version and its ancestors for about
7 years. I'm exceedingly skeptical that the virus 'hit'
is a valid positive discovery.
Bob . . .
>Bill Settle
>
> >
> > From: "Doug Baleshta" <DBaleshta(at)tru.ca>
> > Date: 2007/06/11 Mon PM 12:43:22 EST
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel
> >
> > Hi, one of my anti-virus programs is showing this program infected with
> > Malware - Adware.Win32.DM.I Does anyone one else have experience with
> > this? (It was downloaded from the West Coast Server).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Runaway trim |
Kevin,
I think you understand the design arrangement just fine. I understood your
concern to be if the power switch failed to make contact, not get stuck in
contact as you describe below. I would agree that a simple test of the trim
switch alone should result in no action and could easily be accomplished by
quickly testing each switch individually - both should result in no trim
response.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Sent: Sunday, 10 June, 2007 9:03
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Runaway trim
>
>
> I'm not sure if I've misunderstood your intended design, or if you have
> misunderstood my point.
>
> I understood the intended design to require two switches to be activated
> to make the trim move. One switch controls power to the whole system,
> and the other controls the signal to the servo. The idea is that both
> switches need to fail to trigger a runaway trim (and, a wiring fault
> can't trigger a runaway trim, as there is no power in the wires unless
> switch #1 is selected).
>
> My concern is that if you just use the system normally, you can't detect
> the failure case where switch #1 has failed in the hot position. In this
> failure case, the trim will still work normally - it will move in the
> selected direction, and it will only move when switch #2 is selected.
> But, this failure has negated the protections provided by this design.
> If you are concerned enough about runaway trim to install this design
> architecture, then you should devise some sort of periodic test to
> confirm that switch #1 has not failed in the hot position. E.g., leave
> switch #1 in the neutral position, and push switch #2 - the trim should
> not move. If the trim moves, this tells you that switch #1 has failed in
> the hot position.
>
> Kevin
>
> On 10 Jun 2007, at 09:55, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> Good point. Normally, I would tweak the trim into takeoff position
>> which would verify proper operation. I have a checklist item for that
>> purpose, but it is easy to see how actual operation of the trim setting
>> could be overlooked (e.g., already set at takeoff trim position)..
>>
>> However, even overlooking this step would not be the equivalent of the
>> trim going to extreme and should be totally controllable for slow a
>> go-around and landing to address the problem.
>>
>> Regards, Doug
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 07 June, 2007 14:34
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Runaway trim
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 Jun 2007, at 15:47, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Use two (on)-off-(on) rocker switches, installed side by side. The
>>>> 1st switch is the power control switch. The 2nd switch is the servo
>>>> control switch. Both must be activated simultaneously to move the
>>>> servo. Wire the outputs [(on)] of the first switch to together and
>>>> input to the 2nd switch [off] and any relays or other components in
>>>> the trim system needing power. Unless the power switch is moved to
>>>> either (on) position, there is no power to the trim system and it
>>>> should not go anywhere; no need to get into a reactive situation, or
>>>> have a pullable breaker.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you go down this road, you should add a first flight of the day
>>> ground test to confirm that the power switch has not failed in the hot
>>> position. This would be a dormant failure, which would defeat the
>>> protection provided by this design, and would only be detected by a
>>> specific test.
>>>
>>> Kevin Horton
>>> RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
>>> Ottawa, Canada
>>> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Reeves <n516dr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Some AeroElectric Connection Questions |
Thanks Bob!
I gotcha now,,,,I understand the need for the fusible link to protect the wire
that in essence extends the buss (fuse block) to the breaker...versus the other
setup where the breaker is right on the buss itself,,,I love it when the light
bulb in my head finally goes on. Thanks for throwing the switch so to speak.
But,,,that just leads to another question,,,how are the wires from the battery
to the battery buss to the diode to the E-buss protected? Seems like a good
place for a fusible link as well. I'm sticking to the drawings but would like
to understand how or if these wires get protected.
Thanks!
Dan
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for all of the great training you provide both on the list and in
>your AeroElectric Connection!
>
>I am planning on using Z-11 to wire my RV-7A but using B&C's LR3C
>regulator in place of the Ford regulator, the AEC9005-101 low voltage
>monitor module, and the crowbar o.v. protection module since all 3
>functions are built into the LR3C.
>
>I'm using Z-12 as a reference for the LR3C portion of the wiring and my
>question is why does the LR3C just require a 5A breaker between the bus
>and the master switch, whereas in the Z-11 setup a fusible link is
>required between the bus and the master switch and the breaker is then
>shown between the switch and regulator?
Breakers and fuses protect wires. When you're wired with breakers
at the bus bars, then EVERY WIRE extending from the bus bar
is protected by the breaker. When you use fuse blocks and then
EXTEND the bus by means of a wire from the fuse block to a breaker,
then that piece of wire needs protection . . . i.e. fusible link.
The fusible link is weak enough to protect the wire but robust enough
to open the breaker before befor the link opens.
>
>Also, on Z-11, the picture that shows the terminal locations for the
>S700-2-XX series of switches is numbered opposite to what is shown on page
>11-16 of the AeroElectric Connection and both mention keyway up. Which is
>correct?
See note 15 in Appendix Z and
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
>
>Thanks again for all of your help!
You're welcome sir!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How to keep electric trim live |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
I was reading that it is a desirable feature to have electric trim on a
Europa in event of an emergency you turn things off.
What would be a good way to acomplish this, and somehow reduce risk of
killing battery if it was left connected.
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Some AeroElectric Connection Questions |
>Thanks Bob!
>
>I gotcha now,,,,I understand the need for the fusible link to protect the
>wire that in essence extends the buss (fuse block) to the breaker...versus
>the other setup where the breaker is right on the buss itself,,,I love it
>when the light bulb in my head finally goes on. Thanks for throwing the
>switch so to speak.
>
>But,,,that just leads to another question,,,how are the wires from the
>battery to the battery buss to the diode to the E-buss protected? Seems
>like a good place for a fusible link as well. I'm sticking to the
>drawings but would like to understand how or if these wires get protected.
The "rule of thumb" for whether or not wires get/need
protected considers two things:
(1) size of wire and likelihood of added value for protection
- this study shows that the FAT wires between various major
components (battery, battery contactor, bus, starter contactor,
starter) do not benefit from added protection in light aircraft.
(2) length of wire - small wires (14AWG or so and smaller) of
less than 6" in length and not tied into bundles of other
wires do not pose a hazard if left "unprotected". Wires
in the z-figures marked with a (*) are intended to be
short feeders . . . I may have missed getting all such
wires so marked.
See FAR23.1365 and 23.1357
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to keep electric trim live |
>
>I was reading that it is a desirable feature to have electric trim on a
>Europa in event of an emergency you turn things off.
>
>What would be a good way to acomplish this, and somehow reduce risk of
>killing battery if it was left connected.
Run it from the battery bus through a switching scheme exceedingly
unlikely to "stick".
The full sized, DPDT (on)-off-(on) toggle switch is a control
device that falls in this category. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/Battery_Bus_Trim.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpnj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 06/11/07 |
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and
why not?)
[ snip ]....
> This isn't about achieving consensus on the science . . .
> science stands on its own and requires nobody's consensus.
It's sad that in our society's current state the above is
almost a radical statement. ie. Any one that doesn't believe
global warming is man made, abnormal and will kill us all soon
is instantly an idiot, heretic, and a tool of the oil industry.
Never mind about the merit (or not) of any details in the
argument.
I apologize in advance for mentioning a politically divisive issue
in this forum, but I couldn't help myself, this list is recreation
for me specifically it's the polar opposite of the above example.
The vast majority of the back and forth here is based on facts not
name calling as opposed to the garbage I have to deal with all over
the TV, in newspapers, and on the web. No one tells anyone they are
too stupid to wire a homebuilt here, even if they do have differences
with Bob (or anyone else).
The occasional degeneration to the societal norm that occurs from
time to time on this list really stands out and annoys me
probably out of proportion to what it deserves.
Bob's says everyone can wire a homebuilt airplane as long as they
stick to the basic science and think critically about how and why you want to
do something. The rest of the damn world is telling me I'm too stupid to
understand a particular concept if I don't agree with the argument some
elitist is putting forth. So, I'm really trying to understand,
exactly how Bob is a bad guy even if you think his ideas are
totally insane. Is "Please explain this in simple terms/science"
a trick question ?
> If you perceive an error in my offering of the science, I'd
> be pleased to hear about it. But if you're simply defending
> some perceived right of individuals to make lots of noise,
> graffiti the walls and leave their beer cans behind, you're
> not going to get any sympathy or support from me.
>. . . and I will continue to defend both my person and the
>decorum in this classroom.
Right on, man.
c'ya,
Mike
-----
mjpnj(at)yahoo.com
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | SL-30 discontinued.....NOT |
Greg,
First, most of us that fly real IFR more then once a year have IFR GPS
systems. Second, if you plan the trip with VOR and have a VFR GPS you
can actually fly real IFR with that GPS receiver as long as you verify
your position. You can verify you position using a verity of methods:
VOR, NDB, INS, IRS, TACAN, IFR LORAN, RADAR (ATC) or plain old reference
to the ground if you are in VMC. The key issue is planning not actual.
So Greg I would say that you need to brush up on your knowledge of IFR
flying vs. IFR planning.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Buckaroo Banzai
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 discontinued.....NOT
Lest the FAA get the wrong impression from your question, many of us
still use VORs for enroute navigation. At least, in the IFR system
where a VFR GPS can't legally be used for navigation.
Greg
Mike wrote:
Dean,
The SL-70 has been long discontinued. A final note to you is that the
last medical that you pass will have dust on it before the final ILS
system is decommissioned. So I think the Nav portion of you Nav/Com
will get use well into the future. Besides, other then approaches who
still continues to use VOR for enroute navigation today other then
backup?
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From:
_____
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's HYPERLINK
"http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47093/*http:/tv.yahoo.com/collections/222"Co
medy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
--
3:15 PM
--
3:15 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rear-Battery version of Z-19 |
| From: | "n707sm" <mobrien02(at)comcast.net> |
Hi Bob,
Thank you for all you do to support the Experimental community and especially for
your time and effort spent to create Architecture drawings such as the new
Z-19/RB!
I am implementing this architecture in my Eggenfellner powered RV-7A and I have
a few questions:
1) For each battery (minus) it's shown to connect locally to the airframe. Providing
that good, secure connections with 4AWG (or welding cable) are done locally,
does this negate the need to run heavy (2AWG or 4AWG) ground cabling forward?
2) Relates to question 1. If it's necessary to run ground cabling forward, is
it acceptable/reasonable to instead: a) Connect the battery minus posts with a
single, short welding cable, and b) Connect another single short welding cable
for local ground, and c) continue with a single large (2AWG or 4AWG) cable forward
to connect to the Brass Firewall Thru Bolt for the Firewall, Panel and
downstream Avionics ground busses? (This seems overdone, redundant and heavy
to me, but I just want to be sure I haven't missed something here)
3) I have located all of the components for this architecture drawing with the
exception of the E-BUS ALT FEED RELAY. Would you mind please providing a suggested
supplier/part for this component?
Thank you again!
Very best regards,
Michael O'Brien
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=118074#118074
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rear-Battery version of Z-19 |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Thank you for all you do to support the Experimental community and
>especially for your time and effort spent to create Architecture drawings
>such as the new Z-19/RB!
>
>I am implementing this architecture in my Eggenfellner powered RV-7A and I
>have a few questions:
>
>1) For each battery (minus) it's shown to connect locally to the
>airframe. Providing that good, secure connections with 4AWG (or welding
>cable) are done locally, does this negate the need to run heavy (2AWG or
>4AWG) ground cabling forward?
Yes.
>2) Relates to question 1. If it's necessary to run ground cabling
>forward, is it acceptable/reasonable to instead: a) Connect the battery
>minus posts with a single, short welding cable, and b) Connect another
>single short welding cable for local ground, and c) continue with a single
>large (2AWG or 4AWG) cable forward to connect to the Brass Firewall Thru
>Bolt for the Firewall, Panel and downstream Avionics ground busses? (This
>seems overdone, redundant and heavy to me, but I just want to be sure I
>haven't missed something here)
There's a boatload of ol' mechanic's tales out there about
the hazards of local grounds in aircraft. Aside from the obvious
and predictable issues involving ground loops (when particularly
vulnerable systems share grounds spread out over the airframe),
there are no great concerns for using the airframe as a primary
ground structure. There's some value in considering the used of
a separate ground wire for tubular structures where we've see
some instances of structure getting magnetized due to high current
flow . . . but that doesn't apply to you.
>3) I have located all of the components for this architecture drawing with
>the exception of the E-BUS ALT FEED RELAY. Would you mind please
>providing a suggested supplier/part for this component?
Any sealed plastic power relay in the 20+ amp class is fine.
B&C sells their S704-1. This product from Radio Shack
http://tinyurl.com/2sno9m
is fine too.
>Thank you again!
My pleasure sir.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <frank.phyllis(at)mindspring.com> |
Bob,
I'm confused. I note in the "Connection" you support, if only one
electrical instrument is to be installed it should be an ammeter to
measure battery charge/discharge. (I think I got it close to what you
wrote). However, I don't see a shunt, except in the alternator circuit
for some diagrams. Please 'un-confuse' me.
I've used the Z16 for my Rotax powered Kitfox and am considering adding
the shunt on the neg side of the battery.
Thanks
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Brown" <romott(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: REFLECTOR: Ignition Noise |
Sorry, Brian, No Beer tonight!!!
I have worked all day chasing the noise problem on my Garmin 430:
Disconnected the shield for the power to the EI at the instrument panel (it
was indeed grounded on both ends), found a loose ground wire on the single
point grounding terminal block on the panel; ran the Jeff Rose EI off an
independent battery, using a separate twisted wire, grounded only at the
Electronic Ignition end; installed a big capacitor at the EI end of the
power wire, installed the Radio Shack inductive noise filter kit swapped
out the direct fire coils (NAPA IC39SB); replaced one plug wire at a time,
removed the EI timing head so that I could spin it and make sparks while the
engine was not running looking for spark jumping anywhere, none found.
I'm tired - I think I'll drink the beer that I was going to send you - and
go to bed and sleep on it!!! (and copy the Aeroelectric list and see if
anyone else has any suggestions short of replacing the EI with a Slick -
ain't going there!!!!)
ARRGGHHHHH!!!
Ronnie Brown
Velocity 173 Elite RG - IO360 Lycoming
----- Original Message -----
From: "michalk" <michalk(at)awpi.com>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: Ignition Noise
"power for the EI is in a shielded wire"
"the EI is grounded on the firewall"
Do you mean that your power path to the EI is battery->panel switch->EI?
And that this wire is a single conductor shielded wire?
How does your firewall ground return to the battery? If you patch in a
battery to your EI and do not send this power down the duct, does that
solve the problem?
You have two problems. First, your 430 is a receiver of this noise, and
second, your EI is generating this noise.
Fixing the noise generator usually makes other things work better, so
start there. The EI may have a large dV/dT, meaning a large voltage
spike in a short time causes magnetic flux lines and electrical fields
to be coupled into other things.
If your shield is connected in two places, remove the one closest to
your instrument panel. If the noise goes away, good, but you still have
a problem. The EI sent current down that shield because its a least
path of resistance back to your battery. Impedance goes up as frequency
goes up ... not just resistance. Your EI will be much happier giving
you a stronger spark if you fix the root cause of your problem. Look at
your ground path. No need really for shielded wires. The real need is
to have your power and ground wires twisted. Shielding is for
capacitive noise. If your power is balanced (no common mode noise) then
there is no energy to capacitively couple. Most likely you are
magnetically coupling the noise.
Don't fix the symptom, fix the problem. Use twisted wire, and if you
still want shielded, shield it at the EI(the radiator), not at the
instrument panel. Try to not ground your EI power to the firewall.
Even if the ground is attached to the firewall, the electricity will
like that path better, resulting in lower noise.
I'll bet you a beer that will fix it.
Ronnie Brown wrote:
> The headsets are grounded at the PS4000 intercom and no where else (but I
> will verify) The head set wiring is through the keel, EI is powered and
> grounded through the right side duct. Power for the EI is in a shielded
> wire and the shielded wire is grounded at the mag - by way of the panel.
> Now that I think of it, the EI shield is grounded twice! Might need to
> lift
> one end. Hmmm - thanks for the suggestions, Brian!
>
> The EI is grounded on the SS firewall as well as to the engine (but not
> using a braided wire - wonder if that would help?)
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "michalk" <michalk(at)awpi.com>
> To: "Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list"
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: Ignition Noise
>
>
> It's not a high frequency coupling.
>
> I would guess that your antenna shield is a ground path for your EI.
> Are your headset jacks insulated from the instrument panel? Or, do your
> headset wires share a common ground with your EI?
>
> Ron Brown wrote:
>> Actually, I have been chasing a spark noise in my Garmin 430 for a
>> several weeks. It is only coming in the 430, it goes away when I turn
>> off the Jeff Rose Electroair electronic ignition, it changes frequency
>> with engine RPM, it does not come in to the #2 com which is a lowly
>> Microair 760, it does not make noise if the antenna is disconnected from
>> the 430. Arrrggghhh!
>>
>> I have changed antennas from right to left, used a portable antenna,
>> bought new plugs and plug wires, connected the 430 to a separate
>> battery, swapped 430's with a friend, removed ground wires, cleaned and
>> retightened them, installed noise filters on the 430 and Electroair,
>> removed and inspected new plugs and new wires. Next I am going to
>> remove the timing unit from the distributor hole, spin the unit and see
>> if I can hear sparks, then try replace one high energy coil at a time.
>>
>> We are planning to fly to Colorado next week and I sure would like to
>> NOT hear sparking noises when I am receiving a far away aircraft or ATC.
>>
>> Any other suggestions from the collective???
>> Ronnie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter Shunt |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I m confused. I note in the Connection you support, if only one
>electrical instrument is to be installed it should be an ammeter to
>measure battery charge/discharge. (I think I got it close to what you
>wrote). However, I don t see a shunt, except in the alternator circuit
>for some diagrams. Please un-confuse me.
>
>I ve used the Z16 for my Rotax powered Kitfox and am considering adding
>the shunt on the neg side of the battery.
>
>Thanks
My apologies sir. I wrote that section a long time ago
and it's going to be updated at revision 12. If you have
only one electrical system monitor, it should be a low voltage
warning light. If you add anything on top of that, I'd recommend
an expanded scale voltmeter on the e-bus and/or an alternator
loadmeter . . . but both of those are only small peeks at a variety
of test points you'll need to look at for diagnosis. Ammeters
and voltmeters are poor monitoring tools. And as diagnostic
tools, they are only a part of what's necessary for troubleshooting.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen Reynolds" <stephen.j.reyn(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 06/12/07 |
I am trying to connect a Icom A200 to a Garmin 347 Audio panel which also
has a GNS 430 connected. The Icom is Com 2.
So far the audio works fine but am a little confused with the mic. Pin 9 on
the Icom is a PTT. When I ground this pin the mic works fine. Obviously it
needs to pick up this ground via an output on the 347. I had been told pin
31 on the 347 but that is listed as Pilot ICS Key. Do I simply ignore the
Audio panel & parallel the grounds for all the PTT's?
Thanks in advance
Stephen Reynolds
RV7
Eugene Or
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 06/12/07 |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Thats easy...You get John to pre-wire it for you...:)
Frank
7a CVO
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Stephen Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 16 Msgs -
06/12/07
I am trying to connect a Icom A200 to a Garmin 347 Audio panel which
also has a GNS 430 connected. The Icom is Com 2.
So far the audio works fine but am a little confused with the mic. Pin 9
on the Icom is a PTT. When I ground this pin the mic works fine.
Obviously it needs to pick up this ground via an output on the 347. I
had been told pin 31 on the 347 but that is listed as Pilot ICS Key. Do
I simply ignore the Audio panel & parallel the grounds for all the
PTT's?
Thanks in advance
Stephen Reynolds
RV7
Eugene Or
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 06/12/07 |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Found the manual here:
http://www2.mstewart.net:8080/Downloads/GMA347_IM.pdf
Looks like it's Pin 30 on the GMA340 and pin 31 on the GMA347..
Pin 30 on the GMA347 is the Pilot Mic Return. At least that's how I read
the pinout.
I think you want to keep the PTT's separate. You want only one
transmitter transmitting at the same time, so you want to use the separate
mic keys, and you want voice signal to come from the correct mic input, so
need the input PTT's sorted properly too.
Regards,
Matt-
> I am trying to connect a Icom A200 to a Garmin 347 Audio panel which also
> has a GNS 430 connected. The Icom is Com 2.
>
> So far the audio works fine but am a little confused with the mic. Pin 9
> on
> the Icom is a PTT. When I ground this pin the mic works fine. Obviously it
> needs to pick up this ground via an output on the 347. I had been told pin
> 31 on the 347 but that is listed as Pilot ICS Key. Do I simply ignore the
> Audio panel & parallel the grounds for all the PTT's?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Stephen Reynolds
> RV7
> Eugene Or
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Regulator trouble? |
Howdy,
The other day, the low volt light started flashing and I found the field
breaker popped. This is an LR3C with the notorious Van's 35 amp
alternator. I reset the breaker and about 5 minutes later, it popped
again. The voltage had been running about 14.6 which seemed a little
much so I reset it and turned on some lights. The voltage ran about 13.9
to 14 and the breaker didn't pop for quite a while. About the time I
thought that it was cool, the low volt light came on again, but this
time the breaker wasn't out. I turned off the master and flew another
hour and a half, including a stop for gas, and landed at Aurora. I found
a bit of hangar space and pulled the alternator. It had a lot of end
play and tested bad at the local auto parts place. I bought another one
at Van's - they tried to talk me out of it, but I didn't want to rewire
the airplane for the internally regulated unit a long way from home.
Hey, I would have happily spent the extra for the B&C alternator, but I
was in Aurora not Wichita.
It charges just fine, in fact it'll hold voltage at idle with lights on
which is more than the old one would do. It is also running at about
14.5 or .6 and the breaker has popped 3 times so far. The breaker resets
and the alternator runs fine for a while, but I'm wondering if I'll blow
up the new alternator, too. Do you think that the regulator is a bit
wonky? Is the voltage too high? Am I frying my battery? Is the
overvoltage module overactive?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Glide slope antenna |
Last week I posted a question about my non working G/S in my newly
installed upgraded RV8 panel. Thanks for all the suggestions!. Bob
Archer said I might be "loosely connected" as the problem. Rather than
take offense at this, I asked for an explanation, and he said the BNC
center pin may not be fully seated in the connector. Well the only
connector that was not installed on the bench, but rather behind the
panel, sure enough was loosely connected, because of the difficult
access. After changing that out, the system works perfectly, IE the
wingtip antenna, with splitter to the G430 VLOC and G/S has a nice
strong signal.
NOW for the really good news. It turns out the TruTrak ADI pilot
autopilot not only flys the GPS approaches just fine, but it flys the
ILS localizer right down the center of the runway. Of course it's really
flying the GPS overlay, but it's the same course, with the same
accuracy. The CDI shows you the LOC, but the ADI Pilot looks at the GPS.
This is perfectly legal to do despite the fact that the TruTrak people
told me it wouldn't fly a GPS approach without roll steering. Of course
they are talking a full procedure turn, or holding pattern entry, but
for vectors to final it'll do the job. So anyone on a tight budget might
want to consider this (G430 and ADI Pilot) solution as a very capable
"punch the summer stratus" system.
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? |
>
>Howdy,
>
>The other day, the low volt light started flashing and I found the field
>breaker popped. This is an LR3C with the notorious Van's 35 amp
>alternator. I reset the breaker and about 5 minutes later, it popped
>again. The voltage had been running about 14.6 which seemed a little much
>so I reset it and turned on some lights. The voltage ran about 13.9 to 14
>and the breaker didn't pop for quite a while. About the time I thought
>that it was cool, the low volt light came on again, but this time the
>breaker wasn't out. I turned off the master and flew another hour and a
>half, including a stop for gas, and landed at Aurora. I found a bit of
>hangar space and pulled the alternator. It had a lot of end play and
>tested bad at the local auto parts place. I bought another one at Van's -
>they tried to talk me out of it, but I didn't want to rewire the airplane
>for the internally regulated unit a long way from home. Hey, I would have
>happily spent the extra for the B&C alternator, but I was in Aurora not
>Wichita.
>
>It charges just fine, in fact it'll hold voltage at idle with lights on
>which is more than the old one would do. It is also running at about 14.5
>or .6 and the breaker has popped 3 times so far.
You need to conduct and investigation of system performance
as outlined in note 8 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
and take some readings. In fact, get an el-cheapo analog
voltmeter for observing field voltage. It's more important
to know how stable it is than to know the exact voltage reading.
> The breaker resets and the alternator runs fine for a while, but I'm
> wondering if I'll blow up the new alternator, too.
No, I cannot think of any abuse (other than lack of cooling)
that you could heap on an externally regulated alternator
from outside that would place it at risk for premature failure.
> Do you think that the regulator is a bit wonky? Is the voltage too high?
> Am I frying my battery? Is the overvoltage module overactive?
About 150 years ago Lord Kelvin admonished us, ""If
you can not measure it, you can not improve it." To
craft considered answers to your questions, we'll need
some numbers and some observations of behavior. I'll
suggest that you craft the field voltage monitoring
feature suggested in Figure Z-23.
We need to know what the field voltage is in cruise
RPM with minimum loads and with everything turned on.
Also make note of voltage fluctuations during what
should be a steady state condition (turn strobes on/off
to see how much they added to any wiggles you observe).
In particular, we'd like to capture field voltage
behaviors leading up to a trip of the OV protection
system.
I know this can be tedious and difficult. This is
why I own data acquisition systems that monitor and
record real time values. If I had cash for all the
Jet-A I've burned up waiting to capture a transient
event in a sneaky failure I could pay off my mortgage.
You're not frying anything. The bus voltage is
not too high. It's unlikely that the OV protection
system has become hyper-active with age. You don't
say how long this regulator has been in service.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data] |
Listers,
Because my nominal endurance load is about 8 amps, my original 6 amp
load test was not representative of my needs. So, FWIW, I just ran a 9
amp endurance test on my replaced RG battery. The results of both the 6
amp and 9 amp tests are attached. After fully charging the battery, I
added another automobile lamp in parallel with the earlier load to get
approximately 9 amps. The starting open circuit voltage was 12.95 V. The
initial curremt under load was 9.73 A. I discontinued the test after 85
minutes when the voltage wa 10.01 V and the current was 8.46 A.
I have forwarded my original test comments for those who did not see my
original post or to refresh others on the first test.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A flying
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 18 AH Battery Test Data
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:28:46 -0500
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Listers,
FWIW I have been following the procedure of replacing my 18/17.X AH RG
battery annually for the last two years. This year, I decided to do an
endurance test on the "old" battery. Using an automotive two filament
headlamp with the filaments in parallel, I was able to start at a
current of 6.7 amps drain to simulate an endurance buss demand with a
failed alternator. The battery has been used for one year including
about 40 flight hours and 50 engine starts.
The battery is a 17-18 AH sold by Batteries Plus sometimes with the
name Xtreme Plus.
My engine is an O-320 with 110 plus hours on it. These batteries turn
the engine over very "smartly" only observed at temperatures above 60F.
At the beginning of the test, the current was 6.7 A and at the end at
5.6 A . This decline is partly explained by the voltage decline as well
as filament resistance decrease with temperature in the lamp.
These results are consistent with the specification sheet provided for
the Xtreme Plus batteries which predicts a two hour endurance at 6A.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? |
The regulator has been in service for about 900 hrs. It's been through
at least 2 or 3 Van's alternators in that time, though I don't have good
records on that. I'll swing by radio shack and check back at a later
date with field voltage info.
Thanks,
Ed
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> The other day, the low volt light started flashing and I found the
>> field breaker popped. This is an LR3C with the notorious Van's 35 amp
>> alternator. I reset the breaker and about 5 minutes later, it popped
>> again. The voltage had been running about 14.6 which seemed a little
>> much so I reset it and turned on some lights. The voltage ran about
>> 13.9 to 14 and the breaker didn't pop for quite a while. About the
>> time I thought that it was cool, the low volt light came on again,
>> but this time the breaker wasn't out. I turned off the master and
>> flew another hour and a half, including a stop for gas, and landed at
>> Aurora. I found a bit of hangar space and pulled the alternator. It
>> had a lot of end play and tested bad at the local auto parts place. I
>> bought another one at Van's - they tried to talk me out of it, but I
>> didn't want to rewire the airplane for the internally regulated unit
>> a long way from home. Hey, I would have happily spent the extra for
>> the B&C alternator, but I was in Aurora not Wichita.
>>
>> It charges just fine, in fact it'll hold voltage at idle with lights
>> on which is more than the old one would do. It is also running at
>> about 14.5 or .6 and the breaker has popped 3 times so far.
>
>
> You need to conduct and investigation of system performance
> as outlined in note 8 of
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>
> and take some readings. In fact, get an el-cheapo analog
> voltmeter for observing field voltage. It's more important
> to know how stable it is than to know the exact voltage reading.
>
>
>> The breaker resets and the alternator runs fine for a while, but I'm
>> wondering if I'll blow up the new alternator, too.
>
>
> No, I cannot think of any abuse (other than lack of cooling)
> that you could heap on an externally regulated alternator
> from outside that would place it at risk for premature failure.
>
>> Do you think that the regulator is a bit wonky? Is the voltage too
>> high? Am I frying my battery? Is the overvoltage module overactive?
>
>
> About 150 years ago Lord Kelvin admonished us, ""If
> you can not measure it, you can not improve it." To
> craft considered answers to your questions, we'll need
> some numbers and some observations of behavior. I'll
> suggest that you craft the field voltage monitoring
> feature suggested in Figure Z-23.
>
> We need to know what the field voltage is in cruise
> RPM with minimum loads and with everything turned on.
> Also make note of voltage fluctuations during what
> should be a steady state condition (turn strobes on/off
> to see how much they added to any wiggles you observe).
> In particular, we'd like to capture field voltage
> behaviors leading up to a trip of the OV protection
> system.
>
> I know this can be tedious and difficult. This is
> why I own data acquisition systems that monitor and
> record real time values. If I had cash for all the
> Jet-A I've burned up waiting to capture a transient
> event in a sneaky failure I could pay off my mortgage.
>
> You're not frying anything. The bus voltage is
> not too high. It's unlikely that the OV protection
> system has become hyper-active with age. You don't
> say how long this regulator has been in service.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data]] |
Somehow, I attached the previous 6A only graph in my first post today.
Here is the new one with both loads.
RHDudley
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:04:36 -0400
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Listers,
Because my nominal endurance load is about 8 amps, my original 6 amp
load test was not representative of my needs. So, FWIW, I just ran a 9
amp endurance test on my replaced RG battery. The results of both the 6
amp and 9 amp tests are attached. After fully charging the battery, I
added another automobile lamp in parallel with the earlier load to get
approximately 9 amps. The starting open circuit voltage was 12.95 V. The
initial curremt under load was 9.73 A. I discontinued the test after 85
minutes when the voltage wa 10.01 V and the current was 8.46 A.
I have forwarded my original test comments for those who did not see my
original post or to refresh others on the first test.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A flying
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 18 AH Battery Test Data
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:28:46 -0500
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Listers,
FWIW I have been following the procedure of replacing my 18/17.X AH RG
battery annually for the last two years. This year, I decided to do an
endurance test on the "old" battery. Using an automotive two filament
headlamp with the filaments in parallel, I was able to start at a
current of 6.7 amps drain to simulate an endurance buss demand with a
failed alternator. The battery has been used for one year including
about 40 flight hours and 50 engine starts.
The battery is a 17-18 AH sold by Batteries Plus sometimes with the
name Xtreme Plus.
My engine is an O-320 with 110 plus hours on it. These batteries turn
the engine over very "smartly" only observed at temperatures above 60F.
At the beginning of the test, the current was 6.7 A and at the end at
5.6 A . This decline is partly explained by the voltage decline as well
as filament resistance decrease with temperature in the lamp.
These results are consistent with the specification sheet provided for
the Xtreme Plus batteries which predicts a two hour endurance at 6A.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
Question, can anyone recommend a ground plane-less marker beacon antenna
option for use in composite aircraft?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
IIRC there is a copper foil version....I think I have one from Bob Archer.....memory
test.
I think you can get it through spruce or B&C.....don't remember.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: longg(at)pjm.com
>Sent: Jun 14, 2007 4:25 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft
>
>Question, can anyone recommend a ground plane-less marker beacon antenna
>option for use in composite aircraft?
>
>Thanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
I'm prepared to be shot down here by those who know more than me about
antenna theory, but I have installed a 40" long piece of copper tape in
a glassfibre wing tip for a beacon antenna & expect it to work. As
beacons are reasonably powerful, and you (hope to) fly right over the
top of them at short range, I believe a ground plane as such is not
really required - perhaps the screen of the feeder wire acts as a very
small ground plane to complete the virtual circuit?
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
longg(at)pjm.com
Sent: 14 June 2007 21:26
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft
Question, can anyone recommend a ground plane-less marker beacon antenna
option for use in composite aircraft?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com> |
| Subject: | Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
Try the SA-009 from Bob Archer sold at Chief Aircraft and other places for
65 buckarooskis:
http://www.chiefaircraft.com/airsec/Aircraft/Antennas/ArcherSportcraft.html
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
LEZ N-44LZ
Oviedo, FL
Copyright C 2007
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
longg(at)pjm.com
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft
Question, can anyone recommend a ground plane-less marker beacon antenna
option for use in composite aircraft?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
MessageSure - a length of 12-gauge wire on the end of some coax (I used
RG-174). Copper tape will work just as well.
I forget the "tuned length" as I'm not at the hangar, but if you are
interested I can look that up for you.
Works just fine for me.
James Redmon - Race 13
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: longg(at)pjm.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:25 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marker beacon antenna for composite
aircraft
Question, can anyone recommend a ground plane-less marker beacon
antenna option for use in composite aircraft?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data] |
Hi Richard,
I have been looking at batteries to get an extended discharge cycle for an
EFIC conversion and found that "Full River" batteries are well represented
and publish full performance details. Their DC series are for long flat
extended deep discharge with less cranking power. I have their HGL series
general purpose sealed AGM battery which has good cranking as well as
extended discharge. I chose an HGL 33-12 with a discharge of 3 hrs @9A for
my application; weight 11KG and max discharge is 495A at 77deg F. It is an
overkill endurance but I need the cranking amps for the Jab 3300 and long
leads and the weight is right for my CG..
It cost AUD 95.00 (normally RRP AUD 130) purchased on line. Life is claimed
6 - 10 years depending on application. I think by comparison the Odyssey has
a bigger CCA but less extended discharge performance. We are having warranty
problems with Odyssey down here.
According to the chart the Full River HGL 18-12 has a discharge life of
approx. 2 hrs @ 8A and weighs 6.3KG.
Cheers
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Dudley
Sent: Friday, 15 June 2007 3:05 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data]
Listers,
Because my nominal endurance load is about 8 amps, my original 6 amp load
test was not representative of my needs. So, FWIW, I just ran a 9 amp
endurance test on my replaced RG battery. The results of both the 6 amp and
9 amp tests are attached. After fully charging the battery, I added another
automobile lamp in parallel with the earlier load to get approximately 9
amps. The starting open circuit voltage was 12.95 V. The initial curremt
under load was 9.73 A. I discontinued the test after 85 minutes when the
voltage wa 10.01 V and the current was 8.46 A.
I have forwarded my original test comments for those who did not see my
original post or to refresh others on the first test.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A flying
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
18 AH Battery Test Data
Date:
From:
Richard Dudley
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Listers,
FWIW I have been following the procedure of replacing my 18/17.X AH RG
battery annually for the last two years. This year, I decided to do an
endurance test on the "old" battery. Using an automotive two filament
headlamp with the filaments in parallel, I was able to start at a
current of 6.7 amps drain to simulate an endurance buss demand with a
failed alternator. The battery has been used for one year including
about 40 flight hours and 50 engine starts.
The battery is a 17-18 AH sold by Batteries Plus sometimes with the
name Xtreme Plus.
My engine is an O-320 with 110 plus hours on it. These batteries turn
the engine over very "smartly" only observed at temperatures above 60F.
At the beginning of the test, the current was 6.7 A and at the end at
5.6 A . This decline is partly explained by the voltage decline as well
as filament resistance decrease with temperature in the lamp.
These results are consistent with the specification sheet provided for
the Xtreme Plus batteries which predicts a two hour endurance at 6A.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data] |
Hi Peter,
It appears that your 33-12 is about 2X in weight and about 2X in
endurance comparaed to my $60USD 18AH 13lb battery and your 18-12 is
about the same weight and similar AH. I am not sure of the service life
of my battery. I have arbitrarily changed it in one year. It appears,
though, that after one year of service it still has approximately the
endurance claimed by the spec. sheet. I may do the test on my new
battery at my next annual and then decide whether to replace it or not.
Here in Florida where the temperature is usually above 60 deg F, these
batteries crank smartly my O- 320 every time.
Best regards,
Richard
Peter Harris wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have been looking at batteries to get an extended discharge cycle
> for an EFIC conversion and found that "Full River" batteries are well
> represented and publish full performance details. Their DC series are
> for long flat extended deep discharge with less cranking power. I have
> their HGL series general purpose sealed AGM battery which has good
> cranking as well as extended discharge. I chose an HGL 33-12 with a
> discharge of 3 hrs @9A for my application; weight 11KG and max
> discharge is 495A at 77deg F. It is an overkill endurance but I need
> the cranking amps for the Jab 3300 and long leads and the weight is
> right for my CG..
>
> It cost AUD 95.00 (normally RRP AUD 130) purchased on line. Life is
> claimed 6 - 10 years depending on application. I think by comparison
> the Odyssey has a bigger CCA but less extended discharge performance.
> We are having warranty problems with Odyssey down here.
>
> According to the chart the Full River HGL 18-12 has a discharge life
> of approx. 2 hrs @ 8A and weighs 6.3KG.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Richard Dudley
> Sent: Friday, 15 June 2007 3:05 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data]
>
>
>
> Listers,
> Because my nominal endurance load is about 8 amps, my original 6 amp
> load test was not representative of my needs. So, FWIW, I just ran a 9
> amp endurance test on my replaced RG battery. The results of both the
> 6 amp and 9 amp tests are attached. After fully charging the battery,
> I added another automobile lamp in parallel with the earlier load to
> get approximately 9 amps. The starting open circuit voltage was 12.95
> V. The initial curremt under load was 9.73 A. I discontinued the test
> after 85 minutes when the voltage wa 10.01 V and the current was 8.46 A.
>
> I have forwarded my original test comments for those who did not see
> my original post or to refresh others on the first test.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Dudley
> -6A flying
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject:
>
>
>
> 18 AH Battery Test Data
>
> Date:
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
>
>
> Richard Dudley
>
> To:
>
>
>
> aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
>Listers,
>
>FWIW I have been following the procedure of replacing my 18/17.X AH RG
>
>battery annually for the last two years. This year, I decided to do an
>
>endurance test on the "old" battery. Using an automotive two filament
>
>headlamp with the filaments in parallel, I was able to start at a
>
>current of 6.7 amps drain to simulate an endurance buss demand with a
>
>failed alternator. The battery has been used for one year including
>
>about 40 flight hours and 50 engine starts.
>
>The battery is a 17-18 AH sold by Batteries Plus sometimes with the
>
>name Xtreme Plus.
>
>My engine is an O-320 with 110 plus hours on it. These batteries turn
>
>the engine over very "smartly" only observed at temperatures above 60F.
>
>At the beginning of the test, the current was 6.7 A and at the end at
>
>5.6 A . This decline is partly explained by the voltage decline as well
>
>as filament resistance decrease with temperature in the lamp.
>
>These results are consistent with the specification sheet provided for
>
>the Xtreme Plus batteries which predicts a two hour endurance at 6A.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Richard Dudley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data] |
Richard I am in Queensland similar climate to Florida, the only place to be.
! Seems as if you could get quite a bit more service life from the battery,
just test to confirm each year.
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Dudley
Sent: Friday, 15 June 2007 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data]
Hi Peter,
It appears that your 33-12 is about 2X in weight and about 2X in endurance
comparaed to my $60USD 18AH 13lb battery and your 18-12 is about the same
weight and similar AH. I am not sure of the service life of my battery. I
have arbitrarily changed it in one year. It appears, though, that after one
year of service it still has approximately the endurance claimed by the
spec. sheet. I may do the test on my new battery at my next annual and then
decide whether to replace it or not. Here in Florida where the temperature
is usually above 60 deg F, these batteries crank smartly my O- 320 every
time.
Best regards,
Richard
Peter Harris wrote:
Hi Richard,
I have been looking at batteries to get an extended discharge cycle for an
EFIC conversion and found that "Full River" batteries are well represented
and publish full performance details. Their DC series are for long flat
extended deep discharge with less cranking power. I have their HGL series
general purpose sealed AGM battery which has good cranking as well as
extended discharge. I chose an HGL 33-12 with a discharge of 3 hrs @9A for
my application; weight 11KG and max discharge is 495A at 77deg F. It is an
overkill endurance but I need the cranking amps for the Jab 3300 and long
leads and the weight is right for my CG..
It cost AUD 95.00 (normally RRP AUD 130) purchased on line. Life is claimed
6 - 10 years depending on application. I think by comparison the Odyssey has
a bigger CCA but less extended discharge performance. We are having warranty
problems with Odyssey down here.
According to the chart the Full River HGL 18-12 has a discharge life of
approx. 2 hrs @ 8A and weighs 6.3KG.
Cheers
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Dudley
Sent: Friday, 15 June 2007 3:05 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data]
Listers,
Because my nominal endurance load is about 8 amps, my original 6 amp load
test was not representative of my needs. So, FWIW, I just ran a 9 amp
endurance test on my replaced RG battery. The results of both the 6 amp and
9 amp tests are attached. After fully charging the battery, I added another
automobile lamp in parallel with the earlier load to get approximately 9
amps. The starting open circuit voltage was 12.95 V. The initial curremt
under load was 9.73 A. I discontinued the test after 85 minutes when the
voltage wa 10.01 V and the current was 8.46 A.
I have forwarded my original test comments for those who did not see my
original post or to refresh others on the first test.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A flying
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
18 AH Battery Test Data
Date:
From:
Richard Dudley
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Listers,
FWIW I have been following the procedure of replacing my 18/17.X AH RG
battery annually for the last two years. This year, I decided to do an
endurance test on the "old" battery. Using an automotive two filament
headlamp with the filaments in parallel, I was able to start at a
current of 6.7 amps drain to simulate an endurance buss demand with a
failed alternator. The battery has been used for one year including
about 40 flight hours and 50 engine starts.
The battery is a 17-18 AH sold by Batteries Plus sometimes with the
name Xtreme Plus.
My engine is an O-320 with 110 plus hours on it. These batteries turn
the engine over very "smartly" only observed at temperatures above 60F.
At the beginning of the test, the current was 6.7 A and at the end at
5.6 A . This decline is partly explained by the voltage decline as well
as filament resistance decrease with temperature in the lamp.
These results are consistent with the specification sheet provided for
the Xtreme Plus batteries which predicts a two hour endurance at 6A.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data] |
Peter,
From my results, I believe you are right. My annual is/was in February.
I will do the test on my current (new) battery next year to confirm its
endurance and avoid the cost if it looks as good as the one I replaced
this year.
Thanks for the comments.
Richard
Peter Harris wrote:
> Richard I am in Queensland similar climate to Florida, the only place
> to be. ! Seems as if you could get quite a bit more service life from
> the battery, just test to confirm each year.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Richard Dudley
> Sent: Friday, 15 June 2007 9:21 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data]
>
>
>
> Hi Peter,
> It appears that your 33-12 is about 2X in weight and about 2X in
> endurance comparaed to my $60USD 18AH 13lb battery and your 18-12 is
> about the same weight and similar AH. I am not sure of the service
> life of my battery. I have arbitrarily changed it in one year. It
> appears, though, that after one year of service it still has
> approximately the endurance claimed by the spec. sheet. I may do the
> test on my new battery at my next annual and then decide whether to
> replace it or not. Here in Florida where the temperature is usually
> above 60 deg F, these batteries crank smartly my O- 320 every time.
> Best regards,
> Richard
>
>
> Peter Harris wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have been looking at batteries to get an extended discharge cycle
> for an EFIC conversion and found that "Full River" batteries are well
> represented and publish full performance details. Their DC series are
> for long flat extended deep discharge with less cranking power. I have
> their HGL series general purpose sealed AGM battery which has good
> cranking as well as extended discharge. I chose an HGL 33-12 with a
> discharge of 3 hrs @9A for my application; weight 11KG and max
> discharge is 495A at 77deg F. It is an overkill endurance but I need
> the cranking amps for the Jab 3300 and long leads and the weight is
> right for my CG..
>
> It cost AUD 95.00 (normally RRP AUD 130) purchased on line. Life is
> claimed 6 - 10 years depending on application. I think by comparison
> the Odyssey has a bigger CCA but less extended discharge performance.
> We are having warranty problems with Odyssey down here.
>
> According to the chart the Full River HGL 18-12 has a discharge life
> of approx. 2 hrs @ 8A and weighs 6.3KG.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Richard Dudley
> Sent: Friday, 15 June 2007 3:05 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: 18 AH Battery Test Data]
>
>
>
> Listers,
> Because my nominal endurance load is about 8 amps, my original 6 amp
> load test was not representative of my needs. So, FWIW, I just ran a 9
> amp endurance test on my replaced RG battery. The results of both the
> 6 amp and 9 amp tests are attached. After fully charging the battery,
> I added another automobile lamp in parallel with the earlier load to
> get approximately 9 amps. The starting open circuit voltage was 12.95
> V. The initial curremt under load was 9.73 A. I discontinued the test
> after 85 minutes when the voltage wa 10.01 V and the current was 8.46 A.
>
> I have forwarded my original test comments for those who did not see
> my original post or to refresh others on the first test.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Dudley
> -6A flying
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject:
>
>
>
> 18 AH Battery Test Data
>
> Date:
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
>
>
> Richard Dudley
>
> To:
>
>
>
> aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
>Listers,
>
>FWIW I have been following the procedure of replacing my 18/17.X AH RG
>
>battery annually for the last two years. This year, I decided to do an
>
>endurance test on the "old" battery. Using an automotive two filament
>
>headlamp with the filaments in parallel, I was able to start at a
>
>current of 6.7 amps drain to simulate an endurance buss demand with a
>
>failed alternator. The battery has been used for one year including
>
>about 40 flight hours and 50 engine starts.
>
>The battery is a 17-18 AH sold by Batteries Plus sometimes with the
>
>name Xtreme Plus.
>
>My engine is an O-320 with 110 plus hours on it. These batteries turn
>
>the engine over very "smartly" only observed at temperatures above 60F.
>
>At the beginning of the test, the current was 6.7 A and at the end at
>
>5.6 A . This decline is partly explained by the voltage decline as well
>
>as filament resistance decrease with temperature in the lamp.
>
>These results are consistent with the specification sheet provided for
>
>the Xtreme Plus batteries which predicts a two hour endurance at 6A.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Richard Dudley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
>Question, can anyone recommend a ground plane-less marker beacon antenna
>option for use in composite aircraft?
>
>Thanks
Sure. 40" of wire strung out and taped to the inside
surface of your empanage.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
>I m prepared to be shot down here by those who know more than me about
>antenna theory, but I have installed a 40 long piece of copper tape in a
>glassfibre wing tip for a beacon antenna & expect it to work. As beacons
>are reasonably powerful, and you (hope to) fly right over the top of them
>at short range, I believe a ground plane as such is not really required
>perhaps the screen of the feeder wire acts as a very small ground plane to
>complete the virtual circuit?
"Ground plane" is not helpful at this range. You're just a few hundred
feet above a 5w transmitter with a radiation pattern concentrated
straight up. 40" of any kind of handy conductor . . . 22AWG wire
is fine. If your marker beacon antenna input is on the back of
some panel mounted device, then run a coax RG-400 or even the lowly
RG-58 is fine to some handy place behind the seat and attach it to
the 40" piece of wire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glide slope antenna |
>Last week I posted a question about my non working G/S in my newly
>installed upgraded RV8 panel. Thanks for all the suggestions!. Bob Archer
>said I might be "loosely connected" as the problem. Rather than take
>offense at this, I asked for an explanation, and he said the BNC center
>pin may not be fully seated in the connector. Well the only connector that
>was not installed on the bench, but rather behind the panel, sure enough
>was loosely connected, because of the difficult access. After changing
>that out, the system works perfectly, IE the wingtip antenna, with
>splitter to the G430 VLOC and G/S has a nice strong signal.
Pesky electrons . . . they just refuse to jump even the smallest
gap.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
| Subject: | Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
Bob,
Would that 40" piece of wire work outside a metal airplane if the conductor
was insulated from the skin?
I'm thinking of a wire or tape laminated to the belly between layers
fiberglass.
For that matter, could you laminate an Archer antenna to the bottom of a
metal plane and expect it to work?
If no, why not?
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
-----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: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft
-->
>Question, can anyone recommend a ground plane-less marker beacon
>antenna option for use in composite aircraft?
>
>Thanks
Sure. 40" of wire strung out and taped to the inside
surface of your empanage.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Would that 40" piece of wire work outside a metal airplane if the conductor
>was insulated from the skin?
>
>I'm thinking of a wire or tape laminated to the belly between layers
>fiberglass.
>
>For that matter, could you laminate an Archer antenna to the bottom of a
>metal plane and expect it to work?
>
>If no, why not?
There needs to be some separation. A conductor laying right
next to a ground plane looks more like a transmission line
with high SWR than an antenna. The optimal belly mounted
marker beacon antenna for metal airplanes can be seen on
the 60-80's Cessnas. It's been affectionately dubbed "the
sled runner".
The more elegant antennas for metal airplanes are like
these from A/S.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comt_markerantennas2.php
One of my cohorts at Cessna was playing with a flush antenna
design. It had a slot in the belly skin about 2" wide and
extending between tail cone formers. The opening was closed
off outside with fiberglass and inside with a hat-section.
A tuned radiator was supported centrally within the hat-sections
profile.
I seem to recall it worked well but was pretty expensive
to build compared to the "sled runner" so was never incorporated
into our products.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | re: MB antennnas |
I poked around in the catalogs for some of my suppliers
and found some pictures to illustrate the text below.
The "sled runner" antenna is still sold as a spare for about
$250. You can see a picture of it at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/AV-533.jpg
There's a low profile device offered by the same source
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/DM_N27-2.jpg
this puppy is about $550 dealer net. If anyone is out at
an airport and sees a sled runner installation that they
can measure. We can publish the dimensions for folks to
exploit in building their own. Need OVERALL length of
antenna element from skin surface to trailing tip. Need
height of antenna off the skin. Need position of feedline
tap measured along element length (skin to tap location).
I could eyeball it and probably produce a perfectly good
working antenna but it would be handy to have some dimensions
off a production article.
Bob . . .
>>Would that 40" piece of wire work outside a metal airplane if the conductor
>>was insulated from the skin?
>>
>>I'm thinking of a wire or tape laminated to the belly between layers
>>fiberglass.
>>
>>For that matter, could you laminate an Archer antenna to the bottom of a
>>metal plane and expect it to work?
>>
>>If no, why not?
>
> There needs to be some separation. A conductor laying right
> next to a ground plane looks more like a transmission line
> with high SWR than an antenna. The optimal belly mounted
> marker beacon antenna for metal airplanes can be seen on
> the 60-80's Cessnas. It's been affectionately dubbed "the
> sled runner".
>
> The more elegant antennas for metal airplanes are like
> these from A/S.
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comt_markerantennas2.php
>
> One of my cohorts at Cessna was playing with a flush antenna
> design. It had a slot in the belly skin about 2" wide and
> extending between tail cone formers. The opening was closed
> off outside with fiberglass and inside with a hat-section.
> A tuned radiator was supported centrally within the hat-sections
> profile.
>
> I seem to recall it worked well but was pretty expensive
> to build compared to the "sled runner" so was never incorporated
> into our products.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re: MB antennnas |
I have a "sled runner" on the bottom of my "RV Trainer" aka Grumman AA1B
that is no longer connected to anything. I am about to remove it. Does
anyone want it?
John Morgensen
RV-9A
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
> I poked around in the catalogs for some of my suppliers
> and found some pictures to illustrate the text below.
>
> The "sled runner" antenna is still sold as a spare for about
> $250. You can see a picture of it at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/AV-533.jpg
>
> There's a low profile device offered by the same source
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/DM_N27-2.jpg
>
> this puppy is about $550 dealer net. If anyone is out at
> an airport and sees a sled runner installation that they
> can measure. We can publish the dimensions for folks to
> exploit in building their own. Need OVERALL length of
> antenna element from skin surface to trailing tip. Need
> height of antenna off the skin. Need position of feedline
> tap measured along element length (skin to tap location).
>
> I could eyeball it and probably produce a perfectly good
> working antenna but it would be handy to have some dimensions
> off a production article.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>>> Would that 40" piece of wire work outside a metal airplane if the
>>> conductor
>>> was insulated from the skin?
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of a wire or tape laminated to the belly between layers
>>> fiberglass.
>>>
>>> For that matter, could you laminate an Archer antenna to the bottom of a
>>> metal plane and expect it to work?
>>>
>>> If no, why not?
>>
>> There needs to be some separation. A conductor laying right
>> next to a ground plane looks more like a transmission line
>> with high SWR than an antenna. The optimal belly mounted
>> marker beacon antenna for metal airplanes can be seen on
>> the 60-80's Cessnas. It's been affectionately dubbed "the
>> sled runner".
>>
>> The more elegant antennas for metal airplanes are like
>> these from A/S.
>>
>> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comt_markerantennas2.php
>>
>> One of my cohorts at Cessna was playing with a flush antenna
>> design. It had a slot in the belly skin about 2" wide and
>> extending between tail cone formers. The opening was closed
>> off outside with fiberglass and inside with a hat-section.
>> A tuned radiator was supported centrally within the hat-sections
>> profile.
>>
>> I seem to recall it worked well but was pretty expensive
>> to build compared to the "sled runner" so was never incorporated
>> into our products.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Stupid question I'm sure |
Ok, so in a composite airplane. As it relates to the Radio Stack. The
Radios, Audio panel, etc are mounted in an aluminum chassis, and some of the
items have "shield" that go to the outer tabs on the radios, etc. So do I
need to take a ground from the radio rack chassis to the single point ground
of the rest of the airplane? Or do those "Shields" end up being grounded
back thru the ground wires to the radios themselves?
Hope I explained this well enough to get a response?
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Grant Neilson" <grantneilson(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Connector for copilot stick grip |
NatureI'm setting up dual trim and dual PTT in my RV9A using RAC pistol
grips on both pilot & copilot sides, but would still like to remove the
copilot stick once in a while when the wife stays home and I want to carry
extra baggage on the passenger side. I'm wondering what others have done to
allow quick disconnect and removal of the copilot stick. The inside diameter
of the stick is about 3/4 inch, and I would need a six pin (circular?)
connector. Any photos of others' efforts and sources for such a connector
would be greatly appreciated.
Grant Neilson
Campbell River, B.C.
RV9A, wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ernst" <jimernst(at)idcomm.com> |
please take off the mail list
Jim Ernst
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
40" of 22AWG wire it shall be. Any special needs for attaching it to the
coax? Solder? Duct tape? Insulate? I will be coming back from under the
panel. Ok if I epoxy (tack) the wire to the body so it does not move?
Thanks for the tip
-----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: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marker beacon antenna for composite
aircraft
-->
>Question, can anyone recommend a ground plane-less marker beacon
>antenna
>option for use in composite aircraft?
>
>Thanks
Sure. 40" of wire strung out and taped to the inside
surface of your empanage.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | re: MB antennnas |
Thanks Bob,
Not only is that $$$, it looks like it will cost you about 3 knots. I'll
take it upon myself to write down the dimensions and post next time I
see one. Looks darn simple. With the Lancair Legacy I am trying to keep
all of the antennas indoors.
Glenn
-----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: Friday, June 15, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: re: MB antennnas
-->
I poked around in the catalogs for some of my suppliers
and found some pictures to illustrate the text below.
The "sled runner" antenna is still sold as a spare for about $250. You
can see a picture of it at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/AV-533.jpg
There's a low profile device offered by the same source
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/DM_N27-2.jpg
this puppy is about $550 dealer net. If anyone is out at
an airport and sees a sled runner installation that they
can measure. We can publish the dimensions for folks to
exploit in building their own. Need OVERALL length of
antenna element from skin surface to trailing tip. Need
height of antenna off the skin. Need position of feedline
tap measured along element length (skin to tap location).
I could eyeball it and probably produce a perfectly good working antenna
but it would be handy to have some dimensions off a production article.
Bob . . .
>>Would that 40" piece of wire work outside a metal airplane if the
>>conductor was insulated from the skin?
>>
>>I'm thinking of a wire or tape laminated to the belly between layers
>>fiberglass.
>>
>>For that matter, could you laminate an Archer antenna to the bottom of
>>a metal plane and expect it to work?
>>
>>If no, why not?
>
> There needs to be some separation. A conductor laying right
> next to a ground plane looks more like a transmission line
> with high SWR than an antenna. The optimal belly mounted
> marker beacon antenna for metal airplanes can be seen on
> the 60-80's Cessnas. It's been affectionately dubbed "the
> sled runner".
>
> The more elegant antennas for metal airplanes are like
> these from A/S.
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comt_markerantennas2.php
>
> One of my cohorts at Cessna was playing with a flush antenna
> design. It had a slot in the belly skin about 2" wide and
> extending between tail cone formers. The opening was closed
> off outside with fiberglass and inside with a hat-section.
> A tuned radiator was supported centrally within the hat-sections
> profile.
>
> I seem to recall it worked well but was pretty expensive
> to build compared to the "sled runner" so was never incorporated
> into our products.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | will(at)willcrook.com |
| Subject: | Yahoo! Auto Response |
Hello,
I'll be out of the country (and off-line) the week of June 18th. I'll respond
to your email as soon as possible after my return. Have a great week! Thanks,
Will Crook, CPA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Low voltage/battery warning for certified aircraft |
| From: | "rv8ch" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
Hi,
Some idiot in my flying club keeps forgetting to turn off the battery when he hangars
the aircraft. This doesn't make the next person who wants to fly the airplane
very happy, as you can imagine.
Do you know of a decent solution for this problem for a certified aircraft?
Thanks,
Mickey (a.k.a the idiot)
--------
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=118702#118702
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <neal.george(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Low voltage/battery warning for certified aircraft |
Mickey -
Add a step to the Shutdown checklist:
Strobes - ON
Neal
RV-7 N8ZG - Cowling
-------
Hi,
Some idiot in my flying club keeps forgetting to turn off the battery when
he hangars the aircraft. This doesn't make the next person who wants to fly
the airplane very happy, as you can imagine.
Do you know of a decent solution for this problem for a certified aircraft?
Thanks,
Mickey (a.k.a the idiot)
--------
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich Dodson <r_dodson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage/battery warning for certified aircraft |
Mickey,
My FBO tells us all to leave the beacon "ON" all the time. That way, when the
battery side of the master is "ON", the beacon is rotating and lit up. When I
walk away from the airplane for the last time, I check the sound from the Turn
Coordinator to make sure it is slowing down and then I check the beacon to make
sure it is dark.
Been there, done that!
Rich
----- Original Message ----
From: rv8ch <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 6:37:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Low voltage/battery warning for certified aircraft
Hi,
Some idiot in my flying club keeps forgetting to turn off the battery when he hangars
the aircraft. This doesn't make the next person who wants to fly the airplane
very happy, as you can imagine.
Do you know of a decent solution for this problem for a certified aircraft?
Thanks,
Mickey (a.k.a the idiot)
--------
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=118702#118702
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage/battery warning for certified aircraft |
Good Morning Mickey,
Put a certified oil pressure actuated switch in parallel with the strobe
light switch. Wire it so that the strobes go on any time the master is on and
the oil pressure is non existent. That way, the strobes will be on as you leave
the aircraft. The disadvantage is that your strobes will come on before you
start the engine.
There could be some advantage to that happening as it will warn others that
the engine is about to be started!
Some airlines make a practice of turning on their rotating beacons before
engine start. A rotating beacon wired as suggested would also work as a memory
jogger, but I like the idea of the strobe better!
On one of our glider tow planes, we have a warning whistle that has a time
delay built into a small electronic circuit. It is actuated by the oil pressure
switch, but the time delay keeps it from sounding during the engine start
process. However, I am not convinced that the warning horn and it's electrical
timer meet certification standards. Probably does and who really cares as
long as it reminds our pilots to shut off the master!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/16/2007 5:40:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch writes:
Do you know of a decent solution for this problem for a certified aircraft?
Thanks,
Mickey (a.k.a the idiot)
--------
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Battery Master On Warning |
Good Morning Mickey,
Put a certified oil pressure actuated switch in parallel with the strobe
light switch. Wire it so that the strobes go on any time the master is on and
the oil pressure is non existent. That way, the strobes will be on as you leave
the aircraft. The disadvantage is that your strobes will come on before you
start the engine.
There could be some advantage to that happening as it will warn others that
the engine is about to be started!
Some airlines make a practice of turning on their rotating beacons before
engine start. A rotating beacon wired as suggested would also work as a memory
jogger, but I like the idea of the strobe better!
On one of our glider tow planes, we have a warning whistle that has a time
delay built into a small electronic circuit. It is actuated by the oil pressure
switch, but the time delay keeps it from sounding during the engine start
process. However, I am not convinced that the warning horn and it's electrical
timer meet certification standards. Probably does and who really cares as
long as it reminds our pilots to shut off the master!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/16/2007 5:40:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch writes:
Do you know of a decent solution for this problem for a certified aircraft?
Thanks,
Mickey (a.k.a the idiot)
--------
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Amp sensing with hall effect |
I ran the M-Bus, E-Bus and feed from the Battery contactor thru the
hall sensor. I want to read amps being used. I don't care about amps
to the battery being charged. If the bus voltage is above 13,5, the
battery is charging.
Be sure to run the wires thru the hall sensor in the same "sense", ie
+ to -, or else you will subtract one of the amp values.
Richard Reynolds
On Jun 5, 2007, at 2:33 AM, Jekyll wrote:
>
> I started witring up my hall sensor tonight but thought I should
> get a peer review on my electrical monitoring concept before I go
> further. My particulars are:
> RV-7A
> Z-13/8 with fuse blocks
> GRT EIS-4000
> GRT Horizon 1 EFIS (single)
> P-Mag, E-Mag
>
> I wired up a single hall effect sensor with 3 wires going through
> it: M-bus feed from a FW mounted ANL; B-bus feed from the hot side
> of the battery contactor; SD-8 feed from the SD-8 relay to the B-
> bus. My architecture is based on the ability to read total bus
> amperage on 1 sensor in both primary and alternate operating modes.
> Operating in either mode will show the total amps: in primary mode
> the M-bus and B-bus will be totaled (of course the M-bus will
> include the E-bus through the diode); in alternate mode, the SD-8
> feed will be added to the sensor on its way to the B-bus, thense to
> the E-bus. Battery charging can be determined by subtracting total
> bus amps from the alternator output to determine amps available to
> charge the battery. As I have both the SD-8 and a P-mag, I'm less
> concerned about knowing the exact in/out amperage condition of the
> battery than I am with knowing my actual bus amps when operating on
> the SD-8. I don't desire to add a second sensor or a switching!
> capability.
>
> The GRT system will show bus voltage with ample low voltage warning
> in all operating modes.
>
> Just asking for comments to see if I missed anything before I
> commit the acts of cutting, stripping, crimping, soldering and
> drilling.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jekyll
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=116592#116592
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage/battery warning for certified aircraft |
All our club (certified) aircraft have the beacon wired into the battery
switch: when you walk away give the plane one more backward look and if it's
winking at you, you've left your master on.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "rv8ch" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 11:37 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Low voltage/battery warning for certified
aircraft
>
> Hi,
>
> Some idiot in my flying club keeps forgetting to turn off the battery when
> he hangars the aircraft. This doesn't make the next person who wants to
> fly the airplane very happy, as you can imagine.
>
> Do you know of a decent solution for this problem for a certified
> aircraft?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey (a.k.a the idiot)
>
> --------
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=118702#118702
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage/battery warning for certified aircraft |
| From: | "rv8ch" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
All great ideas - many thanks!
--------
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=118729#118729
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraftMarker |
beacon antenna for composite
I have a spare copper tape dipole nav antenna installed in my wing. Will
this work for a MB antenna instead?
J
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Amp sensing with hall effect |
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
Thanks Richard. I did the same. Yes, I have all the trons shepparded in the same
direction.
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=118761#118761
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marker beacon antenna for composite |
>I have a spare copper tape dipole nav antenna installed in my wing. Will
>this work for a MB antenna instead?
Might. Give it a try. It's a LONG way from optimal but
the MB signal is so strong that depending on the sensitivity
of your receiver, it may be good enough.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | re: MB antennnas |
>
>Thanks Bob,
>Not only is that $$$, it looks like it will cost you about 3 knots. I'll
>take it upon myself to write down the dimensions and post next time I
>see one. Looks darn simple. With the Lancair Legacy I am trying to keep
>all of the antennas indoors.
>
>Glenn
Hmmmm . . . during the course of this thread I've
been remiss in not pointing out that the inside antennas
work only in fiberglas composite structures . . . the carbon
fiber airplanes offer too much attenuation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
You need to do this yourself at:
http://www.matronics.com/subscription/
>please take off the mail list
>Jim Ernst
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Marker beacon antenna for composite aircraft |
>
>40" of 22AWG wire it shall be. Any special needs for attaching it to the
>coax? Solder? Duct tape? Insulate? I will be coming back from under the
>panel. Ok if I epoxy (tack) the wire to the body so it does not move?
>
>Thanks for the tip
Solder is recommended. You're laying against a non-conductive
surface (assuming fiberglas . . . this won't work in a carbon
structure) so no other insulation is needed. Tape or otherwise
fasten the wire to the inside surface to keep it stretched out.
Both ends and a couple of places along the length is sufficient.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re: MB antennnas |
>
>I have a "sled runner" on the bottom of my "RV Trainer" aka Grumman AA1B
>that is no longer connected to anything. I am about to remove it. Does
>anyone want it?
I don't need the antenna . . . but if you could
get me the dimensions I asked about earlier, it
would be helpful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stupid question I'm sure |
>
>
>Ok, so in a composite airplane. As it relates to the Radio Stack. The
>Radios, Audio panel, etc are mounted in an aluminum chassis, and some of the
>items have "shield" that go to the outer tabs on the radios, etc.
Not sure what "shields" you're referring to or what the "outer tabs"
are.
> So do I
>need to take a ground from the radio rack chassis to the single point ground
>of the rest of the airplane? Or do those "Shields" end up being grounded
>back thru the ground wires to the radios themselves?
Assuming you're talking about enclosure components
of the radios and not wiring, you will find that most
if not all of your radios take the power (-) lead to
the chassis internally. By the time all the radios
get power grounded to the single point ground, the "stack"
is pretty well tied down by multiple conductors. Additional
wires from the stack structure to ground will not add
value.
As for the shields on wires. Wire per the wiring diagrams/
instructions for each radio.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Stupid question I'm sure |
Bob,
Thanks for the comments. To be a little clearer.
I'm specifically wondering about the shields on shielded wires that connect
to the radios. For example on the Garmin sl30, there are shields on wires
that connect the sl30 to the audio panel and those shields are attached
(only terminated on the radio side) to a metal extension plate that is
physically attached to the back of the sl30's mounting tray, which should
also attach it to the "chassis" of the sl30.
It is also my understanding that it most modern electronics, the manufacture
isolates the "chassis" from the internal power ground to prevent any form of
"short" that may harm a human. If this is the case, then those shields
would not have a path to ground thru the chassis to the power ground.
Perhaps this assumption is incorrect. I suppose I could tell by taking an
ohm reading off the ground lead to the chassis for example. If they are
somehow connected, I should see a dead short correct?
In a metal airplane, this probably isn't as much of an issue as the radio
stack would most likely be chassis grounded thru the metal structure of the
airframe, but in composites, on in a composite panel, you don't have that
benefit and so I was curious if a separate ground wire should ground the
radio chassis to the single point ground?
Thanks,
Alan
-----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: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stupid question I'm sure
-->
>
>
>Ok, so in a composite airplane. As it relates to the Radio Stack. The
>Radios, Audio panel, etc are mounted in an aluminum chassis, and some
>of the items have "shield" that go to the outer tabs on the radios, etc.
Not sure what "shields" you're referring to or what the "outer tabs"
are.
> So do I
>need to take a ground from the radio rack chassis to the single point
>ground of the rest of the airplane? Or do those "Shields" end up being
>grounded back thru the ground wires to the radios themselves?
Assuming you're talking about enclosure components
of the radios and not wiring, you will find that most
if not all of your radios take the power (-) lead to
the chassis internally. By the time all the radios
get power grounded to the single point ground, the "stack"
is pretty well tied down by multiple conductors. Additional
wires from the stack structure to ground will not add
value.
As for the shields on wires. Wire per the wiring diagrams/
instructions for each radio.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stupid question I'm sure |
I'd say you can't have too many grounds! the central point is key. You must
be refering to the coaxial cable outer conductor (shield).... my question is
should we pop a ferrite bead RF surpressor around the power and/or audio
cable bundles out of the back of the radio to help ignintion noise
surpression?
bobf
W5RF
On 6/17/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Ok, so in a composite airplane. As it relates to the Radio Stack. The
> >Radios, Audio panel, etc are mounted in an aluminum chassis, and some of
> the
> >items have "shield" that go to the outer tabs on the radios, etc.
>
> Not sure what "shields" you're referring to or what the "outer tabs"
> are.
>
> > So do I
> >need to take a ground from the radio rack chassis to the single point
> ground
> >of the rest of the airplane? Or do those "Shields" end up being grounded
> >back thru the ground wires to the radios themselves?
>
> Assuming you're talking about enclosure components
> of the radios and not wiring, you will find that most
> if not all of your radios take the power (-) lead to
> the chassis internally. By the time all the radios
> get power grounded to the single point ground, the "stack"
> is pretty well tied down by multiple conductors. Additional
> wires from the stack structure to ground will not add
> value.
>
> As for the shields on wires. Wire per the wiring diagrams/
> instructions for each radio.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: re: MB antennnas |
Hi Bob;
Not trying to be a "smart ass" but in the light of accuracy, not ONLY
fibreglass, but also wood structures such as the F8L Falco where
internal antennas are used to good advantage. (and possibly other
non-conductive constructions as well).
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: re: MB antennnas
>
> Hmmmm . . . during the course of this thread I've
> been remiss in not pointing out that the inside antennas
> work only in fiberglas composite structures . . . the carbon
> fiber airplanes offer too much attenuation.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re: MB antennnas |
>Hi Bob;
>
>Not trying to be a "smart ass" but in the light of accuracy, not ONLY
>fibreglass, but also wood structures such as the F8L Falco where internal
>antennas are used to good advantage. (and possibly other non-conductive
>constructions as well).
>
>Bob McC
Point well taken. Let's refine the idea as limited to
non-conductive composites. Some folks have even reported
"satisfactory" performance from antennas contained within
a tube and fabric tailcone. I'm a bit skeptical as to the
quantification of "satisfactory" . . .
Bottom line is try it an see if it meets your needs knowing
that carbon fiber composites are have yielded unsatisfactory
results in a number of repeated experiments.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna doubler plate - prime or not |
Fellow tron chasers,
I'm putting a comant bent whip on the underside of my RV6A. I have a good
doubler plate (derived from the AC43.13) - pictures if anyone wants to see.
My question is should I prime it?
My initial thoughts are that the existence of the metal structure will
provide the ground plane even if it is not bonded electrically to the
structure - meaning prime on......
Otherwise, how is bonding effected as there is a cork gasket that is to be
installed? Do the four antenna mounting screws provide sufficient bonding?
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna doubler plate - prime or not |
>
>
>Fellow tron chasers,
>
>I'm putting a comant bent whip on the underside of my RV6A. I have a good
>doubler plate (derived from the AC43.13) - pictures if anyone wants to see.
>My question is should I prime it?
>
>My initial thoughts are that the existence of the metal structure will
>provide the ground plane even if it is not bonded electrically to the
>structure - meaning prime on......
>Otherwise, how is bonding effected as there is a cork gasket that is to be
>installed? Do the four antenna mounting screws provide sufficient bonding?
If it were my airplane . . . prime the doubler and rivet to
the skin and closest handy structural components of the
fuselage. Drill rivet holes after priming. A rivet driven into
a properly sized hole swells up and becomes a gas-tight joint
for bringing the skin and the doubler together electrically.
Before riveting the doubler in, Cleco into place and put
a hole pattern in both doubler and skin to accommodate the
antenna.
Refer to the figure at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif
De-mount the doubler and clean the aluminum round all
the antenna screw holes on both sides of both skin
and doubler.
Now rivet the doubler in . . .
Leave cork gasket out. Run 1/8" bead of RTV around outside
edge of antenna base flange before pressing to the skin and
installing screws. Torque antenna mounting screws to recommended
limits. If the kit doesn't come with all metal lock nuts, then
substitute them. Measure torque on lock nut as you're driving
it down and increase final torque value by that same amount
for final seating of the nuts.
This technique strives for permanent, gas-tight joints
at all antenna mounting holes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna doubler plate - prime or not |
Excellent!
I already had the hole patterns done - and the drilling/dimpling. I'll
chase it through once with a drill bit through each rivet hole to accomplish
your suggestion for each rivet - in addition to cleaning all of the screw
holes.
I already have nutplates for the attachment - I think I have the correct
torque values in my hangar.
I didn't like the way the cork gasket looked anyway......RTV rocks!
Thanks Bob!
Ralph
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna doubler plate - prime or not
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Fellow tron chasers,
>>
>>I'm putting a comant bent whip on the underside of my RV6A. I have a good
>>doubler plate (derived from the AC43.13) - pictures if anyone wants to
>>see.
>>My question is should I prime it?
>>
>>My initial thoughts are that the existence of the metal structure will
>>provide the ground plane even if it is not bonded electrically to the
>>structure - meaning prime on......
>>Otherwise, how is bonding effected as there is a cork gasket that is to be
>>installed? Do the four antenna mounting screws provide sufficient
>>bonding?
>
> If it were my airplane . . . prime the doubler and rivet to
> the skin and closest handy structural components of the
> fuselage. Drill rivet holes after priming. A rivet driven into
> a properly sized hole swells up and becomes a gas-tight joint
> for bringing the skin and the doubler together electrically.
>
> Before riveting the doubler in, Cleco into place and put
> a hole pattern in both doubler and skin to accommodate the
> antenna.
>
> Refer to the figure at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif
>
> De-mount the doubler and clean the aluminum round all
> the antenna screw holes on both sides of both skin
> and doubler.
>
> Now rivet the doubler in . . .
>
> Leave cork gasket out. Run 1/8" bead of RTV around outside
> edge of antenna base flange before pressing to the skin and
> installing screws. Torque antenna mounting screws to recommended
> limits. If the kit doesn't come with all metal lock nuts, then
> substitute them. Measure torque on lock nut as you're driving
> it down and increase final torque value by that same amount
> for final seating of the nuts.
>
> This technique strives for permanent, gas-tight joints
> at all antenna mounting holes.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? |
I've got more info now, but I'm not sure what it means. I wired up a
jack as per Bob's suggestion and can read field voltage on the VOM in
flight. I also changed the setpoint on the regulator by about 1 turn on
the adjustment screw. The downloaded installation instructions said that
should be about 2 tenths of a volt. It had been running about 14.6. The
regulator turns out to be an LR3B-14 not the C model I reported
previously. I don't know how much difference that makes.
When started, the voltage ran right at 14.4, exactly as expected after
the adjustment. The field was about 3.5 to 4.5 volts at idle. I'm using
a digital VOM because it's what I have, so it jumps around a bit. With
strobe, landing/taxi and position lights on and at idle, the buss came
down to about 14.1 and the field rose to about 7 or 8 volts. Load was
around 17 amps by my meter.
In flight the numbers were pretty similar except that the buss never
fell much below 14.4 no matter what I did with the lights. The field ran
somewhere in the 4ish range with no lights and around 8 with. After
about 30 minutes of flying, the buss was at 14.5. When I taxied in, it
was 14.7 at idle which I don't understand at all. The field breaker did
not blow today.
I'm in watch and wait mode for now.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Ed wrote:
>
> The regulator has been in service for about 900 hrs. It's been through
> at least 2 or 3 Van's alternators in that time, though I don't have
> good records on that. I'll swing by radio shack and check back at a
> later date with field voltage info.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> The other day, the low volt light started flashing and I found the
>>> field breaker popped. This is an LR3C with the notorious Van's 35
>>> amp alternator. I reset the breaker and about 5 minutes later, it
>>> popped again. The voltage had been running about 14.6 which seemed a
>>> little much so I reset it and turned on some lights. The voltage ran
>>> about 13.9 to 14 and the breaker didn't pop for quite a while. About
>>> the time I thought that it was cool, the low volt light came on
>>> again, but this time the breaker wasn't out. I turned off the master
>>> and flew another hour and a half, including a stop for gas, and
>>> landed at Aurora. I found a bit of hangar space and pulled the
>>> alternator. It had a lot of end play and tested bad at the local
>>> auto parts place. I bought another one at Van's - they tried to talk
>>> me out of it, but I didn't want to rewire the airplane for the
>>> internally regulated unit a long way from home. Hey, I would have
>>> happily spent the extra for the B&C alternator, but I was in Aurora
>>> not Wichita.
>>>
>>> It charges just fine, in fact it'll hold voltage at idle with lights
>>> on which is more than the old one would do. It is also running at
>>> about 14.5 or .6 and the breaker has popped 3 times so far.
>>
>>
>>
>> You need to conduct and investigation of system performance
>> as outlined in note 8 of
>>
>> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>>
>> and take some readings. In fact, get an el-cheapo analog
>> voltmeter for observing field voltage. It's more important
>> to know how stable it is than to know the exact voltage reading.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The breaker resets and the alternator runs fine for a while, but
>>> I'm wondering if I'll blow up the new alternator, too.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I cannot think of any abuse (other than lack of cooling)
>> that you could heap on an externally regulated alternator
>> from outside that would place it at risk for premature failure.
>>
>>> Do you think that the regulator is a bit wonky? Is the voltage too
>>> high? Am I frying my battery? Is the overvoltage module overactive?
>>
>>
>>
>> About 150 years ago Lord Kelvin admonished us, ""If
>> you can not measure it, you can not improve it." To
>> craft considered answers to your questions, we'll need
>> some numbers and some observations of behavior. I'll
>> suggest that you craft the field voltage monitoring
>> feature suggested in Figure Z-23.
>>
>> We need to know what the field voltage is in cruise
>> RPM with minimum loads and with everything turned on.
>> Also make note of voltage fluctuations during what
>> should be a steady state condition (turn strobes on/off
>> to see how much they added to any wiggles you observe).
>> In particular, we'd like to capture field voltage
>> behaviors leading up to a trip of the OV protection
>> system.
>>
>> I know this can be tedious and difficult. This is
>> why I own data acquisition systems that monitor and
>> record real time values. If I had cash for all the
>> Jet-A I've burned up waiting to capture a transient
>> event in a sneaky failure I could pay off my mortgage.
>>
>> You're not frying anything. The bus voltage is
>> not too high. It's unlikely that the OV protection
>> system has become hyper-active with age. You don't
>> say how long this regulator has been in service.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [ExperimentalAvionics] Antenna doubler plate - |
prime or not
Do not use the cork gasket. Use RTV around the antenna base AFTER
installation. Also, the doubler will need to be riveted, and if solid rivets
(not blind rivets) are used, the doulber will be have a solid connection to
the aircraft skin.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 5:55 PM
Subject: [ExperimentalAvionics] Antenna doubler plate - prime or not
> Fellow tron chasers,
>
> I'm putting a comant bent whip on the underside of my RV6A. I have a good
> doubler plate (derived from the AC43.13) - pictures if anyone wants to
> see.
> My question is should I prime it?
>
> My initial thoughts are that the existence of the metal structure will
> provide the ground plane even if it is not bonded electrically to the
> structure - meaning prime on......
> Otherwise, how is bonding effected as there is a cork gasket that is to be
> installed? Do the four antenna mounting screws provide sufficient
> bonding?
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ExperimentalAvionics/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ExperimentalAvionics/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:ExperimentalAvionics-digest(at)yahoogroups.com
> mailto:ExperimentalAvionics-fullfeatured(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ExperimentalAvionics-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna doubler plate - prime or not |
You might consider using a paintable sealant rather than RTV.
Regards,
Greg Young
>
> I didn't like the way the cork gasket looked anyway......RTV rocks!
>
> Thanks Bob!
>
> Ralph
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> |
Hi all
I started my engine first time last weekend. All good except the
Manifold Pressure and Ignition Timing readouts from the lightspeed
plasma 3 box to my EIS4000 were goofy. I get a reading but its
obviously not reality. I asked Sandy at GRT and she said that I can't
get MP from the lightspeed onto the EIS. But I do get a readout so
wonder why I can't just calibrate it using the right SF and OfsetF? The
lightspeed manual says the unit outputs 0.01 Volts per inch Hg (MP) and
0.01 Volts per degree (ignition advance). Has anyone hooked up their
EIS direct to the lightspeed unit? I know I can buy a separate
"microvolt meter" from Lightspeed but don't want to do that. I've
emailed Klaus at lightspeed to see whether he knows if the EIS is
compatible but received no reply after a week. Just want to confirm it
can't be done (and understand why) before I order a separate manifold
pressure sensor from Sandy. Thanks again for your collective advice.
Allan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Prue Motorgliders <pruemotorgliders(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? |
Gee Ed, I have no idea. The only thought I have is to check in with
B&C regarding the difference between Mod B and C. That and a
description of your history may lead to a understanding.
Hopefully the AeroElectric list will have some ideas
Jerry
On Jun 17, 2007, at 20:09, Ed wrote:
>
> I've got more info now, but I'm not sure what it means. I wired up a
> jack as per Bob's suggestion and can read field voltage on the VOM in
> flight. I also changed the setpoint on the regulator by about 1 turn
> on the adjustment screw. The downloaded installation instructions said
> that should be about 2 tenths of a volt. It had been running about
> 14.6. The regulator turns out to be an LR3B-14 not the C model I
> reported previously. I don't know how much difference that makes.
>
> When started, the voltage ran right at 14.4, exactly as expected after
> the adjustment. The field was about 3.5 to 4.5 volts at idle. I'm
> using a digital VOM because it's what I have, so it jumps around a
> bit. With strobe, landing/taxi and position lights on and at idle, the
> buss came down to about 14.1 and the field rose to about 7 or 8 volts.
> Load was around 17 amps by my meter.
>
> In flight the numbers were pretty similar except that the buss never
> fell much below 14.4 no matter what I did with the lights. The field
> ran somewhere in the 4ish range with no lights and around 8 with.
> After about 30 minutes of flying, the buss was at 14.5. When I taxied
> in, it was 14.7 at idle which I don't understand at all. The field
> breaker did not blow today.
>
> I'm in watch and wait mode for now.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> Ed wrote:
>
>>
>> The regulator has been in service for about 900 hrs. It's been
>> through at least 2 or 3 Van's alternators in that time, though I
>> don't have good records on that. I'll swing by radio shack and check
>> back at a later date with field voltage info.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Howdy,
>>>>
>>>> The other day, the low volt light started flashing and I found the
>>>> field breaker popped. This is an LR3C with the notorious Van's 35
>>>> amp alternator. I reset the breaker and about 5 minutes later, it
>>>> popped again. The voltage had been running about 14.6 which seemed
>>>> a little much so I reset it and turned on some lights. The voltage
>>>> ran about 13.9 to 14 and the breaker didn't pop for quite a while.
>>>> About the time I thought that it was cool, the low volt light came
>>>> on again, but this time the breaker wasn't out. I turned off the
>>>> master and flew another hour and a half, including a stop for gas,
>>>> and landed at Aurora. I found a bit of hangar space and pulled the
>>>> alternator. It had a lot of end play and tested bad at the local
>>>> auto parts place. I bought another one at Van's - they tried to
>>>> talk me out of it, but I didn't want to rewire the airplane for the
>>>> internally regulated unit a long way from home. Hey, I would have
>>>> happily spent the extra for the B&C alternator, but I was in Aurora
>>>> not Wichita.
>>>>
>>>> It charges just fine, in fact it'll hold voltage at idle with
>>>> lights on which is more than the old one would do. It is also
>>>> running at about 14.5 or .6 and the breaker has popped 3 times so
>>>> far.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You need to conduct and investigation of system performance
>>> as outlined in note 8 of
>>>
>>> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>>>
>>> and take some readings. In fact, get an el-cheapo analog
>>> voltmeter for observing field voltage. It's more important
>>> to know how stable it is than to know the exact voltage reading.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The breaker resets and the alternator runs fine for a while, but
>>>> I'm wondering if I'll blow up the new alternator, too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I cannot think of any abuse (other than lack of cooling)
>>> that you could heap on an externally regulated alternator
>>> from outside that would place it at risk for premature failure.
>>>
>>>> Do you think that the regulator is a bit wonky? Is the voltage too
>>>> high? Am I frying my battery? Is the overvoltage module overactive?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> About 150 years ago Lord Kelvin admonished us, ""If
>>> you can not measure it, you can not improve it." To
>>> craft considered answers to your questions, we'll need
>>> some numbers and some observations of behavior. I'll
>>> suggest that you craft the field voltage monitoring
>>> feature suggested in Figure Z-23.
>>>
>>> We need to know what the field voltage is in cruise
>>> RPM with minimum loads and with everything turned on.
>>> Also make note of voltage fluctuations during what
>>> should be a steady state condition (turn strobes on/off
>>> to see how much they added to any wiggles you observe).
>>> In particular, we'd like to capture field voltage
>>> behaviors leading up to a trip of the OV protection
>>> system.
>>>
>>> I know this can be tedious and difficult. This is
>>> why I own data acquisition systems that monitor and
>>> record real time values. If I had cash for all the
>>> Jet-A I've burned up waiting to capture a transient
>>> event in a sneaky failure I could pay off my mortgage.
>>>
>>> You're not frying anything. The bus voltage is
>>> not too high. It's unlikely that the OV protection
>>> system has become hyper-active with age. You don't
>>> say how long this regulator has been in service.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? |
>
>I've got more info now, but I'm not sure what it means. I wired up a jack
>as per Bob's suggestion and can read field voltage on the VOM in flight. I
>also changed the setpoint on the regulator by about 1 turn on the
>adjustment screw. The downloaded installation instructions said that
>should be about 2 tenths of a volt. It had been running about 14.6. The
>regulator turns out to be an LR3B-14 not the C model I reported
>previously. I don't know how much difference that makes.
>
>When started, the voltage ran right at 14.4, exactly as expected after the
>adjustment. The field was about 3.5 to 4.5 volts at idle. I'm using a
>digital VOM because it's what I have, so it jumps around a bit. With
>strobe, landing/taxi and position lights on and at idle, the buss came
>down to about 14.1 and the field rose to about 7 or 8 volts. Load was
>around 17 amps by my meter.
>
>In flight the numbers were pretty similar except that the buss never fell
>much below 14.4 no matter what I did with the lights. The field ran
>somewhere in the 4ish range with no lights and around 8 with. After about
>30 minutes of flying, the buss was at 14.5. When I taxied in, it was 14.7
>at idle which I don't understand at all. The field breaker did not blow today.
>
>I'm in watch and wait mode for now.
Excellent data! . . . and pretty much as expected. Let's review
the significance:
First, there are no differences between the B & C revisions of this
regulator that would affect the phenomenon under investigation.
(1) "With strobe, landing/taxi and position lights on and at idle,
the buss came down to about 14.1 and the field rose to about
7 or 8 volts."
(a) The maximum possible range for field voltages is 0 to bus
voltage . . . or a little below bus voltage because the
pass transistor doesn't turn on with zero-volt drop. We
would NEVER expect to see field voltage at ZERO during
any set of normal operating conditions . . . ZERO field
is ZERO output. The only time we would expect to see zero
output is if something was broke.
(b) The slight drop with load is within expectations.
(c) The field voltage reading of 7-8 volts at idle tells us
that your alternator's output is about half used up for
this RPM and load conditions. As we noted above, the field
cannot rise to more than about 14 volts and under the test
conditions cited, you were already half way there.
(2) "Load was around 17 amps by my meter."
(a) Is this an alternator loadmeter? In other words, the 17A
reading is the alternator output current for the conditions
cited?
(3) "In flight the numbers were pretty similar except that the
buss never fell much below 14.4 no matter what I did with
the lights."
(a) Every regulator designer is pleased to hear this. The
goal is to craft electronics that maintains the bus at the
established set-point irrespective of load. So, for field
voltages greater than zero and less than bus voltage, we would
expect the bus voltage to stay put under any load that does
not cause the field voltage to max out.
(4) "The field ran somewhere in the 4ish range with no lights
and around 8 with."
(a) What size alternator is this? I think you mentioned a
35A machine? Again, the reading of about 8 volts with loads
on (and assuming the same 17A of output) that the alternator's
output is about 1/2 used up.
If this were my research project, I'd throw a little 200 samples
per second data acquisition system (Snipe trap) on the field, bus
volts and bus amps. Then I'd go fly the airplane and attempt to
induce a trip by manipulation of controls for electrical system loads.
Okay, your snipe catching sack is in hand and your flashlight
(field volts indicator) is charged up. What we would hope to
capture is what the field voltage is doing just prior and/or
during a trip event. On the next flight, you'll want to "fiddle
with the switches and things" while observing field voltage and
see if you can induce a trip.
The readings you've cited are strong indications that the system
is/was performing as-designed during the period of your observations.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna doubler plate - prime or not |
My personal preference is to have NO RTV exposed in
the final installation. All sealing should occur in
the protected environment between two relatively flat
and tightly clamped surfaces. After the bolts are torqued,
wipe away all excess RTV that might ooze out from between
the antenna and ship's skin.
Bob . . .
>You might consider using a paintable sealant rather than RTV.
>
>Regards,
>
>Greg Young
>
> >
> > I didn't like the way the cork gasket looked anyway......RTV rocks!
> >
> > Thanks Bob!
> >
> > Ralph
> >
>
>
>--
>8:23 AM
>
>
>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
If trying to induce a trip, maybe it would make sense to run the test
early in the morning when the OAT is low so as to help the alternator put
out maximum snort? Does this regulator bump the voltage set point in
response to low temperature (temperature compensated)?
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>I've got more info now, but I'm not sure what it means. I wired up a jack
>>as per Bob's suggestion and can read field voltage on the VOM in flight.
>> I
>>also changed the setpoint on the regulator by about 1 turn on the
>>adjustment screw. The downloaded installation instructions said that
>>should be about 2 tenths of a volt. It had been running about 14.6. The
>>regulator turns out to be an LR3B-14 not the C model I reported
>>previously. I don't know how much difference that makes.
>>
>>When started, the voltage ran right at 14.4, exactly as expected after
>> the
>>adjustment. The field was about 3.5 to 4.5 volts at idle. I'm using a
>>digital VOM because it's what I have, so it jumps around a bit. With
>>strobe, landing/taxi and position lights on and at idle, the buss came
>>down to about 14.1 and the field rose to about 7 or 8 volts. Load was
>>around 17 amps by my meter.
>>
>>In flight the numbers were pretty similar except that the buss never fell
>>much below 14.4 no matter what I did with the lights. The field ran
>>somewhere in the 4ish range with no lights and around 8 with. After about
>>30 minutes of flying, the buss was at 14.5. When I taxied in, it was 14.7
>>at idle which I don't understand at all. The field breaker did not blow
>> today.
>>
>>I'm in watch and wait mode for now.
>
>
> Excellent data! . . . and pretty much as expected. Let's review
> the significance:
>
> First, there are no differences between the B & C revisions of this
> regulator that would affect the phenomenon under investigation.
>
> (1) "With strobe, landing/taxi and position lights on and at idle,
> the buss came down to about 14.1 and the field rose to about
> 7 or 8 volts."
>
> (a) The maximum possible range for field voltages is 0 to bus
> voltage . . . or a little below bus voltage because the
> pass transistor doesn't turn on with zero-volt drop. We
> would NEVER expect to see field voltage at ZERO during
> any set of normal operating conditions . . . ZERO field
> is ZERO output. The only time we would expect to see zero
> output is if something was broke.
>
> (b) The slight drop with load is within expectations.
>
> (c) The field voltage reading of 7-8 volts at idle tells us
> that your alternator's output is about half used up for
> this RPM and load conditions. As we noted above, the field
> cannot rise to more than about 14 volts and under the test
> conditions cited, you were already half way there.
>
> (2) "Load was around 17 amps by my meter."
>
> (a) Is this an alternator loadmeter? In other words, the 17A
> reading is the alternator output current for the conditions
> cited?
>
> (3) "In flight the numbers were pretty similar except that the
> buss never fell much below 14.4 no matter what I did with
> the lights."
>
> (a) Every regulator designer is pleased to hear this. The
> goal is to craft electronics that maintains the bus at the
> established set-point irrespective of load. So, for field
> voltages greater than zero and less than bus voltage, we would
> expect the bus voltage to stay put under any load that does
> not cause the field voltage to max out.
>
> (4) "The field ran somewhere in the 4ish range with no lights
> and around 8 with."
>
> (a) What size alternator is this? I think you mentioned a
> 35A machine? Again, the reading of about 8 volts with loads
> on (and assuming the same 17A of output) that the alternator's
> output is about 1/2 used up.
>
> If this were my research project, I'd throw a little 200 samples
> per second data acquisition system (Snipe trap) on the field, bus
> volts and bus amps. Then I'd go fly the airplane and attempt to
> induce a trip by manipulation of controls for electrical system
> loads.
>
> Okay, your snipe catching sack is in hand and your flashlight
> (field volts indicator) is charged up. What we would hope to
> capture is what the field voltage is doing just prior and/or
> during a trip event. On the next flight, you'll want to "fiddle
> with the switches and things" while observing field voltage and
> see if you can induce a trip.
>
> The readings you've cited are strong indications that the system
> is/was performing as-designed during the period of your observations.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? |
I have a slightly different take on this as it seems there might already
be some clues here.
Shouldn't the field voltage go above 8 volts when the alternator is
loaded on the ground. If it is putting out less that 14.4 volts at low
rpm - why isn't the field voltage up around 12 or 13? High resistance
somewhere in the field?
Next I'd want to know why 14.7 volts while taxiing in. Is the regulator
voltage going up when it is hot? Does it not throttle back far enough
under light load? Is there a connection that is high resistance when
hot such that the regulator is sensing 14.4 but putting out 14.7
upstream where the voltmeter is located? Or is it an inaccurate voltmeter?
If the connections have already been checked, I'd be tempted to
temporarilly wire in a cheap regulator and see what happens.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> I've got more info now, but I'm not sure what it means. I wired up a
>> jack as per Bob's suggestion and can read field voltage on the VOM in
>> flight. I also changed the setpoint on the regulator by about 1 turn
>> on the adjustment screw. The downloaded installation instructions
>> said that should be about 2 tenths of a volt. It had been running
>> about 14.6. The regulator turns out to be an LR3B-14 not the C model
>> I reported previously. I don't know how much difference that makes.
>>
>> When started, the voltage ran right at 14.4, exactly as expected
>> after the adjustment. The field was about 3.5 to 4.5 volts at idle.
>> I'm using a digital VOM because it's what I have, so it jumps around
>> a bit. With strobe, landing/taxi and position lights on and at idle,
>> the buss came down to about 14.1 and the field rose to about 7 or 8
>> volts. Load was around 17 amps by my meter.
>>
>> In flight the numbers were pretty similar except that the buss never
>> fell much below 14.4 no matter what I did with the lights. The field
>> ran somewhere in the 4ish range with no lights and around 8 with.
>> After about 30 minutes of flying, the buss was at 14.5. When I taxied
>> in, it was 14.7 at idle which I don't understand at all. The field
>> breaker did not blow today.
>>
>> I'm in watch and wait mode for now.
>
>
> Excellent data! . . . and pretty much as expected. Let's review
> the significance:
>
> First, there are no differences between the B & C revisions of this
> regulator that would affect the phenomenon under investigation.
>
> (1) "With strobe, landing/taxi and position lights on and at idle,
> the buss came down to about 14.1 and the field rose to about
> 7 or 8 volts."
>
> (a) The maximum possible range for field voltages is 0 to bus
> voltage . . . or a little below bus voltage because the
> pass transistor doesn't turn on with zero-volt drop. We
> would NEVER expect to see field voltage at ZERO during
> any set of normal operating conditions . . . ZERO field
> is ZERO output. The only time we would expect to see zero
> output is if something was broke.
>
> (b) The slight drop with load is within expectations.
>
> (c) The field voltage reading of 7-8 volts at idle tells us
> that your alternator's output is about half used up for
> this RPM and load conditions. As we noted above, the field
> cannot rise to more than about 14 volts and under the test
> conditions cited, you were already half way there.
>
> (2) "Load was around 17 amps by my meter."
>
> (a) Is this an alternator loadmeter? In other words, the 17A
> reading is the alternator output current for the conditions
> cited?
>
> (3) "In flight the numbers were pretty similar except that the
> buss never fell much below 14.4 no matter what I did with
> the lights."
>
> (a) Every regulator designer is pleased to hear this. The
> goal is to craft electronics that maintains the bus at the
> established set-point irrespective of load. So, for field
> voltages greater than zero and less than bus voltage, we would
> expect the bus voltage to stay put under any load that does
> not cause the field voltage to max out.
>
> (4) "The field ran somewhere in the 4ish range with no lights
> and around 8 with."
>
> (a) What size alternator is this? I think you mentioned a
> 35A machine? Again, the reading of about 8 volts with loads
> on (and assuming the same 17A of output) that the alternator's
> output is about 1/2 used up.
>
> If this were my research project, I'd throw a little 200 samples
> per second data acquisition system (Snipe trap) on the field, bus
> volts and bus amps. Then I'd go fly the airplane and attempt to
> induce a trip by manipulation of controls for electrical system
> loads.
>
> Okay, your snipe catching sack is in hand and your flashlight
> (field volts indicator) is charged up. What we would hope to
> capture is what the field voltage is doing just prior and/or
> during a trip event. On the next flight, you'll want to "fiddle
> with the switches and things" while observing field voltage and
> see if you can induce a trip.
>
> The readings you've cited are strong indications that the system
> is/was performing as-designed during the period of your observations.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rear-Battery version of Z-19 |
| From: | "n707sm" <mobrien02(at)comcast.net> |
Hi Bob,
In Z-19/RB, it's called out to use 6" or less 12AWG between the Main and Engine
Battery contactors and their respective busses. Without building a special mount
for this, I could locate these busses close to the contactors but I would
probably need about 15" of wire each. Would your suggestion be to go to 10AWG
in this case?
Thank you again :D
Best Regards,
Michael
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=119155#119155
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? |
>
>If trying to induce a trip, maybe it would make sense to run the test
>early in the morning when the OAT is low so as to help the alternator put
>out maximum snort? Does this regulator bump the voltage set point in
>response to low temperature (temperature compensated)?
The regulator is not compensated for battery ambient. It
is compensated for a close to zero temperature coefficient
as practical.
Ed also noted that the system tripped several times while
in cruising flight so it seems a low-order probability
that a first start of the day "cold test" would be any
more revealing.
Actually, given the numbers that Ed has cited, I'm
pretty much convinced that "catching" his Snipe is
going to be pretty tough with just a digital voltmeter.
The best we might hope for is that the field voltage
becomes jittery just before a nuisance trip when it
had been stable earlier.
Ed, you might consider getting an el-cheapo analog
meter from Radio Shack. See:
http://tinyurl.com/29yk5d
This instrument has a 15 volt DC range that is ideal
for this investigation. Right now, we're going to be
more interested in dynamics (steady vs. twitchy) as
opposed to knowing the actual reading.
In the mean time, my software guru is looking into
how hard it would be to do a quick turn on a little
4-channel, data acquisition system that would run off
a laptop. Ed, do you have a laptop computer you could
press into the service of Snipe Catching?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Regulator trouble? |
Bob, not sure they get much cheaper than this
http://www.dataq.com/products/startkit/di194rs.htm
They also have them for USB, but not sure of the cost... Also 12Bit version
are available.
Alan
-----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: Monday, June 18, 2007 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Regulator trouble?
-->
>-->
>
>If trying to induce a trip, maybe it would make sense to run the test
>early in the morning when the OAT is low so as to help the alternator
>put out maximum snort? Does this regulator bump the voltage set point
>in response to low temperature (temperature compensated)?
The regulator is not compensated for battery ambient. It
is compensated for a close to zero temperature coefficient
as practical.
Ed also noted that the system tripped several times while
in cruising flight so it seems a low-order probability
that a first start of the day "cold test" would be any
more revealing.
Actually, given the numbers that Ed has cited, I'm
pretty much convinced that "catching" his Snipe is
going to be pretty tough with just a digital voltmeter.
The best we might hope for is that the field voltage
becomes jittery just before a nuisance trip when it
had been stable earlier.
Ed, you might consider getting an el-cheapo analog
meter from Radio Shack. See:
http://tinyurl.com/29yk5d
This instrument has a 15 volt DC range that is ideal
for this investigation. Right now, we're going to be
more interested in dynamics (steady vs. twitchy) as
opposed to knowing the actual reading.
In the mean time, my software guru is looking into
how hard it would be to do a quick turn on a little
4-channel, data acquisition system that would run off
a laptop. Ed, do you have a laptop computer you could
press into the service of Snipe Catching?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Regulator trouble? |
Here's the USB 10 bit version
http://www.dataq.com/products/startkit/di148.htm
And the USB 12 bit version http://www.dataq.com/products/startkit/di158.htm
Hope this helps... Still way cheaper than spending the time/effort to build
one and write the software.
Alan
-----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: Monday, June 18, 2007 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Regulator trouble?
-->
>-->
>
>If trying to induce a trip, maybe it would make sense to run the test
>early in the morning when the OAT is low so as to help the alternator
>put out maximum snort? Does this regulator bump the voltage set point
>in response to low temperature (temperature compensated)?
The regulator is not compensated for battery ambient. It
is compensated for a close to zero temperature coefficient
as practical.
Ed also noted that the system tripped several times while
in cruising flight so it seems a low-order probability
that a first start of the day "cold test" would be any
more revealing.
Actually, given the numbers that Ed has cited, I'm
pretty much convinced that "catching" his Snipe is
going to be pretty tough with just a digital voltmeter.
The best we might hope for is that the field voltage
becomes jittery just before a nuisance trip when it
had been stable earlier.
Ed, you might consider getting an el-cheapo analog
meter from Radio Shack. See:
http://tinyurl.com/29yk5d
This instrument has a 15 volt DC range that is ideal
for this investigation. Right now, we're going to be
more interested in dynamics (steady vs. twitchy) as
opposed to knowing the actual reading.
In the mean time, my software guru is looking into
how hard it would be to do a quick turn on a little
4-channel, data acquisition system that would run off
a laptop. Ed, do you have a laptop computer you could
press into the service of Snipe Catching?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob mackey" <n103md(at)yahoo.com> |
There were several recent recommendations for the use of
RTV (room temperature vulcanizing) elastic sealants.
Before putting this stuff near your airframe or avionics,
you should know that there are many different types of RTV,
and most of them are somewhat corrosive as a result of the
acetic-acid curing chemistry (smells like vinegar).
For mounting antennas to aluminum airframes, consider using an
alcohol-cure RTV such as clear or gray Dow Corning 3145, white
General Electric RTV 162 or gray high strength RTV 167, or clear
Loctite 5140.
These alcohol-cure RTVs are more expensive.
Instead of a buck or three, McMaster sells the GE 162 for $12.66
per 2.8 oz tube.
http://www.mcmaster.com (part number 74935A65, page 3305)
The Dow 3145 is quite a bit more expensive than that.
references:
http://www.logwell.com/tech/servtips/RTV.html
http://www.mgchemicals.com/downloads/appguide/appguide0205-1.pdf
http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/silicones/cureguide-1part.html
... and of course Google...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rear-Battery version of Z-19 |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>In Z-19/RB, it's called out to use 6" or less 12AWG between the Main and
>Engine Battery contactors and their respective busses. Without building a
>special mount for this, I could locate these busses close to the
>contactors but I would probably need about 15" of wire each. Would your
>suggestion be to go to 10AWG in this case?
That's not necessary. 12AWG is good for 15+ amps. I doubt that
you're going to have battery bus totals that exceed that
value!
That 6" "rule" is a real loose thing. Obviously a well
installed wire that's a bit longer isn't going to present
that much increase in crash safety hazard.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? |
>
>I have a slightly different take on this as it seems there might already
>be some clues here.
>
>Shouldn't the field voltage go above 8 volts when the alternator is loaded
>on the ground. If it is putting out less that 14.4 volts at low rpm - why
>isn't the field voltage up around 12 or 13? High resistance somewhere in
>the field?
The voltage will go that high only if one approaches the alternator's
maximum available output current for that RPM. In this case, he cites
a 17A load and ramp idle RPM.
>Next I'd want to know why 14.7 volts while taxiing in. Is the regulator
>voltage going up when it is hot? Does it not throttle back far enough
>under light load? Is there a connection that is high resistance when hot
>such that the regulator is sensing 14.4 but putting out 14.7 upstream
>where the voltmeter is located? Or is it an inaccurate voltmeter?
There's a ton of variables which can stack up to push the setpoint
around a bit . . . what we're interested in finding is an instability
that accounts for the nuisance trip of an OV protection system set to
operate at 16.2 volts or so.
>If the connections have already been checked, I'd be tempted to
>temporarilly wire in a cheap regulator and see what happens.
A cheap regulator wouldn't have the ov protection built in. It
WOULD be a useful experiment to temporarily wire in a substitute
regulator and a separate OV sensor. I think I've got some hardware
laying around we can send him if we don't see something really
profound . . . or he's unable to observe a field and bus voltage
surge associated with the nuisance trip.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator trouble? Probable resolution |
I've been e-mailing with Tim over at B and C (very helpful guy) and
here's what I just sent him:
Howdy Tim,
I checked it out using your troubleshooting guide. Results:
Resistance from batt neg to pin 7 0.0 - 0.1 ohms batt to
engine case 0.0 - 0.1 ohms
Buss volts 12.42 volts
Pin 3 12.33 - 12.40 v (several measurements)
Pin 6 12.07 v
Pin 4 11.02 v
Field terminal 10.86 v
B lead 12.42 v
Everything seemed pretty nominal until I was trying to get a probe into
the field connector on the alternator where I noticed the field wire
looking a little frayed. A very small tug removed it entirely. The wires
had no support for the insulation, just the crimp on the wire itself
which is where it broke.
My theory: The connection would intermittently not conduct too well
and the output voltage on the B lead would drop. The regulator would
respond by pushing the field voltage up and when the connection got
better again, the alternator output voltage would surge in response to
the high field voltage and trip the OVM. Logical?
I put some heat shrink on the wires to give them some support and
reassembled. Started but not yet flown. I expect that the problem is
solved. Time will tell. If inflight voltage stabilizes at less than
14.4, I guess I'll have to crawl under the panel and reset it. What's
the ideal voltage for charging an RG battery?
Thanks for help.
Ed Holyoke
Thanks for all the advice. If it misbehaves again, I'll let y'all know.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> I have a slightly different take on this as it seems there might
>> already be some clues here.
>>
>> Shouldn't the field voltage go above 8 volts when the alternator is
>> loaded on the ground. If it is putting out less that 14.4 volts at
>> low rpm - why isn't the field voltage up around 12 or 13? High
>> resistance somewhere in the field?
>
>
> The voltage will go that high only if one approaches the alternator's
> maximum available output current for that RPM. In this case, he cites
> a 17A load and ramp idle RPM.
>
>> Next I'd want to know why 14.7 volts while taxiing in. Is the
>> regulator voltage going up when it is hot? Does it not throttle back
>> far enough under light load? Is there a connection that is high
>> resistance when hot such that the regulator is sensing 14.4 but
>> putting out 14.7 upstream where the voltmeter is located? Or is it an
>> inaccurate voltmeter?
>
>
> There's a ton of variables which can stack up to push the setpoint
> around a bit . . . what we're interested in finding is an instability
> that accounts for the nuisance trip of an OV protection system set to
> operate at 16.2 volts or so.
>
>
>> If the connections have already been checked, I'd be tempted to
>> temporarilly wire in a cheap regulator and see what happens.
>
>
> A cheap regulator wouldn't have the ov protection built in. It
> WOULD be a useful experiment to temporarily wire in a substitute
> regulator and a separate OV sensor. I think I've got some hardware
> laying around we can send him if we don't see something really
> profound . . . or he's unable to observe a field and bus voltage
> surge associated with the nuisance trip.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Loadmeter vs Battery Ammeter? |
Warning this question is posed by an electron nerd....
I'm planning the installation of probes & sensors for a Z14
architecture. The Z-14 Figures in the 'Connection' seem to depict the
shunts placed for use as 'loadmeters' i.e. they are placed on the
Alternator B lead (which will measure Alt charging only). In reviewing
Bob's notes. He favors a Battery Ammeter, the rationale seems to be that
it measures both charging and discharging of the battery/s. This seems
desirable to me.
However, I'm stumped as to where to locate the Shunts in the Z-14 so as
to be able to connect Battery ammeters.
How about some help?
Deems Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Loadmeter vs Battery Ammeter? |
>
>Warning this question is posed by an electron nerd....
>
>I'm planning the installation of probes & sensors for a Z14 architecture.
>The Z-14 Figures in the 'Connection' seem to depict the shunts placed for
>use as 'loadmeters' i.e. they are placed on the Alternator B lead (which
>will measure Alt charging only). In reviewing Bob's notes. He favors a
>Battery Ammeter, the rationale seems to be that it measures both charging
>and discharging of the battery/s. This seems desirable to me.
The Z-figures represent the latest thinking with respect
to the optimal solutions. The chapter on electrical instrumentation
was written a long time ago and will be updated at revision 12. If you have
only one electrical system monitor, it should be a low voltage
warning light. If you add anything on top of that, I'd recommend
an expanded scale voltmeter on the e-bus and/or alternator
loadmeter(s) . . . but both of those are only small peeks at a variety
of test points you'll need to look at for diagnosis. Ammeters
and voltmeters are poor monitoring tools. And as diagnostic
tools, they are only a part of what's necessary for troubleshooting.
>However, I'm stumped as to where to locate the Shunts in the Z-14 so as to
>be able to connect Battery ammeters.
What kind of panel displays are you considering? If they're
steam-gages, then they'll likely use shunts but if they're
electronic displays, they'll most likely come with hall-effect
sensors. Hall sensors can be place ANYWHERE in the system that
you think is most useful to you for knowing how many electrons
per second are passing that point . . . however, adding shunts
in series with the battery as suggested in Chapter 7 is based
on wobbly logic and poor practice. However, a hall-sensor can
certainly be placed on a battery lead if you so choose.
A caveat on battery lead hall-sensors. When the starter hits the
battery with an inrush current of as much as 1000 amps, the magnetic
forces impressed upon the hall sensor are, shall we say, significant.
The hall sensor MUST (by certain pesky laws of physics) be fitted
with a core material that serves to restrain the field flux around
the wire and supply a proportional sample of that field to the
hall device. EVERY magnetic material has a retentivity value . . .
a measure of permanent "set" that the core material will take
on when excited by an extra-ordinary force.
Depending on the materials used in your hall sensor, the act
of starting the engine can cause a small but significant
semi-permanent "set" of the field flux in the core. This
will manifest itself as what is known as "offset" . . .
a fixed error value that shows up most strongly when
the stimulus to be measured is zero . . . the indicator
reads something other than zero due to the core's
retentivity and influence of the starter inrush current.
Based on this expanded thinking, recommendations for ammeter
locations were revised to what you have in your hands today.
Without knowing more about the specifics of any hall-sensor
that may be supplied to you, I cannot recommend that they
be used as battery ammeters EXCEPT where you avoid running
starter current through the conductors. This means backtracking
to the architecture common in 1965 C-172.
The best I know how to do at the moment suggests that active
notification of low volts is #1. A voltmeter on the e-bus
(gas gage for battery during alternator out operations) is
#2. Items 3 and higher have little or no significance in
the OPERATION of your airplane . . . so sprinkle sample
and display items about your electrical system as you see
fit and you budget allows. Just understand that items 3
and higher offer no useful functions in flight and there
won't be enough of them to do a detailed troubleshooting
study on the ground.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Fusible Link Connector |
Is there any reason that you shouldn't use a soldered connection instead of
an inline connector in a fusible link? Would the solder go before the wires
unlike the solid inline connector? It would just make it a little cleaner
looking.
Thanks Bill S
7a Z13/8/30/32
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jtpackard(at)usfamily.net> |
Can anyone explain why some VOR "cat whisker" antennas are mounted with the
open end of the 'V' facing forward and some facing aft? Is there a
difference in reception quality and/or drag characteristics? Secondly, is
the polyester lamination over the steel for improved precipitation static
protection worth an extra $60? Thanks for any answers posted.
TPackard
--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | The importance of "good" numbers . . . |
I've often cited a simple-idea proffered by one Lord Kelvin
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Printonly/Thomson.html
of whom it might be said, "Was obsessed with the ideas behind
accurate measurement." One of my favorite Kelvin quotes:
"I often say that when you can measure what you are
speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know
something about it; but when you cannot measure it,
when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind. It may be the
beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in
your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever
the matter may be." - Lord Kelvin
We all have at least a rudimentary appreciation for the value
of having accurate numbers to describe the function of our
aircraft. One can easily deduce the potential for expense
and/or hazard if an airspeed indicator is badly out of
calibration . . . or perhaps an altimeter, a gyro, etc.
In many cases, the gathering and consideration of poor numbers
can have an incomprehensible effect on the lives and
fortunes of millions. This is especially true when pseudo-scientists
come to the attention of legislators and craft law based on
poor interpretation of poor numbers. With these thoughts in mind,
consider the facts and ideas presented at:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
There are folks belabored of the assumption that data from
these weather stations (and no doubt MANY more like them)
is accurate to within a tenth of a degree. What do you think?
Something to arm yourself with should you have a chance
to speak to your own representatives who may be inclined
to bring the force of law down upon your future and that
of your children.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna |
TPackard,
I have been told that the orientation is a matter of preference though
the reception pattern ahead is slightly better with the tips pointing
forward. I think many prefer the appearance with the tips pointing aft.
(looks more aerodynamic:)
Richard Dudley
-6A flying (with tips pointing aft)
jtpackard(at)usfamily.net wrote:
>
> Can anyone explain why some VOR "cat whisker" antennas are mounted
> with the open end of the 'V' facing forward and some facing aft? Is
> there a difference in reception quality and/or drag characteristics?
> Secondly, is the polyester lamination over the steel for improved
> precipitation static protection worth an extra $60? Thanks for any
> answers posted.
> TPackard
>
>
> --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! --
> http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible Link Connector |
>Is there any reason that you shouldn't use a soldered connection instead
>of an inline connector in a fusible link? Would the solder go before the
>wires unlike the solid inline connector? It would just make it a little
>cleaner looking.
Food for thought. I think I'd want to test this.
You wouldn't want the joint to melt and then become
an intermittent connection with a potential for
a "soft fault" energy dump.
You can test this. Make up some assemblies and
then use them to fault a car battery. See where
the circuit opens first.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Voltage plus Alt Loadmeter |
THANK YOU sooo much for responding and for the additional information,
I've replied where appropriate below and asked an additional question
for some clarification.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Warning this question is posed by an electron nerd....
>>
>> I'm planning the installation of probes & sensors for a Z14
>> architecture. The Z-14 Figures in the 'Connection' seem to depict the
>> shunts placed for use as 'loadmeters' i.e. they are placed on the
>> Alternator B lead (which will measure Alt charging only). In
>> reviewing Bob's notes. He favors a Battery Ammeter, the rationale
>> seems to be that it measures both charging and discharging of the
>> battery/s. This seems desirable to me.
>
>
> The Z-figures represent the latest thinking with respect
> to the optimal solutions. The chapter on electrical instrumentation
> was written a long time ago and will be updated at revision 12. If
> you have
> only one electrical system monitor, it should be a low voltage
> warning light.
I have the LR-3's from B&C which drive/include Low Voltage indicators.
> If you add anything on top of that, I'd recommend
> an expanded scale voltmeter on the e-bus and/or alternator
> loadmeter(s) . . . but both of those are only small peeks at a variety
> of test points you'll need to look at for diagnosis. Ammeters
> and voltmeters are poor monitoring tools. And as diagnostic
> tools, they are only a part of what's necessary for troubleshooting.
>
>> However, I'm stumped as to where to locate the Shunts in the Z-14 so
>> as to be able to connect Battery ammeters.
>
> What kind of panel displays are you considering?
I have dual glass panels (EFIS) w a glass back-up. The Engine Interface
unit is a JPI product (black box) which captures information from probes
and sensors, it relies on Shunts for AMP meter input. The information
from the EIU black box is interpreted and displayed on graphic
indicators on a display page with the EFIS units.
> If they're
> steam-gages, then they'll likely use shunts but if they're
> electronic displays, they'll most likely come with hall-effect
> sensors. Hall sensors can be place ANYWHERE in the system that
> you think is most useful to you for knowing how many electrons
> per second are passing that point . . . however, adding shunts
> in series with the battery as suggested in Chapter 7 is based
> on wobbly logic and poor practice. However, a hall-sensor can
> certainly be placed on a battery lead if you so choose.
>
> A caveat on battery lead hall-sensors. When the starter hits the
> battery with an inrush current of as much as 1000 amps, the magnetic
> forces impressed upon the hall sensor are, shall we say, significant.
> The hall sensor MUST (by certain pesky laws of physics) be fitted
> with a core material that serves to restrain the field flux around
> the wire and supply a proportional sample of that field to the
> hall device. EVERY magnetic material has a retentivity value . . .
> a measure of permanent "set" that the core material will take
> on when excited by an extra-ordinary force.
>
> Depending on the materials used in your hall sensor, the act
> of starting the engine can cause a small but significant
> semi-permanent "set" of the field flux in the core. This
> will manifest itself as what is known as "offset" . . .
> a fixed error value that shows up most strongly when
> the stimulus to be measured is zero . . . the indicator
> reads something other than zero due to the core's
> retentivity and influence of the starter inrush current.
>
> Based on this expanded thinking, recommendations for ammeter
> locations were revised to what you have in your hands today.
OK, so I've got the low voltage indicators, and If I go ahead and
install the shunts per the Z-14 to supply Alternator loadmeters, I'm not
sure I understand how to interpret the information that I receive from
the Alternator loadmeters. What would this information be telling me? If
I understand it correctly (?) it would display the current that is being
output from the Alternator, correct? But if I understand correctly it
doesn't tell me that the battery is charging, (Is this what you mean
when you say that items 3 and higher have little or no significance in
Operations? can you illuminate?
> Without knowing more about the specifics of any hall-sensor
> that may be supplied to you, I cannot recommend that they
> be used as battery ammeters EXCEPT where you avoid running
> starter current through the conductors. This means backtracking
> to the architecture common in 1965 C-172.
>
> The best I know how to do at the moment suggests that active
> notification of low volts is #1. A voltmeter on the e-bus
> (gas gage for battery during alternator out operations) is
> #2. Items 3 and higher have little or no significance in
> the OPERATION of your airplane . . . so sprinkle sample
> and display items about your electrical system as you see
> fit and you budget allows. Just understand that items 3
> and higher offer no useful functions in flight and there
> won't be enough of them to do a detailed troubleshooting
> study on the ground.
>
Trying to become less of an electron nerd
Deems Davis
RV-10
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna |
I heard once that the forward facing whiskers were to protect the eyes
of the public [and unaware pilots]...
Can anyone explain why some VOR "cat whisker" antennas are mounted with
the
open end of the 'V' facing forward and some facing aft? Is there a
difference in reception quality and/or drag characteristics?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna |
shouldnt matter - precip/icing might be an issue/ appearance probably drives
it. main thing is it should be horizontally polarized while the comm
antennas should be vertically polarized
bobf
W5RF
On 6/19/07, jtpackard(at)usfamily.net wrote:
>
>
> Can anyone explain why some VOR "cat whisker" antennas are mounted with
> the
> open end of the 'V' facing forward and some facing aft? Is there a
> difference in reception quality and/or drag characteristics? Secondly, is
> the polyester lamination over the steel for improved precipitation static
> protection worth an extra $60? Thanks for any answers posted.
> TPackard
>
>
> --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! --
> http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna |
Good Evening bobf and TPackard,
May I suggest that consideration be given to using blade antennas?
I have installed several sets with excellent results. They are relatively
low drag, handle precipitation well, have no issues with ice and nobody has
ever gotten an eye poked out by running into one.
While reception strength and pattern are not very important with modern
radios, the blades do provide excellently balanced reception throughout the
operating range. I generally have fed two VHF navigation receivers and two glide
slope receivers from one set of blades. All in all, very happy with the
results.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/19/2007 5:41:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
bobf(at)feldtman.com writes:
shouldnt matter - precip/icing might be an issue/ appearance probably drives
it. main thing is it should be horizontally polarized while the comm
antennas should be vertically polarized
bobf
W5RF
On 6/19/07, _jtpackard(at)usfamily.net_ (mailto:jtpackard(at)usfamily.net)
<_jtpackard(at)usfamily.net_ (mailto:jtpackard(at)usfamily.net) > wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <_jtpackard(at)usfamily.net _
(mailto:jtpackard(at)usfamily.net) >
Can anyone explain why some VOR "cat whisker" antennas are mounted with the
open end of the 'V' facing forward and some facing aft? Is there a
difference in reception quality and/or drag characteristics? Secondly, is
the polyester lamination over the steel for improved precipitation static
protection worth an extra $60? Thanks for any answers posted.
TPackard
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold Kovac" <kayce33(at)embarqmail.com> |
As far as sealants are concerned, wouldn't shoe goo, Plumbers Goop or RV
Goop from eclectic products work as well? I remember Bob talking about Shoe
Goo and some other similar products. These I believe are all from eclecti
products in LA. I purchased mine at Home Depot...seem to work well.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: "bob mackey" <n103md(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RTV sealants
>
> There were several recent recommendations for the use of
> RTV (room temperature vulcanizing) elastic sealants.
> Before putting this stuff near your airframe or avionics,
> you should know that there are many different types of RTV,
> and most of them are somewhat corrosive as a result of the
> acetic-acid curing chemistry (smells like vinegar).
>
> For mounting antennas to aluminum airframes, consider using an
> alcohol-cure RTV such as clear or gray Dow Corning 3145, white
> General Electric RTV 162 or gray high strength RTV 167, or clear
> Loctite 5140.
>
> These alcohol-cure RTVs are more expensive.
> Instead of a buck or three, McMaster sells the GE 162 for $12.66
> per 2.8 oz tube.
> http://www.mcmaster.com (part number 74935A65, page 3305)
> The Dow 3145 is quite a bit more expensive than that.
>
> references:
> http://www.logwell.com/tech/servtips/RTV.html
> http://www.mgchemicals.com/downloads/appguide/appguide0205-1.pdf
> http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/silicones/cureguide-1part.html
> ... and of course Google...
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RTV sealants |
While it is important to be aware of the side effects of the acidic acid
cured RTVs on electrical contacts/components and use the neutral cured RTVs,
especially in a confined area, there is no problem using them on the
airframe. (Have you ever used self etching primers on your new winged
creation?) The acetic acid cured RTVs provide a stronger adhesion to the
metal substrate, if that is desirable, without the proper primer which may
be required with the neutral cured RTV's. A strong adhesion is not usually
necessary in an electrical/electronic applications.
Dale Ensing
many years silicone RTV experience with aerospace/aviation industry
>
>
> As far as sealants are concerned, wouldn't shoe goo, Plumbers Goop or RV
> Goop from eclectic products work as well? I remember Bob talking about
> Shoe Goo and some other similar products. These I believe are all from
> eclecti products in LA. I purchased mine at Home Depot...seem to work
> well.
> Harold
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bob mackey" <n103md(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:51 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RTV sealants
>
>
>>
>> There were several recent recommendations for the use of
>> RTV (room temperature vulcanizing) elastic sealants.
>> Before putting this stuff near your airframe or avionics,
>> you should know that there are many different types of RTV,
>> and most of them are somewhat corrosive as a result of the
>> acetic-acid curing chemistry (smells like vinegar).
>>
>> For mounting antennas to aluminum airframes, consider using an
>> alcohol-cure RTV such as clear or gray Dow Corning 3145, white
>> General Electric RTV 162 or gray high strength RTV 167, or clear
>> Loctite 5140.
>>
>> These alcohol-cure RTVs are more expensive.
>> Instead of a buck or three, McMaster sells the GE 162 for $12.66
>> per 2.8 oz tube.
>> http://www.mcmaster.com (part number 74935A65, page 3305)
>> The Dow 3145 is quite a bit more expensive than that.
>>
>> references:
>> http://www.logwell.com/tech/servtips/RTV.html
>> http://www.mgchemicals.com/downloads/appguide/appguide0205-1.pdf
>> http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/silicones/cureguide-1part.html
>> ... and of course Google...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RTV sealants |
Good point Dale. With respect to Shoe Goo (E6000) and close cousins. I've
found
that these adhesives have excellent adhesion to clean surfaces and are
relatively
inexpensive and readily available. They do not have the high temperature
operating
characteristics of silicones and I'm not sure what the long term
characteristics
are with respect to ageing and in particular, attacks by the byproducts of
combustion and the inevitable constituents of oil that will end up on the
belly of your airplane.
RTV is not as aggressive as an adhesive and has a lower tensile strength
but it's resistance to evils of the environment and performance at
temperature extremes is inarguable. But if you ever have to open a joint,
it's harder to clean up than E6000 which is easily dissolved with mild
solvents.
In the case of antenna base sealing on the bottom of the aircraft, I
think RTV has "the edge" . . . but it's likely that an E6000 sealing
job will be just fine too.
Bob . . .
>
>
>While it is important to be aware of the side effects of the acidic acid
>cured RTVs on electrical contacts/components and use the neutral cured
>RTVs, especially in a confined area, there is no problem using them on the
>airframe. (Have you ever used self etching primers on your new winged
>creation?) The acetic acid cured RTVs provide a stronger adhesion to the
>metal substrate, if that is desirable, without the proper primer which may
>be required with the neutral cured RTV's. A strong adhesion is not usually
>necessary in an electrical/electronic applications.
>Dale Ensing
>many years silicone RTV experience with aerospace/aviation industry
>
>
>>
>>
>>As far as sealants are concerned, wouldn't shoe goo, Plumbers Goop or RV
>>Goop from eclectic products work as well? I remember Bob talking about
>>Shoe Goo and some other similar products. These I believe are all from
>>eclecti products in LA. I purchased mine at Home Depot...seem to work well.
>>Harold
>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "bob mackey" <n103md(at)yahoo.com>
>>To:
>>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:51 PM
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: RTV sealants
>>
>>
>>>
>>>There were several recent recommendations for the use of
>>>RTV (room temperature vulcanizing) elastic sealants.
>>>Before putting this stuff near your airframe or avionics,
>>>you should know that there are many different types of RTV,
>>>and most of them are somewhat corrosive as a result of the
>>>acetic-acid curing chemistry (smells like vinegar).
>>>
>>>For mounting antennas to aluminum airframes, consider using an
>>>alcohol-cure RTV such as clear or gray Dow Corning 3145, white
>>>General Electric RTV 162 or gray high strength RTV 167, or clear
>>>Loctite 5140.
>>>
>>>These alcohol-cure RTVs are more expensive.
>>>Instead of a buck or three, McMaster sells the GE 162 for $12.66
>>>per 2.8 oz tube.
>>>http://www.mcmaster.com (part number 74935A65, page 3305)
>>>The Dow 3145 is quite a bit more expensive than that.
>>>
>>>references:
>>>http://www.logwell.com/tech/servtips/RTV.html
>>>http://www.mgchemicals.com/downloads/appguide/appguide0205-1.pdf
>>>http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/silicones/cureguide-1part.html
>>>... and of course Google...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>269.9.1/854 - Release Date: 6/19/2007 1:12 PM
>
>
>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna |
Distorting the classic linear dipole antenna by moving the ends
forward or aft on the aircraft will have two significant effects.
See:
http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14182/css/14182_186.htm
The straight dipole in free space will exhibit strong and
equal responses to the broad sides of the dipole and very
sharp nulls (near zero response) to the ends. Obviously,
the "ideal" antenna would have equal and super responses
all the way around the compass . . . but we don't live in
a perfect world. Besides, in aircraft, we're MOST interested
in VOR stations that lie on our path of flight.
As soon as you distort the classic shape, the responses
to the broad sides will change . . . one gets weaker while the
other one gets stronger. This doesn't continue without
bounds . . . if you keep moving the free ends of the
antenna closer together, the antenna morphs from an
effective radiator/receptor of energy to a poorly
terminated transmission line with exceedingly high
SWR.
At the same time the braodside responses are distorting,
the nulls at the ends become less than "perfect" so
your ability to utilize VOR stations that lie off your
heading is improved.
Whether there is advantage to bringing the tips
forward or aft is mostly a matter of style. When
you're flying the Victor Airways, the charts depict
nav aid changeover points where it's recommended
that you stop navigating on the station behind you
and change to the station in front of you. This may
or may not be at the half-way point. There are
folks that spend many $killo$ of your tax money
to survey these routes with the goal of optimizing
performance based on signal strengths from the various
facilities. These surveys account for intermediate
obstructions and other effects of terrain.
Bottom line is that for 99.9% of the way YOUR airplane
is going to be used, the VOR antenna configuration
is not going to be a key component of your recipe for
success in completing the mission of the moment. I think
I'd base antenna selection on cost and appearance
in that order. Bob archer's wing tip antennas are strong
contenders in this market. Only if Bob's product proves
inadequate to YOUR tasks would I consider expanding the
field of consideration for which antenna to use. Obviously,
the v-whiskers are inexpensive and easy to install
and attach to a feed line. Consider using a BALUN to
improve on the interface between dipole and coax. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html
For those members of the List interested in some of the
more esoteric aspect of our craft, cruise the website I
cited above. Stoke the Next/Back links for a broad and
well explained dissertation on antenna science. The same
site has a wealth of other data of interest for the
curious and motivated reader.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna |
>
>
>
>
> Distorting the classic linear dipole antenna by moving the ends
> forward or aft on the aircraft will have two significant effects.
> See:
>
>http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14182/css/14182_186.htm
I thought I recognized some of the stuff in the link
I cited. The Navy's Electricity and Electronics Training
Series are available from the a variety of websites including
my own. They are part of the downloadable CD materials which
you can access at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/
You'll need a high-speed internet connection to get these
documents with any reasonable dispatch. They are big. But
you can't beat the price for acquiring some excellent texts
on matters electronics. I taught out of earlier versions of
these documents at Great Lakes about 40 years ago.
If push comes to shove, you can order the CD from us . . .
or better yet, attend one of the seminars. You get the
CD for free. If you DO have a way to conveniently download
the CD, please duplicate and share with your local aviation
enthusiasts. Our charge for the CD is a nuisance-fee. It's
not our goal to turn a profit on the activity. The goal is
to maximize availability of the offered materials to any folks
who have an interest.
You can get the individual Modules for this series of
documents at:
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/instrumentation/NEETS.htm
Download, share, learn and enjoy . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jtpackard(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna |
Thanks for the suggestion Bob.
One question though. I see the Comant CI-120 blade set for VOR/GS
Navigation sells for approx. $800. Do you know of any priced closer to the
"cat whisker' style?
Thanks,
Tom Packard
Super Rebel 90%(you know what that means!)
--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna |
Good Morning Tom,
No, I do not.
The price is a major detriment.
I was using Dorne Margolin units until they raised their price into the
stratosphere. I then went to Comants and just last year installed a set of Sensor
Systems blades. They have a stainless steel insert in the leading edge which
MAY be helpful on unimproved strips. Don't know yet. Those were mounted
below the stabilizer on a model E18S Twin Beech which frequents many out of the
way landing strips.
The cost factor IS terrible, but they work great!
The "hidden in the wing tip" solution sounds great if it will work!
If that is not an option, I would pop for the blades.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/20/2007 10:57:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
jtpackard(at)usfamily.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
Thanks for the suggestion Bob.
One question though. I see the Comant CI-120 blade set for VOR/GS
Navigation sells for approx. $800. Do you know of any priced closer to the
"cat whisker' style?
Thanks,
Tom Packard
Super Rebel 90%(you know what that means!)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS Antenna |
>
>Thanks for the suggestion Bob.
>One question though. I see the Comant CI-120 blade set for VOR/GS
>Navigation sells for approx. $800. Do you know of any priced closer to
>the "cat whisker' style?
>Thanks,
>Tom Packard
>Super Rebel 90%(you know what that means!)
No, blade antennas are relatively simple with respect
to the antenna part . . . Bob archer could easily
fabricate a suitable pattern on a piece of copper clad
but a couple of 1/16th inch thick, fiberglas "flappers"
bolted to each side of your vertical fin would not draw much
praise for style. The expensive part of building a blade
antenna is to mold a stylistic, robust but LIGHT enclosure
around it. The tooling is not cheap, the process not trivial.
Hence, demand for such antennas has been decidedly low
in spite of the fact that they work well and look good.
A set of blades would also be heavier than a v-whisker
and this weight sets waaaayyy back on the moment arm for
your C.G. calculations.
Finally, given the inexorable fade of VOR as a primary
mode of navigation, it's my suggestion that you figure
out a way to get SOME VOR capability on board with a minimum
of expense and effort. I.e. don't bust yer buns to
achieve an optimized capability. VOR no longer
figures in the best-we-know-how-to-do. The v-whisker is
a mild compromise over blades in terms of performance.
The wing tip antennas are a bit more compromised yet
but sales of those devices is strong. I've not heard
of any one replacing them with another technology
'cause it doesn't perform well enough to accommodate
the mission.
Since I bought my first hand-held GPS in 1995, I've not
turned on a VOR receiver for any purpose other than
to demonstrate it to someone who is along for the ride
or to fiddle with while watching the ground go by.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Voltage plus Alt Loadmeter |
>
>THANK YOU sooo much for responding and for the additional information,
>I've replied where appropriate below and asked an additional question for
>some clarification.
>>
>I have the LR-3's from B&C which drive/include Low Voltage indicators.
That covers the "essentials" . . .
>>If you add anything on top of that, I'd recommend
>> an expanded scale voltmeter on the e-bus and/or alternator
>> loadmeter(s) . . . but both of those are only small peeks at a variety
>> of test points you'll need to look at for diagnosis. Ammeters
>> and voltmeters are poor monitoring tools. And as diagnostic
>> tools, they are only a part of what's necessary for troubleshooting.
>>
>>>However, I'm stumped as to where to locate the Shunts in the Z-14 so as
>>>to be able to connect Battery ammeters.
>>
>> What kind of panel displays are you considering?
>I have dual glass panels (EFIS) w a glass back-up. The Engine Interface
>unit is a JPI product (black box) which captures information from probes
>and sensors, it relies on Shunts for AMP meter input. The information
>from the EIU black box is interpreted and displayed on graphic indicators
>on a display page with the EFIS units.
You use the plural version of shunt. Does the system
have more than one input for monitoring a current? Or
is there one input that can be switched to one of mulitple
shunts?
>OK, so I've got the low voltage indicators, and If I go ahead and install
>the shunts per the Z-14 to supply Alternator loadmeters, I'm not sure I
>understand how to interpret the information that I receive from the
>Alternator loadmeters. What would this information be telling me? If I
>understand it correctly (?) it would display the current that is being
>output from the Alternator, correct? But if I understand correctly it
>doesn't tell me that the battery is charging, (Is this what you mean when
>you say that items 3 and higher have little or no significance in
>Operations? can you illuminate?
IF the bus is being supported at the design set point (i.e.
13.8 to 14.6 volts with 14.2 being nominal) AND assuming
further that the battery is in good shape and capable of
accepting a charge, then it IS being charged. There is no
value in having a minus-zero-plus indicator (battery ammeter)
to confirm this.
I'm presuming that you intend to MAINTAIN the battery with
respect to KNOWING that its capacity is sufficient to your
endurance needs, then knowing that the bus voltage is where
it should be is sufficient.
Alternator loadmeters are generally set up to display percent
of full load. See:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/9007-120-1_Loadmeter.jpg
The instrument is then paired with shunt(s) that are sized
for the capability of the device being monitored. E.g. a
55A alternator should get a 55A shunt, a 20A alternator is
fitted with a 20A shunt. This allows one to switch a single
instrument to as many devices as you wish and know what
PERCENTAGE of that device's capabilities are in demand
at any given time.
As to operations . . . if the low volts warning light is
OUT (and the engine monitor confirms the bus at an acceptable
voltage) of what value is it as a pilot to know what ANY
current is? You have designed your system to carry all the
loads required for operation. Knowing what those loads are
at any given moment are incidental to piloting the airplane.
If the low voltage warning light is ON, of what value is
it to know what any current is? You have designed your
Plan-B operations and KNOW that the battery will support
Plan-B for x number of hours with loads you've already
decided to support.
My assertion is that every load situation for both normal
and alternator-out operations are known in advance and
knowing a reading only validates your Plan-B design
. . . it adds no value for comfortable completion of flight.
Once you're on the ground, you're going to find that
you need a LOT more data to interpret the failure and
deduce needs for repair. So unless you're going to install
a LOT of shunts and voltage sample points for the purpose
of diagnosing the failure from the pilot's seat, the
classic choices for instrumentation beyond a low-volts
warning and an e-bus voltmeter are a toss up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re: MB antennnas |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> I don't need the antenna . . . but if you could
> get me the dimensions I asked about earlier, it
> would be helpful.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Down 6" from the belly and then 88" long. In addition, there is a copper
wire coil about 6" long in the middle of the antenna. Hope this helps.
John Morgensen
RV-9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neil Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RTV sealants |
Another sealant question;
Does anyone know of a sealant-like product that could be used for the
gap between the canopy and body as a weather seal?
I There are no off-the-shelf weather seals I can find that will fit
exactly. Perhaps there's a liquid sealant that can be extruded into
the gap and will mould to the right shape?
Thanks
Neil
At 01:37 PM 6/19/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>As far as sealants are concerned, wouldn't shoe goo, Plumbers Goop
>or RV Goop from eclectic products work as well? I remember Bob
>talking about Shoe Goo and some other similar products. These I
>believe are all from eclecti products in LA. I purchased mine at
>Home Depot...seem to work well.
>Harold
>----- Original Message ----- From: "bob mackey" <n103md(at)yahoo.com>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:51 PM
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: RTV sealants
>
>
>>
>>There were several recent recommendations for the use of
>>RTV (room temperature vulcanizing) elastic sealants.
>>Before putting this stuff near your airframe or avionics,
>>you should know that there are many different types of RTV,
>>and most of them are somewhat corrosive as a result of the
>>acetic-acid curing chemistry (smells like vinegar).
>>
>>For mounting antennas to aluminum airframes, consider using an
>>alcohol-cure RTV such as clear or gray Dow Corning 3145, white
>>General Electric RTV 162 or gray high strength RTV 167, or clear
>>Loctite 5140.
>>
>>These alcohol-cure RTVs are more expensive.
>>Instead of a buck or three, McMaster sells the GE 162 for $12.66
>>per 2.8 oz tube.
>>http://www.mcmaster.com (part number 74935A65, page 3305)
>>The Dow 3145 is quite a bit more expensive than that.
>>
>>references:
>>http://www.logwell.com/tech/servtips/RTV.html
>>http://www.mgchemicals.com/downloads/appguide/appguide0205-1.pdf
>>http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/silicones/cureguide-1part.html
>>... and of course Google...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007 3:02 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RTV sealants |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
There was an article a while back in Sport Aviation that was written by a
fellow that used automotive urethane windshield adhesive to install the
canopy on his RV-4 (I think)..
As I recall, he used a product like this:
http://www.levineautoparts.com/3murwiad10fl.html
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Another sealant question;
>
> Does anyone know of a sealant-like product that could be used for the
> gap between the canopy and body as a weather seal?
> I There are no off-the-shelf weather seals I can find that will fit
> exactly. Perhaps there's a liquid sealant that can be extruded into
> the gap and will mould to the right shape?
>
> Thanks
> Neil
>
>
> At 01:37 PM 6/19/2007, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>As far as sealants are concerned, wouldn't shoe goo, Plumbers Goop
>>or RV Goop from eclectic products work as well? I remember Bob
>>talking about Shoe Goo and some other similar products. These I
>>believe are all from eclecti products in LA. I purchased mine at
>>Home Depot...seem to work well.
>>Harold
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "bob mackey" <n103md(at)yahoo.com>
>>To:
>>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:51 PM
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: RTV sealants
>>
>>
>>>
>>>There were several recent recommendations for the use of
>>>RTV (room temperature vulcanizing) elastic sealants.
>>>Before putting this stuff near your airframe or avionics,
>>>you should know that there are many different types of RTV,
>>>and most of them are somewhat corrosive as a result of the
>>>acetic-acid curing chemistry (smells like vinegar).
>>>
>>>For mounting antennas to aluminum airframes, consider using an
>>>alcohol-cure RTV such as clear or gray Dow Corning 3145, white
>>>General Electric RTV 162 or gray high strength RTV 167, or clear
>>>Loctite 5140.
>>>
>>>These alcohol-cure RTVs are more expensive.
>>>Instead of a buck or three, McMaster sells the GE 162 for $12.66
>>>per 2.8 oz tube.
>>>http://www.mcmaster.com (part number 74935A65, page 3305)
>>>The Dow 3145 is quite a bit more expensive than that.
>>>
>>>references:
>>>http://www.logwell.com/tech/servtips/RTV.html
>>>http://www.mgchemicals.com/downloads/appguide/appguide0205-1.pdf
>>>http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/silicones/cureguide-1part.html
>>>... and of course Google...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007 3:02 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
Lancair sells a "d" seal that would probably work or it looks like you can
get the same stuff from mcmaster carr. Look for silicone seals and you'll
find it, it's 5/8" wide by 3/8" tall and has a flat back. You put in on
with clear silicone. Actually McMaster has tons of that kind of stuff.
Makes good edge protection stuff as well.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neil
Clayton
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RTV sealants
-->
Another sealant question;
Does anyone know of a sealant-like product that could be used for the gap
between the canopy and body as a weather seal?
I There are no off-the-shelf weather seals I can find that will fit exactly.
Perhaps there's a liquid sealant that can be extruded into the gap and will
mould to the right shape?
Thanks
Neil
At 01:37 PM 6/19/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>As far as sealants are concerned, wouldn't shoe goo, Plumbers Goop or
>RV Goop from eclectic products work as well? I remember Bob talking
>about Shoe Goo and some other similar products. These I believe are all
>from eclecti products in LA. I purchased mine at Home Depot...seem to
>work well.
>Harold
>----- Original Message ----- From: "bob mackey" <n103md(at)yahoo.com>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:51 PM
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: RTV sealants
>
>
>>-->
>>
>>There were several recent recommendations for the use of RTV (room
>>temperature vulcanizing) elastic sealants.
>>Before putting this stuff near your airframe or avionics, you should
>>know that there are many different types of RTV, and most of them are
>>somewhat corrosive as a result of the acetic-acid curing chemistry
>>(smells like vinegar).
>>
>>For mounting antennas to aluminum airframes, consider using an
>>alcohol-cure RTV such as clear or gray Dow Corning 3145, white General
>>Electric RTV 162 or gray high strength RTV 167, or clear Loctite 5140.
>>
>>These alcohol-cure RTVs are more expensive.
>>Instead of a buck or three, McMaster sells the GE 162 for $12.66 per
>>2.8 oz tube.
>>http://www.mcmaster.com (part number 74935A65, page 3305) The Dow 3145
>>is quite a bit more expensive than that.
>>
>>references:
>>http://www.logwell.com/tech/servtips/RTV.html
>>http://www.mgchemicals.com/downloads/appguide/appguide0205-1.pdf
>>http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/silicones/cureguide-1part.html
>>... and of course Google...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007 3:02 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Radios squawk ...literally |
Folks,
Away from home with very annoying problem... Dual Icom's, dual antennas,same
problem either one. Hit transmit and I send out a squeal with voice. other
pilots say it is LOUD!! Before I borrow tools and tear things apart, any
suggestions? Only one PTT switch wired in at present. Sound like a bad ground
somewheres?
Any and all help very appreciated.
Jerry Cochran
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Radios squawk ...literally |
Have you tried a different headset? Could be a microphone feedback
problem?
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com
Sent: 20 June 2007 22:20
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radios squawk ...literally
Folks,
Away from home with very annoying problem... Dual Icom's, dual
antennas,same problem either one. Hit transmit and I send out a squeal
with voice. other pilots say it is LOUD!! Before I borrow tools and
tear things apart, any suggestions? Only one PTT switch wired in at
present. Sound like a bad ground somewheres?
Any and all help very appreciated.
Jerry Cochran
_____
See what's free at AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Voltage plus Alt Loadmeter |
Thank you, The fog is beginning to lift
Deems
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> THANK YOU sooo much for responding and for the additional
>> information, I've replied where appropriate below and asked an
>> additional question for some clarification.
>>>
>> I have the LR-3's from B&C which drive/include Low Voltage indicators.
>
> That covers the "essentials" . . .
>
>>> If you add anything on top of that, I'd recommend
>>> an expanded scale voltmeter on the e-bus and/or alternator
>>> loadmeter(s) . . . but both of those are only small peeks at a
>>> variety
>>> of test points you'll need to look at for diagnosis. Ammeters
>>> and voltmeters are poor monitoring tools. And as diagnostic
>>> tools, they are only a part of what's necessary for troubleshooting.
>>>
>>>> However, I'm stumped as to where to locate the Shunts in the Z-14
>>>> so as to be able to connect Battery ammeters.
>>>
>>> What kind of panel displays are you considering?
>> I have dual glass panels (EFIS) w a glass back-up. The Engine
>> Interface unit is a JPI product (black box) which captures
>> information from probes and sensors, it relies on Shunts for AMP
>> meter input. The information from the EIU black box is interpreted
>> and displayed on graphic indicators on a display page with the EFIS
June 08, 2007 - June 21, 2007
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gz