AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-iy

August 13, 2009 - August 31, 2009



         
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Date: Aug 13, 2009
Old Bob & others, Somehow this subject and the track it has taken just seems to beg for my little story about my first solo in the T-38 that Old Bob mentioned here. Remember the "Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more." Part of Old Bob's story. So, having successfully launched and shot three acceptable touch and go landings, it was time to make a full stop. But then someone blows a tire on landing and litters the runway with debris that has to be cleaned up. Suddenly I am Bingo fuel on my initial solo in the T-38. That's not supposed to happen. The pattern is filling up with other T-38's needing to get on the ground soon and I'm starting to sweat. My turn comes and I'm more than a little tense and it seemed that the normally hypersensitive T-38 was even more so at minimum fuel. That leads to a pronounced case of P.I.O. (pilot induced oscillation) on final, which requires afterburners to recover, followed by a closed traffic pattern (afterburner climb from the runway to the downwind 1500' above, or virtually an Immleman off the runway). The next landing attempt was successful, but I spent at least a mile of the two-mile long runway with the nose high and the rear tires maybe a foot off the runway because I hadn't quite pulled the throttles all the way back to the stops. So, I was 21 years old then and I'm 66 years old now, and in that 45 years I don't think I have run out of gas in anything but maybe a chain saw. My RV-8A, if it every gets finished, has low fuel warning lights similar to what Bob N. has described that I bought as a kit a few years ago. It already has capacitive gauges and a fuel flow sender. Terry RV-8A Seattle From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:39 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Good Afternoon Old Ian, If you are saying you disagree with my philosophy, that is just fine. I rarely plan to arrive with only ten minutes of reserve fuel, but there are conditions where I would be happy to do so. The T-38 flights at Edwards were just such flights. My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and fuel to get there It All Depends! That is more than what the FAA requires, but it is what I like to have. However, I do NOT wish to arrive anywhere without knowing accurately how much fuel I do have on board. If I know that amount due to careful timing or by the trust I have in my fuel gauges, I still want to know the amount, not just that there is an indeterminate large amount of fuel on board. You speak quite sarcastically about an airplane that was arriving at "your" destination and who was not listening to your pronouncements on the radio. We all must remember that it is still legal for aircraft that have no radio to be using most airspace in this nation. You may not think that is proper, but if you are flying in pilot controlled airspace, you should always be aware that it is quite likely that a NORDO aircraft may be sharing "your" airspace. The most likely cause of a NORDO conflict is when you or the pilot of the other aircraft have made the error of not tuning the correct frequency, flipping the right audio switch, pressing the wrong mike button or other similar pilot failures of omission or commission. I know I have made all of those errors at one time or another. While I try very hard to reduce my errors, I know that I am human and all of us humans do make mistakes. Not only that, but radios DO fail. That is what planning is all about. We plan what we need and how to handle what we don't expect. Such planning requires careful analysis of the conditions that prevail and that includes a good idea as to how much fuel we have at any particular moment. I do not wish to carry somewhere between three to five hours of fuel when I have no idea which amount of fuel is actually in my flying machine. Whether I plan on landing with ten minutes fuel or four hours fuel, I want to know how much there is and where it is located. Happy Skies, Old Bob Didn't get that way by making Wild Guesses! In a message dated 8/13/2009 2:05:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ixb(at)videotron.ca writes: It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas ten minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!! Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated calls on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that his radio reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more than ten minutes, and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around. Old Ian (and planning to get older). Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 13, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Afternoon Terry, First off, thank you for your service! I last flew the T-38 about ten years ago and I was seventy at the time. Believe me, had we not had all that salt available plus north base and south base at Edwards, I would not have been so comfortable at Bingo fuel level. That T-38 is sure a neat machine whether there are elephants or monkeys dancing on the tail. As Always, It All Depends! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/13/2009 4:10:57 P.M. Central Daylight Time, terry(at)tcwatson.com writes: Old Bob & others, Somehow this subject and the track it has taken just seems to beg for my little story about my first solo in the T-38 that Old Bob mentioned here. Remember the =9CBingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes wort h. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more.=9D Part of Old Bob=99s story. So, having successfully launched and shot three acceptable touch and go landings, it was time to make a full stop. But then someone blows a tire on landing and litters the runway with debris that has to be cleaned up. Suddenly I am Bingo fuel on my initial solo in the T-38. That=99s not supposed to happen. The pattern is filling up with other T-38=99s needing to ge t on the ground soon and I=99m starting to sweat. My turn comes and I =99m more than a little tense and it seemed that the normally hypersensitive T-38 was even more so at minimum fuel. That leads to a pronounced case of P.I.O. (pilot induced oscillation) on final, which requires afterburners to recover, followed by a closed traffic pattern (afterburner climb from the runway to the downwind 1500=99 above, or virtually an Immleman off the runway). The next landing attempt was successful, but I spent at least a mile of the two-mi le long runway with the nose high and the rear tires maybe a foot off the runway because I hadn=99t quite pulled the throttles all the way back to the stops. So, I was 21 years old then and I=99m 66 years old now, and in that 45 years I don=99t think I have run out of gas in anything but maybe a chain saw. My RV-8A, if it every gets finished, has low fuel warning lights similar to what Bob N. has described that I bought as a kit a few years ago. It alre ady has capacitive gauges and a fuel flow sender. Terry RV-8A Seattle From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV3 5B(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:39 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Good Afternoon Old Ian, If you are saying you disagree with my philosophy, that is just fine. I rarely plan to arrive with only ten minutes of reserve fuel, but there are conditions where I would be happy to do so. The T-38 flights at Edwar ds were just such flights. My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and fue l to get there It All Depends! That is more than what the FAA requires, but it is what I like to have. However, I do NOT wish to arrive anywhere without knowing accurately how much fuel I do have on board. If I know that amount due to careful timing or by the trust I have in my fuel gauges, I still want to know the amount, not just that there is an indeterminate large amount of fuel on board. You speak quite sarcastically about an airplane that was arriving at "your" destination and who was not listening to your pronouncements on th e radio. We all must remember that it is still legal for aircraft that have no radio to be using most airspace in this nation. You may not think that is proper, but if you are flying in pilot controlled airspace, you should al ways be aware that it is quite likely that a NORDO aircraft may be sharing "your" airspace. The most likely cause of a NORDO conflict is when you or the pilot of the other aircraft have made the error of not tuning the correct frequency, flipping the right audio switch, pressing the wrong mike button or other similar pilot failures of omission or commission. I know I have made all of those errors at one time or another. While I try very hard to reduce my errors, I know that I am human and all of us humans do make mistakes. Not only that, but radios DO fail. That is what planning is all about. We plan what we need and how to handl e what we don't expect. Such planning requires careful analysis of the conditions that prevail and that includes a good idea as to how much fuel we have at any particular moment. I do not wish to carry somewhere between three to five hours of fuel when I have no idea which amount of fuel is actuall y in my flying machine. Whether I plan on landing with ten minutes fuel or four hours fuel, I wan t to know how much there is and where it is located. Happy Skies, Old Bob Didn't get that way by making Wild Guesses! In a message dated 8/13/2009 2:05:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ixb(at)videotron.ca writes: It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas ten minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!! Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated calls on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that his ra dio reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more than ten minute s, and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around. Old Ian (and planning to get older). Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) ======================== ============ ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ======================== ============ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > Just out of curiosity, What ever happened to "Ernest is a Nerd?" He > sure seemed like a very nice person? > It was "Ernest is a Geek". He is still at http://ernest.isa-geek.org, and he still works on his airplane occassionally, but he turned one of his hobbies into a start-up that is beginning to see some success and now he is a crochety old billy-goat 8*) -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five > minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and > fuel to get there Aren't we really talking about two different things. One is the preflight planning where we calculate and then decide upon how much fuel to carry. The other is fighting to get a dead accurate fuel reading that would be used to make inflight decisions. You have a lot more experience than me. You would preflight and put on just enough fuel. I do it for fun, would preflight to make sure that fuel will be of no concern and launch with a full tank (I only have the one). If you know that you have exactly 4.9 gallons left 10 miles out, you know that you need to make that first approach a good one. If my needle is barely bouncing off the "E" ten miles out, I know that I need to make that first approach a good one. -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Date: Aug 13, 2009
And if your flying machine has one hour of fuel when full, you will always land with at least forty-five minutes of fuel on board. Of course, your normal fuel range will be only fifteen minutes long. Happy Skies, Old Bob My personal phylosophy is "If I keep some fuel in the top 3/4 of the tank, the bottom 1/4 will take care of itself" Well, Old Bob, You seem to have your facts skewed slitely! An aircraft which can carry 1 hr. of fuel, landing with 1/4 tank has 15 minutes fob, not 45. I have never owned an aircraft that only carries 1 hr. of fuel. I have no fight with you, just making a correction. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
"The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable." Knowing where the edge is may increase the comfort of going close to the edge, but not knowing where the edge is attempting to make decisions with no reliable data. In short, would we rather make decisions from hard facts, or soft ambiguity. I would rather have precise knowledge of fuel quantity, and then rely on discipline to plan appropriately compared to never being sure. Chuck Jensen -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:31 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the philosophy I think you are espousing. There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident you will be at that spot at the appointed time. To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more. We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes. Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the reliability of the landing estimate To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$. I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land. Just my thoughts Happy Skies, Old Bob Stearman N3977A Downers Grove, Illinois LL22 In a message dated 8/13/2009 9:56:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: > IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An analog > design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use is a > simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge reads > gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated each > time fuel is added. This is an ambitious design goal . . . and technologically feasible. I'll suggest that there are good reasons NOT to have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an airplane. Folks who learned about living comfortably in the world of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that oldest pilots were not so bold as to flight-plan with a dependency upon their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The reasons for this are pretty clear. It's difficult to anticipate your fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed over the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. Conditions at the destination airport can force delays or an alternate, etc. The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable. The prudent pilot never launches into an extended operation with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up to the tab, slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From time of take of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware of the fact that so many hours from now, the engine stops. He's also aware of the variables that affect accuracy of that calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" fuel is a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for hitting the "wall of variables" in flight planning. Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that accurately depicts engine stopping to the minute is a psychological trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and his/her passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, including yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel quantity measurement to good advantage . . . as long as you continue to recognize that the value of that accuracy becomes less useful as larger and less predictable conditions pile onto your error budget. > It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has to remember > how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many homebuilts > use this product with success. No issues with slosh. > >I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many cal >points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar. This >setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate due to >slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float mechanism. All true. But never diminish the ideas that described the WHOLE flight system and the environment in which it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend on the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement system, be alert and cognizant of both the values and risks associated with KNOWING that number when there are other more restrictive conditions that you cannot know or predict with accuracy. This is why our fuel gaging system will include both a reasonably accurate level indication system combined with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The published advise for using this system will suggest that no matter how accurate the indication, no matter how well your planning conforms to actual conditions, when that low fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% assured of comfortable return to earth whether at your airport of intended destination or not. There are situations where the guy flying comfortably with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than the guy who believes there is exploitable value in knowing fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest cubic centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but shucks, those takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much fun. You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too. Bob . . . Use utilities Day ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======================= - List Contribution Web Site sp; _____ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Personally I would never rely on a fuel level guage to tell me how much I have left. What I have is a flow computer which actually measures flow going to the engine. It has been proven over and again to be accurate to within 1/10th of a gallon over full tanks. The tank level guages are a backup indication which I expect to correspond to the integral of the flowrate..If not then chances are there is a hole in a tank...If either show unextected redings I am landing early, particularly if flying in IMC. The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie. Frank RV7a -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest Christley Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:42 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges --> BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five > minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and > fuel to get there Aren't we really talking about two different things. One is the preflight planning where we calculate and then decide upon how much fuel to carry. The other is fighting to get a dead accurate fuel reading that would be used to make inflight decisions. You have a lot more experience than me. You would preflight and put on just enough fuel. I do it for fun, would preflight to make sure that fuel will be of no concern and launch with a full tank (I only have the one). If you know that you have exactly 4.9 gallons left 10 miles out, you know that you need to make that first approach a good one. If my needle is barely bouncing off the "E" ten miles out, I know that I need to make that first approach a good one. -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
From: Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca>
Date: Aug 13, 2009
OK, not wishing to have the last word, but at least being willing to clarify my philosophical response to your initial input. A. I have never flown a T38 or a helicopter. B. I imagine my limited hours in Cessnas, Pipers and now my RV-9A are more typical on this list. C. I may not be the only person on the list who wonders how you could legally plan to have only "ten to fifteen minutes fuel" left. D. My comment about a runway incursion had nothing to do with NORDO but thanks for the lecture anyway. I agree that's it's as important for us to remember that NORDO traffic exists, as it is for NORDO traffic to observe normal circuit protocol, if nothing else than for their own sake. Your response, though, was irrelevant to the topic of not running yourself down to the last ten minutes of fuel. In fact it proved the point. The guy who taxied onto the runway on my final approach just didn't look or listen to anything other than his girlfriend! The fact was that he was the reason I had to go around. E. Getting back to the philosophy thing, I sincerely believe that the majority of the people reading this have never lifted an air conditioner on top of a building. They may have read your comment about flying within ten minutes of your life without realizing that you would only do that when lifting a heavy air conditioner near the lifting capabilities of your aircraft. I'm sure that if you re-read your initial comment you might agree that it wasn't quite qualified in that way. My response was not out of disrespect for an eminently skillful and experienced pilot, but out of concern for us mere mortals, low time pilots, who when reading this thread, may have been misled into believing that it's more important to focus on the accuracy of your fuel gauge than to keep plenty gas in the tank. I'd add to the old adage about "nothing more useless than runway behind you or altitude above you" that there is very little opportunity, after the fact, to claim that there was a really useful airspace in you tanks just ready for all that fuel. Respectfully, Ian > Good Afternoon Old Ian, > > If you are saying you disagree with my philosophy, that is just fine. > > I rarely plan to arrive with only ten minutes of reserve fuel, but > there are conditions where I would be happy to do so. The T-38 flights > at Edwards were just such flights. > > My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five > minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and > fuel to get there > > It All Depends! > > That is more than what the FAA requires, but it is what I like to > have. However, I do NOT wish to arrive anywhere without knowing > accurately how much fuel I do have on board. If I know that amount due > to careful timing or by the trust I have in my fuel gauges, I still > want to know the amount, not just that there is an indeterminate large > amount of fuel on board. > > You speak quite sarcastically about an airplane that was arriving at > "your" destination and who was not listening to your pronouncements on > the radio. > > We all must remember that it is still legal for aircraft that have no > radio to be using most airspace in this nation. You may not think that > is proper, but if you are flying in pilot controlled airspace, you > should always be aware that it is quite likely that a NORDO aircraft > may be sharing "your" airspace. > > The most likely cause of a NORDO conflict is when you or the pilot of > the other aircraft have made the error of not tuning the correct > frequency, flipping the right audio switch, pressing the wrong mike > button or other similar pilot failures of omission or commission. I > know I have made all of those errors at one time or another. While I > try very hard to reduce my errors, I know that I am human and all of > us humans do make mistakes. Not only that, but radios DO fail. > > That is what planning is all about. We plan what we need and how to > handle what we don't expect. Such planning requires careful analysis > of the conditions that prevail and that includes a good idea as to how > much fuel we have at any particular moment. I do not wish to carry > somewhere between three to five hours of fuel when I have no idea > which amount of fuel is actually in my flying machine. > > Whether I plan on landing with ten minutes fuel or four hours fuel, I > want to know how much there is and where it is located. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > Didn't get that way by making Wild Guesses! > > In a message dated 8/13/2009 2:05:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > ixb(at)videotron.ca writes: > > It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of > semantics. We're talking about life-saving behaviours like > not PLANNING to run out of gas ten minutes from now, whilst > still flying!!!!!! > > Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" > decided to go ahead and encroach the runway without a radio > call, despite my repeated calls on downwind, base, final, and > "overshooting". He apologized that his radio reception > wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his > eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at > five hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My > circuit took more than ten minutes, and I had PLENTY fuel for > the go-around. > > Old Ian (and planning to get older). > > > > Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, > > This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree > > with the philosophy I think you are espousing. > > There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe > > landing spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as > > you are confident you will be at that spot at the appointed > > time. > > To say we should always have something beyond what is > > required is too broad for my liking. On those few occasions > > when I had the pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every > > time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a > > bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full > > power go around and not much more. > > We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in > > our flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce > > the amount of fuel down to what is required for the mission > > at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks and it can > > fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning > > for that airplane often has me arriving with less than one > > hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of > > landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and > > as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I > > would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo > > fuel of twenty minutes. > > Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added > > fuel for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. > > Carrying no more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we > > managed to get more air conditioners per day up on top of > > those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on > > the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the > > reliability of the landing estimate > > To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane > > be fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens > > to quit. We have decided that a good single engine provides > > adequate safety for many of us. The same thing goes for > > carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed > > for the task at hand costs us money and $time$. > > I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I > > want when I land. > > Just my thoughts > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > > Stearman N3977A > > Downers Grove, Illinois > > LL22 > > In a message dated 8/13/2009 9:56:02 A.M. Central Daylight > > Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: > > > > Nuckolls, III" > > > > > > > IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a > > plane. An analog > > > design is required. The best solution I have seen > > and I use is a > > > simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. > > The gauge reads > > > gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to > > be updated each > > > time fuel is added. > > > > This is an ambitious design goal . . . and > > technologically > > feasible. I'll suggest that there are good > > reasons NOT to > > have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an > > airplane. > > > > Folks who learned about living comfortably in > > the world > > of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that > > oldest pilots > > were not so bold as to flight-plan with a > > dependency upon > > their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The > > reasons for > > this are pretty clear. It's difficult to > > anticipate your > > fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed > > over > > the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. > > Conditions > > at the destination airport can force delays or > > an alternate, etc. > > > > The finely tuned fuel level indication system > > encourages > > the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's > > willingness > > to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly > > comfortable. > > The prudent pilot never launches into an > > extended operation > > with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up > > to the tab, > > slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From > > time of take > > of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware > > of the fact > > that so many hours from now, the engine stops. > > He's also > > aware of the variables that affect accuracy of > > that > > calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" > > fuel is > > a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for > > hitting the > > "wall of variables" in flight planning. > > > > Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that > > accurately > > depicts engine stopping to the minute is a > > psychological > > trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and > > his/her > > passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, > > including > > yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel > > quantity > > measurement to good advantage . . . as long as > > you > > continue to recognize that the value of that > > accuracy > > becomes less useful as larger and less > > predictable > > conditions pile onto your error budget. > > > > > It is accurate after the initial fill. One still > > has to remember > > > how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. > > Many homebuilts > > > use this product with success. No issues with > > slosh. > > > > > >I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which > > allows many cal > > >points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the > > Northstar. This > > >setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still > > inaccurate due to > > >slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in > > the float mechanism. > > > > All true. But never diminish the ideas that > > described > > the WHOLE flight system and the environment in > > which > > it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend > > on > > the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement > > system, > > be alert and cognizant of both the values and > > risks > > associated with KNOWING that number when there > > are other more restrictive conditions that you > > cannot know or predict with accuracy. > > > > This is why our fuel gaging system will include > > both > > a reasonably accurate level indication system > > combined > > with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The > > published > > advise for using this system will suggest that > > no matter > > how accurate the indication, no matter how well > > your > > planning conforms to actual conditions, when > > that low > > fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% > > assured > > of comfortable return to earth whether at your > > airport > > of intended destination or not. > > > > There are situations where the guy flying > > comfortably > > with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than > > the > > guy who believes there is exploitable value in > > knowing > > fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest > > cubic > > centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but > > shucks, those > > takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much > > fun. > > You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too. > > > > Bob . . . ========================= Use > > utilities Day > > =============================================== > > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS > > =============================================== > > - List Contribution Web Site sp; > > ================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 13, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Afternoon Ernest, I guess we could separate it into two parts, but I do not see it that way. Just like you, I fly for fun.(Always have, even when I was getting paid for it!) Part of that fun is planning the trip. You surmise that I "put on just enough fuel". That may be true in some way, but "just enough fuel" means to me that I have enough fuel to get to my destination and adequate reserves to cover whatever may come to pass. Is that any different from the way you do it? If you always carry full fuel, doesn't the total you have available enter into the planning as to how long a flight you will plan? The more knowledge I have about my fuel quantity and the rate of burn, the better decisions I can make as to how to handle contingencies My daily transportation machine is ten knots slower with full fuel on board than it is when it is at my minimum fuel weight. That is a BIG difference to me and worthy of some thought as to just how heavy I want my machine to be. As Always, It All Depends! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/13/2009 4:42:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five > minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and > fuel to get there Aren't we really talking about two different things. One is the preflight planning where we calculate and then decide upon how much fuel to carry. The other is fighting to get a dead accurate fuel reading that would be used to make inflight decisions. You have a lot more experience than me. You would preflight and put on just enough fuel. I do it for fun, would preflight to make sure that fuel will be of no concern and launch with a full tank (I only have the one). If you know that you have exactly 4.9 gallons left 10 miles out, you know that you need to make that first approach a good one. If my needle is barely bouncing off the "E" ten miles out, I know that I need to make that first approach a good one. -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 13, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Afternoon Roger, My recollection is that you said you like to keep the fuel level above the three quarter mark so that the one quarter mark takes care of itself. That is why I said forty-five minutes! I see that you really said you want to keep it in the top three quarters of the tank capacity, so I do stand corrected. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/13/2009 4:42:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time, mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net writes: And if your flying machine has one hour of fuel when full, you will always land with at least forty-five minutes of fuel on board. Of course, your normal fuel range will be only fifteen minutes long. Happy Skies, Old Bob My personal phylosophy is "If I keep some fuel in the top 3/4 of the tank, the bottom 1/4 will take care of itself" Well, Old Bob, You seem to have your facts skewed slitely! An aircraft which can carry 1 hr. of fuel, landing with 1/4 tank has 15 minutes fob, not 45. I have never owned an aircraft that only carries 1 hr. of fuel. I have no fight with you, just making a correction. Roger (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > > The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie. > I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have never enjoyed flying a Grumman Yankee with 11 gallons in each wing and an O-320. :-) John Morgensen RV4 Grumman AA1B-150 (For Sale) RV9A (wiring) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
From: rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Hi Frank RV7a "The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie." For the record sight tubes can and do lie all the time! Don't absoluetly trust them. Get foamy fuel above them, or if the run on top of sighthas a sag and you get fuel in it, orif you get air below them, or foamy below them, or if the outlet is in a higher or lower pressure then inside the tank, you can get a low or high reading. Bout as reliable as Cessna fuel gauges IMHO. For anyone who installs one on their machine, take the timewith a few 1 liter soda bottles and a piece of tygon tubing between them to learn the downside to such a stone simple indicator that has the potential to have your engine playing silent night. Has happened to more than a few Europas. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Ask Sean Tucker about his last Dead Stick Landing in California a few weeks ago. It was a sight glass issue which he admitted included Operator error. Great Story. John From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:26 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Hi Frank RV7a "The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie." For the record sight tubes can and do lie all the time! Don't absoluetly trust them. Get foamy fuel above them, or if the run on top of sight has a sag and you get fuel in it, or if you get air below them, or foamy below them, or if the outlet is in a higher or lower pressure then inside the tank, you can get a low or high reading. Bout as reliable as Cessna fuel gauges IMHO. For anyone who installs one on their machine, take the time with a few 1 liter soda bottles and a piece of tygon tubing between them to learn the downside to such a stone simple indicator that has the potential to have your engine playing silent night. Has happened to more than a few Europas. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring
in Z schematics? At 12:02 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote: > >Here are the links to the schematics: > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf The preferred methodology for PM alernator control assuming you're NOT depending on the AC output waveform to drive an engine tachometer as shown in . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z20L.pdf where we see the AC windings permanently connected to the rectifier/regulator. Here, alternator control reverts to the older philosophy of opening the DC power output lead from the R/R. Z20L.pdf had been plotted but not uploaded to the server. Z20K.dwg was still up and needed deletion. Must have been one of those late night deals . . . Note that Z-21 was a special adaptation to accommodate electronic controlled fuel injection . . . further, it suggests a means by which alternator control relay power to energize can come from either the battery or the alternator. >http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z21A.pdf Any of these drawings will perform as advertised and should be applied pending a match of your design goals and installed equipment with the matching Z-figure. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
UnVubmluZyBvdXQgb2YgZnVlbCBjb250aW51ZXMgdG8gYmUgYSBoaWdoIGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9yIHRv IFByZW1hdHVyZSBjb25jbHVzaW9uIG9mIGZsaWdodCBwcmlvciB0byBpbnRlbmRlZCBwbGFubmlu ZyAtIGxlYWRpbmcgdG8gaW5jcmVhc2VkIGluc3VyYW5jZSBwb2xpY3kgcGF5b3V0cy4gIE1ha2Vz IG1lIHJldGhpbmsgdGhlIFBsYW5uaW5nIHBvcnRpb24gd2l0aCB0b2RheSdzIHBvc3QuDQoNCiAN Cg0KSm9obg0KDQogDQoNCkZyb206IG93bmVyLWFlcm9lbGVjdHJpYy1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRy b25pY3MuY29tIFttYWlsdG86b3duZXItYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLWxpc3Qtc2VydmVyQG1hdHJvbmlj cy5jb21dIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBJYW4NClNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBBdWd1c3QgMTMsIDIwMDkg MTI6MDAgUE0NClRvOiBhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBS ZTogQWVyb0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3Q6IFJlOiBDYWxpYnJhdGluZyBmdWVsIHF0eSBnYXVnZXMNCg0K IA0KDQpJdCdzIGEgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnRseSBtb3JlIHNlcmlvdXMgZXhlcmNpc2UgdGhhbiBvbmUg b2Ygc2VtYW50aWNzLiAgV2UncmUgdGFsa2luZyBhYm91dCBsaWZlLXNhdmluZyBiZWhhdmlvdXJz IGxpa2Ugbm90IFBMQU5OSU5HIHRvIHJ1biBvdXQgb2YgZ2FzIHRlbiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gbm93 LCB3aGlsc3Qgc3RpbGwgZmx5aW5nISEhISEhDQoNClR3byBkYXlzIGFnbyBJIHJldHVybmVkIHRv IHRoZSBjaXJjdWl0IGFuZCAic29tZSBpZGlvdCIgZGVjaWRlZCB0byBnbyBhaGVhZCBhbmQgZW5j cm9hY2ggdGhlIHJ1bndheSB3aXRob3V0IGEgcmFkaW8gY2FsbCwgZGVzcGl0ZSBteSByZXBlYXRl ZCBjYWxscyBvbiBkb3dud2luZCwgYmFzZSwgZmluYWwsIGFuZCAib3ZlcnNob290aW5nIi4gICBI ZSBhcG9sb2dpemVkIHRoYXQgaGlzIHJhZGlvIHJlY2VwdGlvbiB3YXNuJ3QgdmVyeSBnb29kLCBi dXQgdGhlbiBhcHBhcmVudGx5IG5laXRoZXIgd2FzIGhpcyBleWVzaWdodC4gIEhlIHRoZW4gZXhp dGVkIG91ciByaWdodCBoYW5kIGNpcmN1aXQgVU5ERVIgbWUsIGF0IGZpdmUgaHVuZHJlZCBmZWV0 LCAgd2hpbGUgSSB3YXMgc3RpbGwgaW4gdGhlIG92ZXJzaG9vdC4gIE15IGNpcmN1aXQgdG9vayBt b3JlIHRoYW4gdGVuIG1pbnV0ZXMsIGFuZCBJIGhhZCBQTEVOVFkgZnVlbCBmb3IgdGhlIGdvLWFy b3VuZC4NCg0KT2xkIElhbiAoYW5kIHBsYW5uaW5nIHRvIGdldCBvbGRlcikuDQoNCk9uIFRodSwg MjAwOS0wOC0xMyBhdCAxMzozMCAtMDQwMCwgQm9ic1YzNUJAYW9sLmNvbSB3cm90ZTogDQoNCkdv b2QgQWZ0ZXJub29uICdMZWN0cmljIEJvYiwgDQoNCgkgIA0KDQoJVGhpcyBtYXkgYmUganVzdCBh biBleGVyY2lzZSBpbiBzZW1hbnRpY3MsIGJ1dCBJIGRvIGRpc2FncmVlIHdpdGggdGhlIHBoaWxv c29waHkgSSB0aGluayB5b3UgYXJlIGVzcG91c2luZy4gDQoNCgkgIA0KDQoJVGhlcmUgaXMgbm90 aGluZyB3cm9uZyB3aXRoIHBsYW5uaW5nIG9uIGFycml2aW5nIGF0IGEgc2FmZSBsYW5kaW5nIHNw b3Qgd2l0aCB0ZW4gdG8gZmlmdGVlbiBtaW51dGVzIG9mIGZ1ZWwgYXMgbG9uZyBhcyB5b3UgYXJl IGNvbmZpZGVudCB5b3Ugd2lsbCBiZSBhdCB0aGF0IHNwb3QgYXQgdGhlIGFwcG9pbnRlZCB0aW1l LiANCg0KCSAgDQoNCglUbyBzYXkgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGFsd2F5cyBoYXZlIHNvbWV0aGluZyBiZXlv bmQgd2hhdCBpcyByZXF1aXJlZCBpcyB0b28gYnJvYWQgZm9yIG15IGxpa2luZy4gT24gdGhvc2Ug ZmV3IG9jY2FzaW9ucyB3aGVuIEkgaGFkIHRoZSBwbGVhc3VyZSBvZiBmbHlpbmcgYSBULTM4LCB3 ZSBsYW5kZWQgZXZlcnkgdGltZSB3aXRoICJCaW5nbyIgZnVlbC4gSW4gdGhhdCBhaXJwbGFuZSwg QmluZ28gZnVlbCB3YXMgYSBiaXQgbGVzcyB0aGFuIHR3ZW50eSBtaW51dGVzIHdvcnRoLiBHb29k IGVub3VnaCBmb3Igb25lIGZ1bGwgcG93ZXIgZ28gYXJvdW5kIGFuZCBub3QgbXVjaCBtb3JlLiAN Cg0KCSAgDQoNCglXZSBwYXkgYSBMT1Qgb2YgbW9uZXkgZm9yIGV2ZXJ5IHBvdW5kIG9mIHBheWxv YWQgd2UgcHV0IGluIG91ciBmbHlpbmcgbWFjaGluZXMuIEkgdGhpbmsgaXQgaXMgdmVyeSByYXRp b25hbCB0byByZWR1Y2UgdGhlIGFtb3VudCBvZiBmdWVsIGRvd24gdG8gd2hhdCBpcyByZXF1aXJl ZCBmb3IgdGhlIG1pc3Npb24gYXQgaGFuZC4gTXkgY3Jvc3MgY291bnRyeSBmbHllciBoYXMgdGlw IHRhbmtzIGFuZCBpdCBjYW4gZmFpcmx5IGVhc2lseSBmbHkgdHdlbHZlIGhvdXJzIHdpdGggZnVs bCB0YW5rcy4gTXkgcGxhbm5pbmcgZm9yIHRoYXQgYWlycGxhbmUgb2Z0ZW4gaGFzIG1lIGFycml2 aW5nIHdpdGggbGVzcyB0aGFuIG9uZSBob3VycyB3b3J0aCBvZiBmdWVsLiBJZiBJIHdhcyBhYmxl IHRvIGJlIGFzIGNlcnRhaW4gb2YgbGFuZGluZyBmaWVsZCBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgYXMgSSB3YXMg d2hlbiBmbHlpbmcgdGhlIFQtMzggYW5kIGFzIGNvbmZpZGVudCBhcyBJIHdhcyBvZiB0aGUgYWNj dXJhY3kgb2YgdGhlIGZ1ZWwgZ2F1Z2VzLCBJIHdvdWxkIG5vdCBoZXNpdGF0ZSB0byBmbHkgbXkg bG9uZyByYW5nZXIgZG93biB0byBhIEJpbmdvIGZ1ZWwgb2YgdHdlbnR5IG1pbnV0ZXMuIA0KDQoJ ICANCg0KCUJhY2sgd2hlbiBJIHdhcyBkb2luZyBzbGluZyB3b3JrIHdpdGggYSBoZWxpY29wdGVy LCB3ZSBhZGRlZCBmdWVsIGZvciBlYWNoIHRyaXAgbGlmdGluZyBhaXIgY29uZGl0aW9uZXJzIHRv IGEgcm9vZiB0b3AuIENhcnJ5aW5nIG5vIG1vcmUgdGhhbiBhYm91dCBmaXZlIG1pbnV0ZXMgb2Yg cmVzZXJ2ZSBmdWVsLCB3ZSBtYW5hZ2VkIHRvIGdldCBtb3JlIGFpciBjb25kaXRpb25lcnMgcGVy IGRheSB1cCBvbiB0b3Agb2YgdGhvc2Ugcm9vZnMuIFRoZSByZXNlcnZlIGZ1ZWwgcGxhbm5lZCBv biBzaG91bGQgYmUgYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIGFjY3VyYWN5IG9mIHRoZSBmdWVsIGluZGljYXRpbmcg c3lzdGVtIGFuZCB0aGUgcmVsaWFiaWxpdHkgb2YgdGhlIGxhbmRpbmcgZXN0aW1hdGUgDQoNCgkg IA0KDQoJVG8gZG8gb3RoZXJ3aXNlIGlzIGFzIGZvb2xpc2ggYXMgYXNraW5nIHRoYXQgZXZlcnkg YWlycGxhbmUgYmUgZml0dGVkIHdpdGggZm91ciBlbmdpbmVzIGp1c3QgaW4gY2FzZSBvbmUgb2Yg dGhlbSBoYXBwZW5zIHRvIHF1aXQuIFdlIGhhdmUgZGVjaWRlZCB0aGF0IGEgZ29vZCBzaW5nbGUg ZW5naW5lIHByb3ZpZGVzIGFkZXF1YXRlIHNhZmV0eSBmb3IgbWFueSBvZiB1cy4gVGhlIHNhbWUg dGhpbmcgZ29lcyBmb3IgY2FycnlpbmcgZXh0cmEgZnVlbC4gRXZlcnkgb3VuY2Ugd2UgY2Fycnkg dGhhdCBpcyBub3QgbmVlZGVkIGZvciB0aGUgdGFzayBhdCBoYW5kIGNvc3RzIHVzIG1vbmV5IGFu ZCAkdGltZSQuIA0KDQoJICANCg0KCUkgcHJlZmVyIHRvIGtub3cgaG93IG11Y2ggZnVlbCBpcyBv biBib2FyZCBhbmQgaG93IG11Y2ggSSB3YW50IHdoZW4gSSBsYW5kLiANCg0KCSAgDQoNCglKdXN0 IG15IHRob3VnaHRzIA0KDQoJICANCg0KCUhhcHB5IFNraWVzLCANCg0KCSAgDQoNCglPbGQgQm9i IA0KDQoJU3RlYXJtYW4gTjM5NzdBIA0KDQoJRG93bmVycyBHcm92ZSwgSWxsaW5vaXMgDQoNCglM TDIyIA0KDQoJICANCg0KCUluIGEgbWVzc2FnZSBkYXRlZCA4LzEzLzIwMDkgOTo1NjowMiBBLk0u IENlbnRyYWwgRGF5bGlnaHQgVGltZSwgbnVja29sbHMuYm9iQGFlcm9lbGVjdHJpYy5jb20gd3Jp dGVzOiANCg0KCQktLT4gQWVyb0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3QgbWVzc2FnZSBwb3N0ZWQgYnk6ICJSb2Jl cnQgTC4gTnVja29sbHMsIElJSSIgPG51Y2tvbGxzLmJvYkBhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMuY29tPg0KCQkN CgkJDQoJCT4gIElNTywgZml4ZWQgcG9pbnQgc2Vuc29ycyBhcmUgbm90IHdvcmthYmxlIGluIGEg cGxhbmUuIEFuIGFuYWxvZyANCgkJPiBkZXNpZ24gaXMgcmVxdWlyZWQuIFRoZSBiZXN0IHNvbHV0 aW9uIEkgaGF2ZSBzZWVuIGFuZCBJIHVzZSBpcyBhIA0KCQk+IHNpbXBsZSBib2F0IHR1cmJpbmUg ZmxvdyBtZXRlciBtYWRlIGJ5IE5vcnRoc3Rhci4gVGhlIGdhdWdlIHJlYWRzIA0KCQk+IGdhbC9o b3VyLCBnYWwgcmVtYWluaW5nLCBhbmQgZ2FsIHVzZWQuIEl0IGhhcyB0byBiZSB1cGRhdGVkIGVh Y2ggDQoJCT4gdGltZSBmdWVsIGlzIGFkZGVkLg0KCQkNCgkJICAgIFRoaXMgaXMgYW4gYW1iaXRp b3VzIGRlc2lnbiBnb2FsIC4gLiAuIGFuZCB0ZWNobm9sb2dpY2FsbHkNCgkJICAgIGZlYXNpYmxl LiBJJ2xsIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgZ29vZCByZWFzb25zIE5PVCB0bw0KCQkgICAg aGF2ZSBzdWNoIGFjY3VyYWN5IGRpc3BsYXllZCBvbiB0aGUgcGFuZWwgb2YgYW4gYWlycGxhbmUu DQoJCQ0KCQkgICAgRm9sa3Mgd2hvIGxlYXJuZWQgYWJvdXQgbGl2aW5nIGNvbWZvcnRhYmx5IGlu IHRoZSB3b3JsZA0KCQkgICAgb2YgYWlycGxhbmVzIGRpc2NvdmVyZWQgcHJldHR5IHF1aWNrbHkg dGhhdCBvbGRlc3QgcGlsb3RzDQoJCSAgICB3ZXJlIG5vdCBzbyBib2xkIGFzIHRvIGZsaWdodC1w bGFuIHdpdGggYSBkZXBlbmRlbmN5IHVwb24NCgkJICAgIHRoZWlyICJmdWRnZSBmYWN0b3JzIi4g SS5lLiBmdWVsIHJlc2VydmVzLiBUaGUgcmVhc29ucyBmb3INCgkJICAgIHRoaXMgYXJlIHByZXR0 eSBjbGVhci4gSXQncyBkaWZmaWN1bHQgdG8gYW50aWNpcGF0ZSB5b3VyDQoJCSAgICBmdWVsIG5l ZWRzIHdpdGggYWNjdXJhY3kuIFdpbmRzIGNhbiBhZmZlY3Qgc3BlZWQgb3Zlcg0KCQkgICAgdGhl IGdyb3VuZC4gV2VhdGhlciBjYW4gYWZmZWN0IHJvdXRpbmcgY2hhbmdlcy4gQ29uZGl0aW9ucw0K CQkgICAgYXQgdGhlIGRlc3RpbmF0aW9uIGFpcnBvcnQgY2FuIGZvcmNlIGRlbGF5cyBvciBhbiBh bHRlcm5hdGUsIGV0Yy4NCgkJDQoJCSAgICBUaGUgZmluZWx5IHR1bmVkIGZ1ZWwgbGV2ZWwgaW5k aWNhdGlvbiBzeXN0ZW0gZW5jb3VyYWdlcw0KCQkgICAgdGhlIHBpbG90IHRvIGV4cGxvaXQgdGhh dCBrbm93bGVkZ2UuIFRoZSBwaWxvdCdzIHdpbGxpbmduZXNzDQoJCSAgICB0byBmbHkgY2xvc2Vy ICJ0byB0aGUgZWRnZSIgYmVjb21lcyBpbmNyZWFzaW5nbHkgY29tZm9ydGFibGUuDQoJCSAgICBU aGUgcHJ1ZGVudCBwaWxvdCBuZXZlciBsYXVuY2hlcyBpbnRvIGFuIGV4dGVuZGVkIG9wZXJhdGlv bg0KCQkgICAgd2l0aCBsZXNzIHRoYW4gS05PV04gYW1vdW50cyBvZiBmdWVsIGFib2FyZC4gVXAg dG8gdGhlIHRhYiwNCgkJICAgIHNsb3QtaW4tdGhlLXRhYiwgb3IgYmV0dGVyIHlldCAuIC4gLiBm dWxsLiBGcm9tIHRpbWUgb2YgdGFrZQ0KCQkgICAgb2YsIHRoZSBwaWxvdCB3aXRoIE5PIGZ1ZWwg Z2FnZSBpcyBhY3V0ZWx5IGF3YXJlIG9mIHRoZSBmYWN0DQoJCSAgICB0aGF0IHNvIG1hbnkgaG91 cnMgZnJvbSBub3csIHRoZSBlbmdpbmUgc3RvcHMuIEhlJ3MgYWxzbw0KCQkgICAgYXdhcmUgb2Yg dGhlIHZhcmlhYmxlcyB0aGF0IGFmZmVjdCBhY2N1cmFjeSBvZiB0aGF0DQoJCSAgICBjYWxjdWxh dGlvbi4gSGVuY2UsIHRoYXQgdGhpbmcgY2FsbGVkICJyZXNlcnZlIiBmdWVsIGlzDQoJCSAgICBh IGJvdGggYSBQSFlTSUNBTCBhbmQgUFNZQ0hPTE9HSUNBTCBidWZmZXIgZm9yIGhpdHRpbmcgdGhl DQoJCSAgICAid2FsbCBvZiB2YXJpYWJsZXMiIGluIGZsaWdodCBwbGFubmluZy4NCgkJDQoJCSAg ICBGaXR0aW5nIGFuIGFpcnBsYW5lIHdpdGggYSBmdWVsIGdhZ2UgdGhhdCBhY2N1cmF0ZWx5DQoJ CSAgICBkZXBpY3RzIGVuZ2luZSBzdG9wcGluZyB0byB0aGUgbWludXRlIGlzIGEgcHN5Y2hvbG9n aWNhbA0KCQkgICAgdHJhcCB0aGF0IFdJTEwgZXZlbnR1YWxseSBjYXRjaCBzb21lIHBpbG90IGFu ZCBoaXMvaGVyDQoJCSAgICBwYXNzZW5nZXJzLiBJJ20gbm90IHN1Z2dlc3RpbmcgdGhhdCBhbnlv bmUsIGluY2x1ZGluZw0KCQkgICAgeW91cnNlbGYsIGNhbm5vdCBwcnVkZW50bHkgdXNlIGFjY3Vy YXRlIGZ1ZWwgcXVhbnRpdHkNCgkJICAgIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IHRvIGdvb2QgYWR2YW50YWdlIC4g LiAuIGFzIGxvbmcgYXMgeW91DQoJCSAgICBjb250aW51ZSB0byByZWNvZ25pemUgdGhhdCB0aGUg dmFsdWUgb2YgdGhhdCBhY2N1cmFjeQ0KCQkgICAgYmVjb21lcyBsZXNzIHVzZWZ1bCBhcyBsYXJn ZXIgYW5kIGxlc3MgcHJlZGljdGFibGUNCgkJICAgIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMgcGlsZSBvbnRvIHlvdXIg ZXJyb3IgYnVkZ2V0Lg0KCQkNCgkJPiAgSXQgaXMgYWNjdXJhdGUgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGluaXRpYWwg ZmlsbC4gT25lIHN0aWxsIGhhcyB0byByZW1lbWJlciANCgkJPiBob3cgbWFueSBnYWxsb25zIGlz IHNhZmUgd2hlbiB0aGUgdGFuayBnZXRzIGxvdy4gTWFueSBob21lYnVpbHRzIA0KCQk+IHVzZSB0 aGlzIHByb2R1Y3Qgd2l0aCBzdWNjZXNzLiBObyBpc3N1ZXMgd2l0aCBzbG9zaC4NCgkJPg0KCQk+ SSBhbSB0cnlpbmcgdGhlIENydXpQcm8gZ2F1Z2UgZm9yIG15IHRydWNrIHdoaWNoIGFsbG93cyBt YW55IGNhbCANCgkJPnBvaW50cyBhbmQgdGhlIGdhdWdlIHJlYWRzIHRoZSBzYW1lIHN0dWZmIGFz IHRoZSBOb3J0aHN0YXIuIFRoaXMgDQoJCT5zZXR1cCB1c2VzIHRoZSBzdG9jayByZXNpc3RhbmNl IGdhdWdlIGFuZCBpcyBzdGlsbCBpbmFjY3VyYXRlIGR1ZSB0byANCgkJPnNsb3NoIGFuZCB0aWx0 LiBIb3dldmVyIHRoZXJlIGlzIHNvbWUgZGFtcGluZyBpbiB0aGUgZmxvYXQgbWVjaGFuaXNtLg0K CQkNCgkJICAgIEFsbCB0cnVlLiBCdXQgbmV2ZXIgZGltaW5pc2ggdGhlIGlkZWFzIHRoYXQgZGVz Y3JpYmVkDQoJCSAgICB0aGUgV0hPTEUgZmxpZ2h0IHN5c3RlbSBhbmQgdGhlIGVudmlyb25tZW50 IGluIHdoaWNoDQoJCSAgICBpdCBvcGVyYXRlcy4gRXZlbiBpZiB5b3UgY2FuIGFic29sdTh0ZWx5 IGRlcGVuZCBvbg0KCQkgICAgdGhlIGFjY3VyYWN5IG9mIGEgZnVlbCBxdWFudGl0eSBtZWFzdXJl bWVudCBzeXN0ZW0sDQoJCSAgICBiZSBhbGVydCBhbmQgY29nbml6YW50IG9mIGJvdGggdGhlIHZh bHVlcyBhbmQgcmlza3MNCgkJICAgIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgd2l0aCBLTk9XSU5HIHRoYXQgbnVtYmVy IHdoZW4gdGhlcmUNCgkJICAgIGFyZSBvdGhlciBtb3JlIHJlc3RyaWN0aXZlIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMg dGhhdCB5b3UNCgkJICAgIGNhbm5vdCBrbm93IG9yIHByZWRpY3Qgd2l0aCBhY2N1cmFjeS4NCgkJ DQoJCSAgICBUaGlzIGlzIHdoeSBvdXIgZnVlbCBnYWdpbmcgc3lzdGVtIHdpbGwgaW5jbHVkZSBi b3RoDQoJCSAgICBhIHJlYXNvbmFibHkgYWNjdXJhdGUgbGV2ZWwgaW5kaWNhdGlvbiBzeXN0ZW0g Y29tYmluZWQNCgkJICAgIHdpdGggImRpcCBzdGljayIgYWNjdXJhdGUgbGV2ZWwgd2FybmluZ3Mu IFRoZSBwdWJsaXNoZWQNCgkJICAgIGFkdmlzZSBmb3IgdXNpbmcgdGhpcyBzeXN0ZW0gd2lsbCBz dWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgbm8gbWF0dGVyDQoJCSAgICBob3cgYWNjdXJhdGUgdGhlIGluZGljYXRpb24s IG5vIG1hdHRlciBob3cgd2VsbCB5b3VyDQoJCSAgICBwbGFubmluZyBjb25mb3JtcyB0byBhY3R1 YWwgY29uZGl0aW9ucywgd2hlbiB0aGF0IGxvdw0KCQkgICAgZnVlbCB3YXJuaW5nIGxpZ2h0IGNv bWVzIG9uIHlvdSBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIDEwMCUgYXNzdXJlZA0KCQkgICAgb2YgY29tZm9ydGFibGUg cmV0dXJuIHRvIGVhcnRoIHdoZXRoZXIgYXQgeW91ciBhaXJwb3J0DQoJCSAgICBvZiBpbnRlbmRl ZCBkZXN0aW5hdGlvbiBvciBub3QuDQoJCQ0KCQkgICAgVGhlcmUgYXJlIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMgd2hl cmUgdGhlIGd1eSBmbHlpbmcgY29tZm9ydGFibHkNCgkJICAgIHdpdGggYSB3aXJlIG9uIGEgY29y ayBpcyBwZXJoYXBzIGJldHRlciBvZmYgdGhhbiB0aGUNCgkJICAgIGd1eSB3aG8gYmVsaWV2ZXMg dGhlcmUgaXMgZXhwbG9pdGFibGUgdmFsdWUgaW4ga25vd2luZw0KCQkgICAgZnVlbCBxdWFudGl0 eSByZW1haW5pbmcgZG93biB0byB0aGUgbmVhcmVzdCBjdWJpYw0KCQkgICAgY2VudGltZXRlci4g SGUgbWF5IG1ha2UgbW9yZSBmdWVsIHN0b3BzIGJ1dCBzaHVja3MsIHRob3NlDQoJCSAgICB0YWtl b2ZmcyBhbmQgbmVhciBncmVhc2VyIGxhbmRpbmdzIGFyZSBzbyBtdWNoIGZ1bi4NCgkJICAgIFlv dSBnZXQgdG8gbWVldCBtb3JlIGZyaWVuZGx5IEZCTyBsaW5lIGJveXMgdG9vLg0KCQkNCgkJICAg IEJvYiAuIC4gLiA9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09IFVzZSB1dGlsaXRpZXMgRGF5ID09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PSAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyA9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0gICAgICAgICAgICAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0aW9uIFdlYiBTaXRl IHNwOyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCgkJDQoJCQ0KCQkNCg0KCSANCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KCSANCgkgDQoJIA0KCSANCg0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 13, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Evening John, Agreed. That is why we should emphasis the planning aspects so that we will all know for sure whether or not we have adequate en route fuel and adequate reserves to cover all reasonable alternatives. With modern fuel flow capability we sure should know what we are burning. If we have reasonably accurate fuel gauges, we should be able to spot any discrepancy that might indicate a fuel leak. Works for me! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/13/2009 6:38:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com writes: Running out of fuel continues to be a high contributor to Premature conclusion of flight prior to intended planning - leading to increased insurance policy payouts. Makes me rethink the Planning portion with today's post. John From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ian Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:00 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas ten minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!! Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated calls on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that his radio reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more than ten minutes, and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around. Old Ian (and planning to get older). Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the philosophy I think you are espousing. There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident you will be at that spot at the appointed time. To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more. We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes. Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the reliability of the landing estimate To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$. I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land. Just my thoughts Happy Skies, Old Bob Stearman N3977A Downers Grove, Illinois LL22 In a message dated 8/13/2009 9:56:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An analog > design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use is a > simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge reads > gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated each > time fuel is added. This is an ambitious design goal . . . and technologically feasible. I'll suggest that there are good reasons NOT to have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an airplane. Folks who learned about living comfortably in the world of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that oldest pilots were not so bold as to flight-plan with a dependency upon their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The reasons for this are pretty clear. It's difficult to anticipate your fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed over the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. Conditions at the destination airport can force delays or an alternate, etc. The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable. The prudent pilot never launches into an extended operation with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up to the tab, slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From time of take of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware of the fact that so many hours from now, the engine stops. He's also aware of the variables that affect accuracy of that calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" fuel is a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for hitting the "wall of variables" in flight planning. Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that accurately depicts engine stopping to the minute is a psychological trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and his/her passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, including yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel quantity measurement to good advantage . . . as long as you continue to recognize that the value of that accuracy becomes less useful as larger and less predictable conditions pile onto your error budget. > It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has to remember > how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many homebuilts > use this product with success. No issues with slosh. > >I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many cal >points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar. This >setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate due to >slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float mechanism. All true. But never diminish the ideas that described the WHOLE flight system and the environment in which it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend on the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement system, be alert and cognizant of both the values and risks associated with KNOWING that number when there are other more restrictive conditions that you cannot know or predict with accuracy. This is why our fuel gaging system will include both a reasonably accurate level indication system combined with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The published advise for using this system will suggest that no matter how accurate the indication, no matter how well your planning conforms to actual conditions, when that low fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% assured of comfortable return to earth whether at your airport of intended destination or not. There are situations where the guy flying comfortably with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than the guy who believes there is exploitable value in knowing fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest cubic centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but shucks, those takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much fun. You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too. Bob . . . ========================= Use utilities Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ================================================== ____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
The poor guy wants a reliable fuel quantity meter. He did not ask about proper flight planning and all you guys philosophy on that wrong subject. If there is an instrument in the plane it should reflect what is going on. Like oil pressure should read correctly in flight as well as on the ground. same thing with the volt meter etc. Level sensing fuel gauges do not give reasonable accuracy in flight but usually give good data on the ground. A flow meter gauge reads fuel remaining any time it is powered on. I cite the example of the famous Cessna fuel cap o-ring. On a flight from Denver to Cheyenne with full tanks. The poor pilot arrived in Cheyenne with no reserve. To bad he did not have a reliable gauge that told him the fuel remaining was drastically decreasing. Even if he watched his gauge he probably did not believe it because it is so erratic in flight. For sure this was not a flight planning issue. So a functional gauge especially with a warning feature would be desirable in case it is desired to monitor a fuel related failure mode. Bottom line is we do not have to live with garbage gauges that have been used for years or newfangled level sensing gauges that only are good on the ground. I guess I don't understand the resistance to functional gauges. Please set me straight. Paul =========== At 03:01 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote: > > >At 12:30 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote: >Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, > >This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with >the philosophy I think you are espousing. > >There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing >spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are >confident you will be at that spot at the appointed time. > > Confidence is the key word. I recall one situation > where upon returning to ICT in a Skipper, I was asked > to run downwind and expect to follow three big fellows > already lined up for the one long runway opened. With > requisite spacing being observed, I trudged half way > out to Whitewater Ks while the big guys did their > thing. This probably added 12-15 minutes to my planned > flight time. If I had planned to land with 15 minutes > remaining . . . > > Now, I did pass within a few miles of other runway > options on the extended downwind. Further, I could > have declared low fuel and no doubt would have been > given access to the concrete . . . along a good chewing > out by numerous folks on the ground. > >To say we should always have something beyond what is required is >too broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the >pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. >In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes >worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more. > > But keep in mind my friend that we're not here to > offer advice and training to professional pilots. > Only a small percentage of our 1800 readers fly for > a living and many if not most are under 300 hour > pilots. > > In the mean time, technology continues to march ahead > and it's now quite possible to have milliliter accuracy > for measured fuel, 10-yard accuracy for present > position, 1 foot/second accuracy for speed over the > ground. This DOES add up to a lot of capability if > used with training, experience, good judgement and > the calibration of all sources is good. > >We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our >flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of >fuel down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross >country flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve >hours with full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me >arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be >as certain of landing field availability as I was when flying the >T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I >would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of >twenty minutes. > >Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel >for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no >more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more >air conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel >planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating >system and the reliability of the landing estimate > >To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be >fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. >We have decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety >for many of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every >ounce we carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us >money and $time$. > > Agreed . . . and Cole Hamels can probably put > a fast-ball through the strike zone 99% of the > time. But he does it for a living. > >I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land. > > Not a thing wrong with that . . . particularly if that > data can be used with skill. My concern for the > technology explosion in flight instrumentation > is that new and/or relatively low utilization > pilots will come to depend on those things with > decisions made 400 miles away. However, when you're > 30 miles out and no other good place to land, your > pre-departure planning skills get tested. The risks > for unanticipated or overlooked conditions can become > critical. > > I don't fly because it's comfortable, convenient, > or even without some degree of stress. I fly because > it's fun and I'm willing to expend the $time$ and > emotional capital to enjoy the experience. I don't > do it for a living. There are lots of ways to have an > unhappy day in the airplane. Of all hazards to flight, > fuel starvation is the easiest to avoid yet it remains > the #1 reason for loss of power in flight. The idea > that I can launch in a GA light aircraft and DEPEND > weather AND access to runways controlled by others > is fraught with some uncertainty and risk. > > One may argue that having accurate fuel data > can trigger an early termination of flight to > avoid the unhappy day . . . but it can also > be combined with other data to make a press-on > decision with an exponential rise in risk. > > I'm the first to extol the capabilities of modern > electo-whizzies (especially the ones I designed!). > But unless we are flying for a living, I'll suggest > that Uncle Bert's "highway in the sky" and AGATE's > "push-button-auto-land" technology have limited future > in the airplanes we're building and the reasons > for which most of us fly. Carrying around 40-60 > pounds of "fuel never used" has some operational > expense but it brings a huge reduction in risk > for the casual/recreational pilot. These folks > will have to suffer THEIR bad day in the cockpit > at the exercise of some other hazard. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: ANL Current limiters
At 08:03 PM 8/8/2009, you wrote: >Bob: > Is there a section in AeroElectric Connection where you discuss > the role of ANL current limiters? I've got revision 11 and I can't > seem to find it, although i've read the book three times. I'm sure > it's escaped me. > > Many thanks for your continued guidance.\] These are very robust (long blow time, very overload tolerant) fuses. The application is limited to fat wires at risk of damage from a battery-energizde (read 1000+ amps) faults. Where do you think you'd like to used one? Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
paul wilson wrote: > > I guess I don't understand the resistance to functional gauges. Please > set me straight. > Paul No resistance, Paul. It is just that I don't think they can be had for reasonable dollars and effort. You're trying to hit a moving target. Literally, the fuel is jumping around all over the place. You can have mechanics integrate over time to come up with an average level. You can have electronics integrate for you, or you can do the integration on your own. Every design is a different moving target, and every gauge will have a slightly different calibration. Install a simple gauge, then get to know how it behaves and you will be better off. -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
From: Andrew Butler <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com>
Subject: Relay Diodes and OVM Modules
Hello, Self excitation is built into Z13-8Q. There are two 1N5400 diodes attached to the relay. One is in series with the coil. What is the purpose of having a diode here instead of just a piece of wire? I have wired up mine with this diode in place. It appears to be linked to the presence of the Crowbar Overvoltage Module in parallel with the relay coil, as the same set-up is depicted in other drawings where it is employed (Z21A & Z31). I have been queried as to why I have used a diode here (I basically followed the drawings) and I am unable to answer. Can someone help me understand the physics here so that I can come up with a meaningful answer. Best regards, Andrew Butler, RV7 EI-EEO Galway, Ireland. Firewall Forward and wiring tidy up! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luigit(at)freemail.it
Subject: Re: Icom 200
Date: Aug 14, 2009
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found --- A message with no text/plain MIME section was received. The entire body of the message was removed. Please resend the email using Plain Text formatting. HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section in their client's default configuration. If you're using HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text". --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found --- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
From: Daniel De Winter <daniel_de_winter(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Icom 200
Luigi,=0A=0Ais this in your Esqual?=0A=0ADDW=0AEsqual=0A=0A=0A_____________ ___________________=0AFrom: "luigit(at)freemail.it" <luigit(at)freemail.it>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: F riday, 14 August, 2009 13:22:23=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom =0AThank you Ralph.=0AI checked again the whole system with no results.=0AT he connections on the molex are right.=0AIf you blow in the mike you can he ar a weak answer in the earphone-but nothing else.=0AI tried to measure t he resistance of the microphone while speaking but I don't see any change i n value shown.=0AThe checks continue.=0AWhen I will obtain any result, -I 'll keep you informed.=0AGreetings from the-old world in a sunny day.=0AL uigi=0ARome, Italy=0Ap.s.: the first check I made-was to install the radi o on another plane. It works- in both ways.=0A- . =0A=0A=0A-------- =0A Ralph - CH701 / 2200a =0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here: =0A=0Ahtt p://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257443#257443 =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A--- Dada Music Movement, tutta la musica che vuoi! ========0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Hmm..would seem I stand corrected here..and your right I have never flown behind one. OK I'll stand behind my fuel flow computer function in mt Dynon EMS then..that is deadly accurate..as long as as I don't get a tank leak at least..:) Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Morgensen Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:25 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges --> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> (Corvallis)" > > The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie. > I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have never enjoyed flying a Grumman Yankee with 11 gallons in each wing and an O-320. :-) John Morgensen RV4 Grumman AA1B-150 (For Sale) RV9A (wiring) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Morning Frank, Is the Dynon unit a fuel flow gauge or a fuel tank gauge? The Dynon Fuel flow gauge in our grandaughter's homebuilt Legend Cub works just as good as do the Shadin's we have in our certifed machines. The fuel gauge in the Cub is a sight tube and is not worth much at all. With only nineteen gallons of total fuel capacity, the fuel flow gauge and totalizer is a very important tool when she flies her Cub from Palo Alto to Oshkosh and back. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/14/2009 9:19:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time, frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Hmm..would seem I stand corrected here..and your right I have never flown behind one. OK I'll stand behind my fuel flow computer function in mt Dynon EMS then..that is deadly accurate..as long as as I don't get a tank leak at least..:) Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Morgensen Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:25 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges --> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> (Corvallis)" > > The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie. > I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have never enjoyed flying a Grumman Yankee with 11 gallons in each wing and an O-320. :-) John Morgensen RV4 Grumman AA1B-150 (For Sale) RV9A (wiring) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
The Dynon is actually both. Its an integrated engine managemnt system..in o ther words it takes numerous inputs (CHT, EGIT, RPM, MP, OAT etc) into a si ngle 4" screen on the PX side that is swapable to the EFIS on my side..you can also swap the EFIS to the EMS to let the PX have a full flight deck..pr etty slick. Anyway, the flowmeter uses one of those little turbine units as the flow se nsor in the line feeding the engine. The Dynon then counts the pulses to te ll you have much fuel you have burned. It works the same way as a lot of th e experimental fuel flow transducers. The Van's standard resistive float tank senders appear to be pretty accurat e too and these are also read by the Dynon...I'd never trust them fully tho ugh. Palo Alto to OSH and back in a CUB?..Woah, she has more patience than I do. .:) The RV cruises at about 160kts on roughly 7 gallons an hour of autofuel (I can get that down to about 6.6GPH at 12 to 14k) ...And with 42 gallons I ca n almost make western Oregon to Fort collins Colorado in one tankful..but t hats a bit tight for my comfort margins and the Wife won't stay in the airp lane for 5.5 hours...:) Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 7:55 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Good Morning Frank, Is the Dynon unit a fuel flow gauge or a fuel tank gauge? The Dynon Fuel flow gauge in our grandaughter's homebuilt Legend Cub works just as good as do the Shadin's we have in our certifed machines. The fuel gauge in the Cub is a sight tube and is not worth much at all. With only nineteen gallons of total fuel capacity, the fuel flow gauge and totalizer is a very important tool when she flies her Cub from Palo Alto to Oshkosh and back. Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Two fuses in series?
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Is it ever logical to put two fuses in series? I am attaching a PDF. In the lower center area of the drawing, look at the switch labeled ECU PWR & Injectors. The idea is, if the SYS A ECU should blow, I wouldn't want a common fuse taking out the SYS B ECU. Or is there another way to do this without adding anymore switches? Maybe a fuse link, back at the main battery bus? I now have 9 test flights in and I'm still fighting oil temp and highly experimental induction issues. Thanks. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Morning Frank, Sounds like you have a similar fuel flow setup to what our granddaughter has. Works great! She finished the Cub just in time to take it to Sun n' Fun 2008. I helped by putting twenty-five of the required forty hours on it before she and her father took it to Florida. That same year, she flew it solo to Oshkosh and she repeated that trip this year. Her Cub was on display at Kid Venture. She averages about eighty-five to ninety MPH. Sure is a good time builder, but a larger fuel capacity would be nice. Legend Cub is now offering bigger fuel tanks. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/14/2009 10:49:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time, frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes: Palo Alto to OSH and back in a CUB?..Woah, she has more patience than I do..:) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Old Bob, My thoughts exactly. I'm too timid to express them because of getting flamed on the forum. But, you expressed my thoughts precisely. The T-38 was always flown to 20 minutes fuel remaining. We did the same in the F-4, F-5 and F-16. Once I was chasing a F-16 student on initial solo and he landed, blew a tire and closed the only runway at MacDill. My 20 minute reserve was quite sufficient. Accel to 450 on the deck, climb at .87 to FL400 and do an idle descent to final at Patrick. Still landed with plenty of fuel. The key is to have a suitable back up plan. In custom built aircraft, we don't need the ability to zoom climb to the moon - we simply need a suitable backup plan should something go wrong with the primary plan. If the back plan is good, then flying to FAA fuel minimums is fine. I like to know how much fuel is on board at any given time. Then I can make decisions based on that information. The quantity information can be obtained from a number of sources - gauges, optical sensors with warning lights, preflight measurement, engine monitor calculations, and my own calculations. I desire accurate fuel gauges. If the accuracy of my fuel gauges is questionable, then I must err on the conservative side which means I cannot utilize my aircraft to its optimum. I agree with Old Bob on this subject. Stan Sutterfield Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the philosophy I think you are espousing. There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident you will be at that spot at the appointed time. To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more. We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes. Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the reliability of the landing estimate To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$. I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land. Just my thoughts Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Bob, The pilots on this forum are every bit as capable as professional pilots - including optimizing the amount of fuel on board. One simply must plan the flight including a back up plan (maybe two or three), crosscheck himself along the way, and execute the most appropriate of the plans - with Plan A being primary. Regarding using accurate fuel information of make high risk "press-on" decisions, the pilot must consider all information before making a decision - whether to press on or to divert. WX, alternate airports, terrain, aircraft familiarity, airport familiarity, fatigue, and fuel quantity are all inputs to the decision process. A decision to press on is not necessarily exponentially higher risk than a diversion plan. In fact, it may be less risk if the destination airport is familiar with a suitable length runway whereas the divert airport is unfamiliar with a minimum length runway. There are many variables - one reason flying is fun. Now about getting those accurate fuel gauges with which to make my divert decision. Stan Sutterfield But keep in mind my friend that we're not here to offer advice and training to professional pilots. Only a small percentage of our 1800 readers fly for a living and many if not most are under 300 hour pilots. ......... One may argue that having accurate fuel data can trigger an early termination of flight to avoid the unhappy day . . . but it can also be combined with other data to make a press-on decision with an exponential rise in risk. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 41 Msgs - 08/13/09
Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote: > Geek, Nerd, or Ernest, > I'm surprised you are willing to accept the poor excuse for fuel > measurement we've had for the past 60 years. With your skills, I > would have expected you to jump on this challenge and solve it. > There must be a solution. > Stan But, I have solved it. I installed a capacitive fuel gauge which Jim Weir designed and published in KitPlanes. I have a sight gauge as backup. It has a 3/8 opening, so I don't have to worry about foaming causing inaccuracies. The final element of the solution is integrating the dial's reading with my mind. Before we can design a solution, be have to define the problem. The problem here is that you have a tank partially full of fuel. Measurement, by necessity is taken at a point source. That is, we assume the amount of fuel in the tank from the level of fuel at one specific place in the tank. When the plane is accelerated, the levels at various points in the tank move, and the assumption is no longer valid. You could, at the risk of complexity, compensate for this movement by placing several gauges at several points in the tank and integrating them.. The hard part is where to place the sensors, and how much importance to place on each. Another option is to note that the splashing is periodic, let the gauge reflect that, and use the skills learned in high school chemistry class to interpret the results. I think the second option is more robust. -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Afternoon Stan, Thanks for the comment! Nice to have company. Planning is Planning. What you do is dependent on the accuracy of the data available. Doesn't change if we are flying a 747, DC-3, J-3 Cub, T-38, or RV-3 (I have flown all of those except the RV-3. ) Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/14/2009 12:28:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Speedy11(at)aol.com writes: Old Bob, My thoughts exactly. I'm too timid to express them because of getting flamed on the forum. But, you expressed my thoughts precisely. The T-38 was always flown to 20 minutes fuel remaining. We did the same in the F-4, F-5 and F-16. Once I was chasing a F-16 student on initial solo and he landed, blew a tire and closed the only runway at MacDill. My 20 minute reserve was quite sufficient. Accel to 450 on the deck, climb at .87 to FL400 and do an idle descent to final at Patrick. Still landed with plenty of fuel. The key is to have a suitable back up plan. In custom built aircraft, we don't need the ability to zoom climb to the moon - we simply need a suitable backup plan should something go wrong with the primary plan. If the back plan is good, then flying to FAA fuel minimums is fine. I like to know how much fuel is on board at any given time. Then I can make decisions based on that information. The quantity information can be obtained from a number of sources - gauges, optical sensors with warning lights, preflight measurement, engine monitor calculations, and my own calculations. I desire accurate fuel gauges. If the accuracy of my fuel gauges is questionable, then I must err on the conservative side which means I cannot utilize my aircraft to its optimum. I agree with Old Bob on this subject. Stan Sutterfield Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the philosophy I think you are espousing. There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident you will be at that spot at the appointed time. To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more. We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes. Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the reliability of the landing estimate To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$. I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land. Just my thoughts Happy Skies, Old Bob ____________________________________ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 41 Msgs - 08/13/09
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
How about engrave graduated markings on a tab that extends to the bottom of the tank, an LED light source, and a CMOS camera to view the tab, and another LCD screen on which to view the actual fuel in the tank? Would have to mount the camera on/in something not damaged by fuel.. Aim the camera so that you can also see tank outlet so that you can tell if you are sucking air. Seeing is believing. Tongue only slightly in-cheek. Matt- > > > Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote: >> Geek, Nerd, or Ernest, >> I'm surprised you are willing to accept the poor excuse for fuel >> measurement we've had for the past 60 years. With your skills, I >> would have expected you to jump on this challenge and solve it. >> There must be a solution. >> Stan > But, I have solved it. I installed a capacitive fuel gauge which Jim > Weir designed and published in KitPlanes. > I have a sight gauge as backup. It has a 3/8 opening, so I don't have > to worry about foaming causing inaccuracies. > The final element of the solution is integrating the dial's reading with > my mind. > > Before we can design a solution, be have to define the problem. The > problem here is that you have a tank partially full of fuel. > Measurement, by necessity is taken at a point source. That is, we > assume the amount of fuel in the tank from the level of fuel at one > specific place in the tank. When the plane is accelerated, the levels > at various points in the tank move, and the assumption is no longer valid. > > You could, at the risk of complexity, compensate for this movement by > placing several gauges at several points in the tank and integrating > them.. The hard part is where to place the sensors, and how much > importance to place on each. > > Another option is to note that the splashing is periodic, let the gauge > reflect that, and use the skills learned in high school chemistry class > to interpret the results. > > I think the second option is more robust. > > -- > Ernest Christley, President > Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com > > TechnicalTakedown, LLC > www.TechnicalTakedown.com > 101 Steep Bank Dr. > Cary, NC 27518 > (919) 741-9397 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring in Z
schematics
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Thanks, Bob :-) > The preferred methodology for PM alernator control... I understand that you prefer this method, but I don't know why. Are you saying it's better to place the alt disconnect AFTER the regulator (as in Z-20 and Z-21) than BETWEEN the alternator and regulator (as in Z-16)? I had heard disconnecting a PM regulator wired with the relay after the the regulator could damage the regulator. You would want a failed regulator disconnected, but what would happen if a good regulator were taken offline? Also, if the regulator fails and is taken offline by a relay placed after the regulator, could the failed regulator present a fire hazard by continuing to heat up from the uninterrupted supply of power to it from the alternator? If so, could a relay placed between the alternator and regulator, instead of after the regulator, cut the power to the failed regulator and prevent this? > ...assuming you're NOT depending on the AC output waveform to drive > an engine tachometer I don't know if I need the AC waveform for the tach or not. The Jabiru manual shows a magnetic sensor plugged into a tach sensor tab on the engine. 2 leads go from there to the tach gauge on the panel. I don't know if I have this sensor or sendor. If I don't have it or can't get it, then I suppose I would need to use one of the alternator AC leads. Is one method preffered over the other? And Z-20L shows a wire spliced into one of the alternator output leads going to the tach. So if I do need an AC lead, why wouldn't this work in Z-20L? > ... Z-21 . . . suggests a means by which alternator control > relay power to energize can come from either the battery > or the alternator. I don't understand how this works and why this is an advantage. -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257697#257697 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
>I cite the example of the famous Cessna fuel cap o-ring. On a flight >from Denver to Cheyenne with full tanks. The poor pilot arrived in >Cheyenne with no reserve. To bad he did not have a reliable gauge >that told him the fuel remaining was drastically decreasing. Even if >he watched his gauge he probably did not believe it because it is so >erratic in flight. For sure this was not a flight planning issue. This is why the electronic dip-sticks at the low fuel warning level is so important. Nothing to calibrate. It's ON or OFF. It's independent of the more complex gaging systems requiring calibration. >So a functional gauge especially with a warning feature would be >desirable in case it is desired to monitor a fuel related failure mode. How about independent gaging and warning systems? One helps keep tabs on functionality of the other by observing behaviors from one flight to the next. >Bottom line is we do not have to live with garbage gauges that have >been used for years or newfangled level sensing gauges that only are >good on the ground. > >I guess I don't understand the resistance to functional gauges. >Please set me straight. No resistance whatsoever. Only a caution about understanding their functionality, risks for failure by mis-reporting real fuel level and loss of the pilot's healthy skepticism. It's my client's charter that I help produce a best-we-know-how-to- do in fuel gaging to replace the best we knew how to do 25 years ago. I intend to deliver on that charter. At the same time, my studies of older designs (and bad days in the cockpit that began with reliance on those designs) reminds me of a very wise axiom: "Trust but verify". Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring
in Z schematics At 03:58 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote: > >Thanks, Bob :-) > > > > The preferred methodology for PM alernator control... > > >I understand that you prefer this method, but I don't know why. Because it totally removes the alternator's ability to deliver power by breaking the AC output power leads. Breaking the DC power output lead will not allow you to disconnect the alternator from a shorted rectifier regulator thus putting the alternator at-risk for second-failure follwing a regulator failure. >Are you saying it's better to place the alt disconnect AFTER the >regulator (as in Z-20 and Z-21) than BETWEEN the alternator and >regulator (as in Z-16)? No, directly in the AC output lead . . . but if your tachometer depends on the AC frequency signature of the alternator for measuring engine speed, then you can't put the disconnect at the preferred point. > I had heard disconnecting a PM regulator wired with the relay > after the the regulator could damage the regulator. Some regulators may indeed be at risk if the system is operating unloaded . . . but I doubt it. It's a voltage rating issue for the semiconductors inside the regulator. It's not a big deal to craft a rectifier regulator tolerant of unloaded, full speed operations. The two designs for PM regulators that I participated in were NOT at risk for no-load, hi-speed ops. > You would want a failed regulator disconnected, but what would > happen if a good regulator were taken offline? If the regulator is designed to live in the world to which it's sold, then it shouldn't be a problem. It's easy to do, it's what we did, but I can't speak for others. Disconnecting the AC input lead is, therefore, the preferred, low-risk philosophy for ALL regulators. >Also, if the regulator fails and is taken offline by a relay placed >after the regulator, could the failed regulator present a fire >hazard by continuing to heat up from the uninterrupted supply of >power to it from the alternator? If so, could a relay placed between >the alternator and regulator, instead of after the regulator, cut >the power to the failed regulator and prevent this? No fire risk. You might burn some alternator wires but this isn't inherently hazardous beyond damage to the alternator itself. If your tachometer doesn't require a signal from the alternator, go with Z-16. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring in Z
schematics
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2009
> The preferred methodology for PM alernator control assuming > you're NOT depending on the AC output waveform to drive > an engine tachometer as shown in http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z20L.pdf where we see the AC windings permanently connected > to the rectifier/regulator. Here, alternator control reverts > to the older philosophy of opening the DC power output > lead from the R/R. > > ....Thanks, Bob > > The preferred methodology for PM alernator control... > I understand that you prefer this method, but I don't know why....... > > > ......Because it totally removes the alternator's ability > to deliver power by breaking the AC output power leads. -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257731#257731 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
At 12:50 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote: >Bob, >The pilots on this forum are every bit as capable as professional >pilots - including optimizing the amount of fuel on board. One >simply must plan the flight including a back up plan (maybe two or >three), crosscheck himself along the way, and execute the most >appropriate of the plans - with Plan A being primary. >Regarding using accurate fuel information of make high risk >"press-on" decisions, the pilot must consider all information before >making a decision - whether to press on or to divert. WX, alternate >airports, terrain, aircraft familiarity, airport familiarity, >fatigue, and fuel quantity are all inputs to the decision >process. A decision to press on is not necessarily exponentially >higher risk than a diversion plan. In fact, it may be less risk if >the destination airport is familiar with a suitable length runway >whereas the divert airport is unfamiliar with a minimum length >runway. There are many variables - one reason flying is fun. >Now about getting those accurate fuel gauges with which to make my >divert decision. >Stan Sutterfield Stan, you have missed the point. I was not suggesting that ANY particular individual on this List was incapable of operating an airplane in a prudent manner. I WAS counseling caution with respect to pushing the limits of endurance based on FAITH in a fuel gaging system that was not personally calibrated and verified by the owner/operator. Whether or not that caution applies to you is something only you can judge . . . it was not offered to you or anyone in particular. We've got builders wrestling with getting the voltage regulators set right. Is it a good idea to take bullet points from the 4-color brochure of any OBAM aircraft gaging system and encourage our fellow builders to take them as gospel? We've read about the experiences and sentiments of individuals who routinely and confidently ran out the slosh many times in airplanes. But just a few weeks ago we discussed the sad demise of a builder who appeared to have lot of confidence from source(s) unknown, yet his confidence proved fatal. I'm working an accident now where a builder cherry picked pieces of ideas from the 'Connection, from a radio installation manual, and what appears to have been advice from a friend. These were assembled into a system designed to fail . . . and it did. The thrust of my postings was two-fold . . . and you've been around here long enough to understand it as well as anyone. First, there is no substitute for understanding the capabilities and limits of any system upon which you plan to push the limits of performance. Second, there is a well tested, legacy process by which failure tolerant systems are designed where an UNWILLINGNESS to push out to fuzzy limits can be a useful component of raising confidence level in the outcome of any flight. This is about risk reduction. It is technologically feasible to build, calibrate, verify and maintain an accurate fuel gage that would allow the willing pilot to taxi up to the pumps with one gallon remaining . . . or fumes for that matter. But I will never suggest that anyone strive for that kind of performance as a design goal. Further, I'm aware of no fuel gage presently offered to the OBAM aircraft market capable of offering that performance. Even if the gage existed and proved capable, it would be wise for the supplier of that product to discourage tugging the tail of the fuel tiger. I've spent many years working in a flight test environment where pilots and program managers routinely got in my face demanding assurances that the thing I just bolted to their airplane wasn't going to cause a bad day in the cockpit. I can also state that if any one of those pilots taxied to the ramp with 10 minutes remaining and then claimed that he could do it routinely and at will would not be working where I worked very long. Because we all know that fuel gages on even our engineering flight test aircraft are never calibrated and maintained to that degree of accuracy. You're encouraged to craft and operate your airplane in any manner for which you have necessary skill and acquired confidence. Please don't paint me with the tar brush for suggesting that 1800 folks besides you avoid landing with all the low fuel warning lights flashing and the needles banging the stops. I would be severely distressed to learn that the RV-10 went down because of some erroneous notions or shaky ideas the pilot acquired on this List. Balance and maneuvering skills necessary to ride a bike does not make one good at walking the high wire. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Two fuses in series?
At 11:01 AM 8/14/2009, you wrote: >Is it ever logical to put two fuses in series? I am attaching a >PDF. In the lower center area of the drawing, look at the switch >labeled ECU PWR & Injectors. > >The idea is, if the SYS A ECU should blow, I wouldn't want a common >fuse taking out the SYS B ECU. Or is there another way to do this >without adding anymore switches? Maybe a fuse link, back at the >main battery bus? > >I now have 9 test flights in and I'm still fighting oil temp and >highly experimental induction issues. Each ECU should enjoy its own fuse at the bus and ideally be switched with it's own power switch. Alternatively, consider going to a 3-pole switch so that the two ECU's have no power path in common, only the single switch. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring in Z
schematics
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2009
> The preferred methodology for PM alernator control assuming > you're NOT depending on the AC output waveform to drive > an engine tachometer as shown in http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z20L.pdf where we see the AC windings permanently connected > to the rectifier/regulator. Here, alternator control reverts > to the older philosophy of opening the DC power output > lead from the R/R. > > ....Thanks, Bob > > The preferred methodology for PM alernator control... > I understand that you prefer this method, but I don't know why....... > > > ......Because it totally removes the alternator's ability > to deliver power by breaking the AC output power leads. Sorry about double posting. Meant to hit the preview button :-( It seemed to me you were saying the Z-20 method of breaking the DC leads was best, but now I see you mean breaking AC is best, like in Z-16. So even if I ran the tachometer off the AC leads, I'd only have no tach when the alternator is offline. I haven't seen the tachometer show up on anybody's Ebus list, so going with the preferred AC disconnect might be better even in this situation. -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257733#257733 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 41 Msgs -
08/13/09 At 03:43 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote: > >How about engrave graduated markings on a tab that extends to the bottom >of the tank, an LED light source, and a CMOS camera to view the tab, and >another LCD screen on which to view the actual fuel in the tank? Would >have to mount the camera on/in something not damaged by fuel.. Aim the >camera so that you can also see tank outlet so that you can tell if you >are sucking air. Seeing is believing. Tongue only slightly in-cheek. Actually, been there done that. I worked a Baron accident about 30 years ago where there were allegations made about behavior of fuel in partially filled tanks. We did some testing that involved mounting a stack of 1/2" thick optical sensors at the outlet of the tank. Each sensor drove one light bulb in a vertical array on the panel. Each light representing 1/2 of fuel depth at the outlet. Had the privilege of meeting and flying with Al White who was hired by Beech's law firm as a "disinterested witness". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_S._White We did a lot of maneuvers on the ground and in the air with varying amounts of fuel in the tank to document behavior. Bottom line was that we verified Beech's admonition not to take off using main tanks and to be careful about certain maneuvers after the tanks were drawn below about 7 gal. Later, another group stuck a camera and lights to record more details. That stack of prisms at the outlet is not hard to build if anyone wants to try it. I can recall seeing that column of lights really "stroking" under pretty ordinary conditions. It's pretty exciting in that tank. Baffles and check valves are useful to reduce violence of liquid motion. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 41 Msgs - 08/13/09
At 01:14 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote: >Geek, Nerd, or Ernest, >I'm surprised you are willing to accept the poor excuse for fuel >measurement we've had for the past 60 years. With your skills, I >would have expected you to jump on this challenge and solve it. >There must be a solution. Design goals for the system I'm working on now include in-situ calibration at intervals equal to 5% of full capacity. So an accuracy on the order of 2% of tank capacity seems achievable. But even if it becomes a product on either the TC or OBAM side of the house, I'd still be reluctant to recommend that anyone plan a flight that draws a tank down to less than 30 minutes total fuel aboard. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2009
Subject: Re: Two fuses in series?
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Yes, that is my preference, but I haven't figured out how to do that. The limitation is the number of switches I already have installed, as seen at the top of the drawing, and space limitation. I tried to install B&Cs OFF-ON-ON switch, but it is fatter than the rest and does not fit. I am dumfluxed. It is not an easy solution. If it was, I would have nailed it down a year ago. Sam On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > > At 11:01 AM 8/14/2009, you wrote: > >> Is it ever logical to put two fuses in series? I am attaching a PDF. In >> the lower center area of the drawing, look at the switch labeled ECU PWR & >> Injectors. >> >> The idea is, if the SYS A ECU should blow, I wouldn't want a common fuse >> taking out the SYS B ECU. Or is there another way to do this without adding >> anymore switches? Maybe a fuse link, back at the main battery bus? >> >> I now have 9 test flights in and I'm still fighting oil temp and highly >> experimental induction issues. >> > > Each ECU should enjoy its own fuse at the bus and > ideally be switched with it's own power switch. > Alternatively, consider going to a 3-pole switch > so that the two ECU's have no power path in common, > only the single switch. > > > Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Evening 'Lectric Bob, It appears to me that this discussion is getting way out of hand I know I should leave it alone. Nevertheless, I do not think you, Stan, or I are very far apart in what we really want to see happen. None of us want to see anyone run out of fuel. I have mentioned occasions where I have found five to ten minutes of fuel to be perfectly safe, but none of those were in conditions where the 30 minute FAA minimum was applicable. They were in operations where the conditions and equipment warranted such operations and they were in complete accordance with procedures approved by the ruling authority of that particular operation. I very rarely operate a trip where I plan on landing with as low a fuel quantity as the FARs allow. That there are cases where such operations are at least as safe as carrying five hours of extra fuel is not important. What is important is that a rational decision has been made that is in conformance with the regulations established for that particular operation. My WAG is that it's much more likely that a person who has no idea how much fuel is on board is more likely to run out of fuel than will a person who knows exactly how much fuel is available. Safety of flight is a function of acquiring data and making sensible decisions based on that data. We are given guidance on those decisions by various governing bodies. As long as we obey the rules and do the planning we are expected to do, all should be well. Or, at least, well within the level of risk accepted for that operation. It is obvious to me that we are looking at this problem from different perspectives. It is too bad that we do not seem to be able to find a common ground, but I think we can all agree that having accurate fuel flow equipment is a good thing and having accurate knowledge of the fuel on board is a good thing. Any chance of agreement on those two points? Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/14/2009 9:25:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: At 12:50 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote: Bob, The pilots on this forum are every bit as capable as professional pilots - including optimizing the amount of fuel on board. One simply must plan the flight including a back up plan (maybe two or three), crosscheck himself along the way, and execute the most appropriate of the plans - with Plan A being primary. Regarding using accurate fuel information of make high risk "press-on" decisions, the pilot must consider all information before making a decision - whether to press on or to divert. WX, alternate airports, terrain, aircraft familiarity, airport familiarity, fatigue, and fuel quantity are all inputs to the decision process. A decision to press on is not necessarily exponentially higher risk than a diversion plan. In fact, it may be less risk if the destination airport is familiar with a suitable length runway whereas the divert airport is unfamiliar with a minimum length runway. There are many variables - one reason flying is fun. Now about getting those accurate fuel gauges with which to make my divert decision. Stan Sutterfield Stan, you have missed the point. I was not suggesting that ANY particular individual on this List was incapable of operating an airplane in a prudent manner. I WAS counseling caution with respect to pushing the limits of endurance based on FAITH in a fuel gaging system that was not personally calibrated and verified by the owner/operator. Whether or not that caution applies to you is something only you can judge . . . it was not offered to you or anyone in particular. We've got builders wrestling with getting the voltage regulators set right. Is it a good idea to take bullet points from the 4-color brochure of any OBAM aircraft gaging system and encourage our fellow builders to take them as gospel? We've read about the experiences and sentiments of individuals who routinely and confidently ran out the slosh many times in airplanes. But just a few weeks ago we discussed the sad demise of a builder who appeared to have lot of confidence from source(s) unknown, yet his confidence proved fatal. I'm working an accident now where a builder cherry picked pieces of ideas from the 'Connection, from a radio installation manual, and what appears to have been advice from a friend. These were assembled into a system designed to fail . . . and it did. The thrust of my postings was two-fold . . . and you've been around here long enough to understand it as well as anyone. First, there is no substitute for understanding the capabilities and limits of any system upon which you plan to push the limits of performance. Second, there is a well tested, legacy process by which failure tolerant systems are designed where an UNWILLINGNESS to push out to fuzzy limits can be a useful component of raising confidence level in the outcome of any flight. This is about risk reduction. It is technologically feasible to build, calibrate, verify and maintain an accurate fuel gage that would allow the willing pilot to taxi up to the pumps with one gallon remaining . . . or fumes for that matter. But I will never suggest that anyone strive for that kind of performance as a design goal. Further, I'm aware of no fuel gage presently offered to the OBAM aircraft market capable of offering that performance. Even if the gage existed and proved capable, it would be wise for the supplier of that product to discourage tugging the tail of the fuel tiger. I've spent many years working in a flight test environment where pilots and program managers routinely got in my face demanding assurances that the thing I just bolted to their airplane wasn't going to cause a bad day in the cockpit. I can also state that if any one of those pilots taxied to the ramp with 10 minutes remaining and then claimed that he could do it routinely and at will would not be working where I worked very long. Because we all know that fuel gages on even our engineering flight test aircraft are never calibrated and maintained to that degree of accuracy. You're encouraged to craft and operate your airplane in any manner for which you have necessary skill and acquired confidence. Please don't paint me with the tar brush for suggesting that 1800 folks besides you avoid landing with all the low fuel warning lights flashing and the needles banging the stops. I would be severely distressed to learn that the RV-10 went down because of some erroneous notions or shaky ideas the pilot acquired on this List. Balance and maneuvering skills necessary to ride a bike does not make one good at walking the high wire. Bob . . . (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: Two fuses in series?
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Hello Sam, The principle is not unusual in protection of power electrical systems; isolation of part of a system rather than the whole system. I would be concerned with the actual tripping characteristic of the fuse though. Normally protective devices, such as a fuse, have an 'inverse time tripping' characteristic- which means that the higher the current through them the faster they trip/ blow. When one is coordinating the protection on a power electrical system you need to make sure that these characteristics do not overlap so that the 'upstream' fuse/device does not trip first. I think that you would need to use what are called 'fast blow' fuses for the 5A fuse and 'slow blow' for the 10A so that the 10A fuse gives the 5A a chance to clear the fault. How come you do not have a 5A fuse in the 'SYS B' ECU circuit? Jay _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins Sent: 14 August 2009 06:02 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Two fuses in series? Is it ever logical to put two fuses in series? I am attaching a PDF. In the lower center area of the drawing, look at the switch labeled ECU PWR & Injectors. The idea is, if the SYS A ECU should blow, I wouldn't want a common fuse taking out the SYS B ECU. Or is there another way to do this without adding anymore switches? Maybe a fuse link, back at the main battery bus? I now have 9 test flights in and I'm still fighting oil temp and highly experimental induction issues. Thanks. Sam www.samhoskins.blogspot.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Two fuses in series?
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
The "A" ECU is the normal running mode and has more features than the "B" side, which is strictly a backup in case of failure of the other. Both ECU s share a single circuit board <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>. The only time the "B" side would normally be used is during engine runup test prior to flight. The way I have it set up, I am hoping to have the "B" side in reserve. That's why I was wondering about using a fuse link at the main bus. Sam On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Jay Hyde wrote: > Hello Sam, > > > The principle is not unusual in protection of power electrical systems; > isolation of part of a system rather than the whole system. I would be > concerned with the actual tripping characteristic of the fuse though. > Normally protective devices, such as a fuse, have an =91inverse time trip ping=92 > characteristic- which means that the higher the current through them the > faster they trip/ blow. When one is coordinating the protection on a pow er > electrical system you need to make sure that these characteristics do not > overlap so that the =91upstream=92 fuse/device does not trip first. I th ink > that you would need to use what are called =91fast blow=92 fuses for the 5A fuse > and =91slow blow=92 for the 10A so that the 10A fuse gives the 5A a chanc e to > clear the fault. > > How come you do not have a 5A fuse in the =91SYS B=92 ECU circuit? > > > Jay > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Hoskins > *Sent:* 14 August 2009 06:02 PM > *To:* Aerolectric List > *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Two fuses in series? > > > Is it ever logical to put two fuses in series? I am attaching a PDF. In > the lower center area of the drawing, look at the switch labeled ECU PWR & > Injectors. > > The idea is, if the SYS A ECU should blow, I wouldn't want a common fuse > taking out the SYS B ECU. Or is there another way to do this without add ing > anymore switches? Maybe a fuse link, back at the main battery bus? > > I now have 9 test flights in and I'm still fighting oil temp and highly > experimental induction issues. > > Thanks. > > Sam > www.samhoskins.blogspot.com > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2009
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
There are simple ways of achieving some of these goals in some aircraft. I have a two gallon gravity fed vented header tank which is also a great gascolator. A low cost float switch (from aircraft spruce) triggers a large two color flashing LED if it is not full, which means it gets quiet in 20 min. for me unless I switch tanks or land as appropriate. No sloshing effects in a full header tank. No concerns about air bubbles, unuseable fuel, or maneuvering with low fuel in the main tanks. It has a press to test button for no good reason other than it makes me feel good. The sight gauges in my wing tanks are damped with a restriction and calibrated in blue on the forward side for flight and in red on the rear side for ground (tail dragger). Certainly not foolproof but surprisingly accurate for confirming fuel remaining agrees with what I estimate should be there. Certainly accurate to within one gallon in my 24 gallon wing tanks although I don't remember looking at them when in head bumping seat belt tugging turbulence. They also verify how much fuel is added to the tanks quite accurately. Even parked on a slight left to right slope, the error in one tank tends to be cancelled out by the error in the other tank. Clear teflon sight gauges are shatter proof and will last forever regardless of what fuel one uses. Ken Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 01:14 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote: >> Geek, Nerd, or Ernest, >> I'm surprised you are willing to accept the poor excuse for fuel >> measurement we've had for the past 60 years. With your skills, I >> would have expected you to jump on this challenge and solve it. >> There must be a solution. > > Design goals for the system I'm working on now include > in-situ calibration at intervals equal to 5% of full > capacity. So an accuracy on the order of 2% of tank > capacity seems achievable. But even if it becomes > a product on either the TC or OBAM side of the house, > I'd still be reluctant to recommend that anyone plan > a flight that draws a tank down to less than 30 minutes > total fuel aboard. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Two fuses in series?
Hello Sam, The principle is not unusual in protection of power electrical systems; isolation of part of a system rather than the whole system. I would be concerned with the actual tripping characteristic of the fuse though. Normally protective devices, such as a fuse, have an 'inverse time tripping' characteristic- which means that the higher the current through them the faster they trip/ blow. When one is coordinating the protection on a power electrical system you need to make sure that these characteristics do not overlap so that the 'upstream' fuse/device does not trip first. I think that you would need to use what are called 'fast blow' fuses for the 5A fuse and 'slow blow' for the 10A so that the 10A fuse gives the 5A a chance to clear the fault. Correct, in fact it's a square-law effect where doubling the current results in about 4x faster trip time. As a general rule, any upstream fusing is treated like a feeder protection to another bus and is MUCH more robust than the largest downstream fuse . . . This is what ANL style "current limiters' is all about. In this case, I suspect the individual current draw for each ECU is low enough that they can be protected/isolated on 5A (or smaller?) fuses. The upstream fuse at the bus need not be so robust as an ANL . . . but 5 to 10x larger than any single downstream fuse is a good bet. How come you do not have a 5A fuse in the 'SYS B' ECU circuit? Jay The "A" ECU is the normal running mode and has more features than the "B" side, which is strictly a backup in case of failure of the other. Both ECUs share a single circuit board. The only time the "B" side would normally be used is during engine runup test prior to flight. The way I have it set up, I am hoping to have the "B" side in reserve. That's why I was wondering about using a fuse link at the main bus. Sam Okay, since you're "stuck" with the current switch configuration, let's figure out a work-around. What are the current demands of each ECU? What I'm thinking about is coming off the fuse block with a "fat" fuse like 30A. Take a 14AWG wire to your switch. Branch off the downstream side of the switch with a pair of 5A fuses on in-line fuse-holders, one to each ECU. Do you have a way to pre-flight check the integrity of each ECU independently? Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Two fuses in series?
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com>
Yes, I can check independently. I have a douple pole A/B switch which trip s the EC3's internal relay. The "at rest" position selects "A". Grounding the circuit causes the relay to operate and selects "B". I am using the other pole of this switch to supply power to the fuel injectors. In the "A " position the main injectors are fed, and in "B" the backup throttle body injector is fed. The current draw of the ECU less than an amp. I'll attach the drawing. Thanks! Sam On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > Hello Sam, > > The principle is not unusual in protection of power electrical systems; > isolation of part of a system rather than the whole system. I would be > concerned with the actual tripping characteristic of the fuse though. > Normally protective devices, such as a fuse, have an =91inverse time trip ping=92 > characteristic- which means that the higher the current through them the > faster they trip/ blow. When one is coordinating the protection on a pow er > electrical system you need to make sure that these characteristics do not > overlap so that the =91upstream=92 fuse/device does not trip first. I th ink > that you would need to use what are called =91fast blow=92 fuses for the 5A fuse > and =91slow blow=92 for the 10A so that the 10A fuse gives the 5A a chanc e to > clear the fault. > > Correct, in fact it's a > square-law effect where > doubling the current results in about 4x faster trip > time. As a general rule, any upstream fusing is treated > > * like a feeder protection to another bus and is > MUCH more robust than the largest downstream fuse . . . > This is what ANL style "current limiters' is all > about. In this case, I suspect the individual current > draw for each ECU is low enough that they can be > protected/isolated on 5A (or smaller?) fuses. The > upstream fuse at the bus need not be so robust as > an ANL . . . but 5 to 10x larger than any single > downstream fuse is a good bet. > * > > How come you do not have a 5A fuse in the =91SYS B=92 ECU circuit? > > Jay > > The "A" ECU is the normal running mode and has more features than the "B" > side, which is strictly a backup in case of failure of the other. Both E CUs > share a single circuit board. The only time the "B" side would normally b e > used is during engine runup test prior to flight. > > The way I have it set up, I am hoping to have the "B" side in reserve. > That's why I was wondering about using a fuse link at the main bus. > > Sam > > Okay, since you're > "stuck" with the current switch > configuration, let's figure out a work-around. What are > the current demands of each ECU? What I'm thinking about > is coming off the fuse block with a "fat" fuse > like 30A. > Take a 14AWG wire to your switch. Branch off the downstream > side of the switch with a pair of 5A fuses on in-line > fuse-holders, one to each ECU. Do you have a way to > pre-flight > > * check the integrity of each ECU independently? > * Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Rv-8 vs F-16
Frank, I have no choice - the USAF won't let me fly the Viper any more. I'm stuck with the 737 and my RV. I really like the way the RV flies. It flies much like a mini fighter - the controls are responsive due to the push-pull tube arrangement, the power-to-weight ratio is reasonably good, the wing loading is good enough for acceptable tight formation, visibility is good except for the roll over bar which is a problem in formation. I like the sense of strapping on the aircraft and we become one. It's much like it was in fighters. The cockpit is tight, but once you're in place it is comfortable - you do need to have everything you need within easy reach though. It's as compact inside as the F-5 was. I don't like how close the panel is to my face. I would feel a little more comfortable if it were about 1.5" farther forward. I made a console and put my switches on the consoles angled toward the panel - fighter style - and made a P-51 style glare shield to fit on top of and hide the arched glare shield. So, it serves as my pseudo-fighter. I've been thinking about making some hard points for munitions and maybe a mini-gun, but I'm a bit worried about gross weight and CG. : ) There's a guy here at Spruce Creek that has Fokker DII and Spad replicas and flies them frequently. He has a real fighter alter-ego. Stan Sutterfield Do no archive But the bigger question is.. Does does one become content with flying an RV 8 after an F16??..:) Frank ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Aug 15, 2009
I have seen all sort of fuel gauges, and I don't know what is best.... But I want to add a note to the discussion that might spur some thinking: Video cameras have become soooooo cheap that using one to directly image the inside of a tank is becoming a practical solution. When I consider "things I would like to know", I often imagine visualizing them. So I can imagine a conical piece of acrylic in the fuel tank with a couple LEDs and a tiny video camera looking down the axis as a practical solution, or a video camera looking at a calibrated stick inside the tank. Although you could image these directly on a small display, you could also write some simple imaging software to turn these video images into a displayed number of gallons. For those interested in the basic subject, search the USPTO patents site (advanced search) and enter search string "ttl/(fuel and level and sensor)" When the Oakies left Oklahoma and moved to California, it raised the I.Q. of both states." --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=257784#257784 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Morning Ken, That sounds great! Reminds me of a device that was common in the thirties and early forties. There would be a standpipe in the fuel tank that fed fuel above a predetermined amount via the MAIN position of the fuel valve. When switched to the RESERVE position, the fuel was taken from the bottom of the tank. I had a PT-22 that was so equipped. When the tank ran dry on MAIN, there was precisely five gallons (thirty plus minutes of fuel) left that was available via the RESERVE position. All takeoffs and landings were to be performed with the fuel valve selected to the RESERVE position. Worked great as long as you remembered to select the RESERVE for T/O & Ldg. The early Volkswagen had a similar setup that made the last gallon or so of fuel available to the engine. No fuel gauge at all in the VW as I recall.. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:40:03 A.M. Central Daylight Time, klehman(at)albedo.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken There are simple ways of achieving some of these goals in some aircraft. I have a two gallon gravity fed vented header tank which is also a great gascolator. A low cost float switch (from aircraft spruce) triggers a large two color flashing LED if it is not full, which means it gets quiet in 20 min. for me unless I switch tanks or land as appropriate. No sloshing effects in a full header tank. No concerns about air bubbles, unuseable fuel, or maneuvering with low fuel in the main tanks. It has a press to test button for no good reason other than it makes me feel good. The sight gauges in my wing tanks are damped with a restriction and calibrated in blue on the forward side for flight and in red on the rear side for ground (tail dragger). Certainly not foolproof but surprisingly accurate for confirming fuel remaining agrees with what I estimate should be there. Certainly accurate to within one gallon in my 24 gallon wing tanks although I don't remember looking at them when in head bumping seat belt tugging turbulence. They also verify how much fuel is added to the tanks quite accurately. Even parked on a slight left to right slope, the error in one tank tends to be cancelled out by the error in the other tank. Clear teflon sight gauges are shatter proof and will last forever regardless of what fuel one uses. Ken Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 01:14 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote: >> Geek, Nerd, or Ernest, >> I'm surprised you are willing to accept the poor excuse for fuel >> measurement we've had for the past 60 years. With your skills, I >> would have expected you to jump on this challenge and solve it. >> There must be a solution. > > Design goals for the system I'm working on now include > in-situ calibration at intervals equal to 5% of full > capacity. So an accuracy on the order of 2% of tank > capacity seems achievable. But even if it becomes > a product on either the TC or OBAM side of the house, > I'd still be reluctant to recommend that anyone plan > a flight that draws a tank down to less than 30 minutes > total fuel aboard. > > Bob . . . > Do Not Archive ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Subject: Garmin 296 $350 with Gizmo
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Garmin 296 for sale. I bought it new, and it works great in the air and in the car. Lots of accessories: AirGizmo panel mount, car bean bag mount, yoke mount, external antenna, external speaker/power cord, 128M data card for driving that covers about half the U.S. at a time, AC power, owner's manual, more. $350 plus shipping -- Dave Saylor AirCrafters LLC 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Bob; This "standpipe" reserve system with a dual position valve is also quite common to many motorcycles. Works very well, BUT----, The biggest drawback I've found to this as applied to VW's or bikes or whatever, is that when you stop to refuel after having selected "reserve" is that you MUST remember to return the valve to the "main" position lest the next time you run "low" you're actually completely dry as you were already on "reserve". (Ran out of fuel on my Honda 500 Interceptor more than once for just this reason.) Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:06 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Good Morning Ken, That sounds great! Reminds me of a device that was common in the thirties and early forties. There would be a standpipe in the fuel tank that fed fuel above a predetermined amount via the MAIN position of the fuel valve. When switched to the RESERVE position, the fuel was taken from the bottom of the tank. I had a PT-22 that was so equipped. When the tank ran dry on MAIN, there was precisely five gallons (thirty plus minutes of fuel) left that was available via the RESERVE position. All takeoffs and landings were to be performed with the fuel valve selected to the RESERVE position. Worked great as long as you remembered to select the RESERVE for T/O & Ldg. The early Volkswagen had a similar setup that made the last gallon or so of fuel available to the engine. No fuel gauge at all in the VW as I recall.. Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Morning Bob McC, No doubt about it! Every "improvement" adds another point where failure could occur! The simplest fuel system possible would have one tank, no valves and no filters. Lindbergh wanted many small tanks because he had experienced so many fuel tank leaks. 'Tis a quandary Indeed. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/15/2009 10:53:36 A.M. Central Daylight Time, robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca writes: Bob; This =9Cstandpipe=9D reserve system with a dual position valv e is also quite common to many motorcycles. Works very well, BUT----, The biggest drawbac k I =99ve found to this as applied to VW=99s or bikes or whatever , is that when you stop to refuel after having selected =9Creserve=9D is tha t you MUST remember to return the valve to the =9Cmain=9D position lest the next time you run =9C low=9D you=99re actually completely dry as you were already on =9Creserve=9D. (Ran out of fuel on my Honda 500 Interceptor more than once for just this reason.) Bob McC ____________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35 B(at)aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:06 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Good Morning Ken, That sounds great! Reminds me of a device that was common in the thirties and early forties. There would be a standpipe in the fuel tank that fed fuel above a predetermined amount via the MAIN position of the fuel valve. When switch ed to the RESERVE position, the fuel was taken from the bottom of the tank. I had a PT-22 that was so equipped. When the tank ran dry on MAIN, there was precisely five gallons (thirty plus minutes of fuel) left that was available via the RESERVE position. All takeoffs and landings were to be performed with the fuel valve selected to the RESERVE position. Worked great as long as you remembered to select the RESERVE for T/O & Ldg. The early Volkswagen had a similar setup that made the last gallon or so of fuel available to the engine. No fuel gauge at all in the VW as I recall.. Happy Skies, Old Bob ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) ======================== ============ ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ======================== ============ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Subject: Re: RV-List: Garmin 296 $350 with Gizmo
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Sold. Thanks for the calls--Dave On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Dave Saylor < dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> wrote: > Garmin 296 for sale. I bought it new, and it works great in the air and in > the car. Lots of accessories: AirGizmo panel mount, car bean bag mount, > yoke mount, external antenna, external speaker/power cord, 128M data card > for driving that covers about half the U.S. at a time, AC power, owner's > manual, more. > > $350 plus shipping > > -- > Dave Saylor > AirCrafters LLC > 140 Aviation Way > Watsonville, CA 95076 > 831-722-9141 Shop > 831-750-0284 Cell > > * > > * > > -- Dave Saylor AirCrafters LLC 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2009
From: "j. davis" <jd(at)lawsonimaging.ca>
Subject: Re: Castaways!
Rodney Dunham wrote: > > In the corner lay an assortment of bike parts. Castaways! I asked him > what it was and he told me it was a 3 speed bike. I asked if it was all > there. He replied in the affirmative. I asked how much he wanted for it. > He said $3.50. I said I'll take it! > Just an aside, Rodney... you were ahead of your time! A couple years ago, I was visiting my son the bike courier in Victoria, BC. He was using a many speed drailleur at the time, and I reminisced about my childhood Raleigh bike, with an internal 3-speed hub. Long story short, we scrounged up one of those hubs, and I taught him how to lace a wheel, stainless steel spokes and nipples. Several months later, all the couriers were using 3-speed internal hubs, and to this day, it is his bike-of-choice! -- Regards, J. Sonex #325 C-FJNJ, Jab 3300a, Prince P-Tip http://cleco.ca +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | J. Davis, M.Sc. | (computer science) | | *NIX consulting, SysAdmin | email: jd at lawsonimaging.ca | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ and now... Deep Thought #82, by Jack Handy I scrambled to the top of the precipice where Nick was waiting. "That was fun," I said. "You bet it was," said Nick. "Let's climb higher." "No," I said. "I think we should be heading back now." "We have time," Nick insisted. I said we didn't, and Nick said we did. We argued back and forth like that for about 20 minutes, then finally decided to head back. I didn't say it was an interesting story. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net>
Subject: 12 volt 3 or 4 pole relay for 1 to 2 amp load?
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Hello Bob, I want to add a little 3 pole relay to turn a Trutrak Flight Systems Automatic Pitch Trim on and off. (I did not consider this capability when I was running my wire bundle to the pitch servo area though I do have a spare pair that could be used to control a relay.) Page 7 of the Trutrak manual has the wiring diagram for their Auto Trim module. http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/documents/AutomaticPitchTrim.pdf Can you recommend a relay that might be carried by Allied Electronics? http://www.alliedelec.com/ I don't think you sell such a critter. Thanks, Allen Fulmer RV7 wiring N808AF reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Splicing wire
From: "bcollinsmn" <bob(at)rvbuildershotline.com>
Date: Aug 15, 2009
A pretty elementary question, I'm afraid. Can you refer me to the proper location of the resource that shows the proper way to splice two wires into one? Specifically, I'm making a wiring harness for an Icom A210 and I don't want to jam two #18 wires into the single molex pin for the jumper for ground and power. Instead, I'd like to take a single wire out of each connector, splice them to a third wire and run that wire to ground and the buss. I've seen pages on single-wire to single-wire, and I've seen doing this with shielded cable etc., but I'll be darned if I can find the proper technique for this. Warm regards. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV-7A - Running wires http://rvbuildershotline.com Day job: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257924#257924 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: 12 volt 3 or 4 pole relay for 1 to 2 amp load?
Date: Aug 15, 2009
Omron LY4-DC12 Allied stk # 821-2023 would be one choice for 4 poles. Omron LY3-DC12 Allied stk # 821-0084 would give you 3 poles. Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allen Fulmer Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:18 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: 12 volt 3 or 4 pole relay for 1 to 2 amp load? Hello Bob, I want to add a little 3 pole relay to turn a Trutrak Flight Systems Automatic Pitch Trim on and off. (I did not consider this capability when I was running my wire bundle to the pitch servo area though I do have a spare pair that could be used to control a relay.) Page 7 of the Trutrak manual has the wiring diagram for their Auto Trim module. http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/documents/AutomaticPitchTrim.pdf Can you recommend a relay that might be carried by Allied Electronics? http://www.alliedelec.com/ I don't think you sell such a critter. Thanks, Allen Fulmer RV7 wiring N808AF reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Splicing wire
From: "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
Date: Aug 16, 2009
Bob, I would consider a lash splice............ http://workmanship.nasa.gov/guidadv_recmeth_lashsplice.jsp covered with heatshrink. -------- Milt 2003 F1 Rocket 2006 Radial Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257954#257954 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/guidadv_recmeth_lash0_213.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 12 volt 3 or 4 pole relay for 1 to 2 amp load?
At 09:18 PM 8/15/2009, you wrote: >Hello Bob, > >I want to add a little 3 pole relay to turn a Trutrak Flight Systems >Automatic Pitch Trim on and off. (I did not consider this >capability when I was running my wire bundle to the pitch servo area >though I do have a spare pair that could be used to control a relay.) > >Page 7 of the Trutrak manual has the wiring diagram for their Auto >Trim module. > ><http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/documents/AutomaticPitchTrim.pdf>http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/documents/AutomaticPitchTrim.pdf > >Can you recommend a relay that might be carried by Allied >Electronics? <http://www.alliedelec.com/>http://www.alliedelec.com/ > >I don't think you sell such a critter. Allied has a lot of choices. This one is suited to your task: http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?SKU=8210912&MPN=LY3F-DC12 http://www.alliedelec.com/Images/Products/Datasheets/BM/OMRON_ELECTRONICS_LLC/821-0906.PDF Emacs! Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Splicing wire
Date: Aug 16, 2009
Excellent, Milt. Thank you. B -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:59 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Splicing wire --> Bob, I would consider a lash splice............ http://workmanship.nasa.gov/guidadv_recmeth_lashsplice.jsp covered with heatshrink. -------- Milt 2003 F1 Rocket 2006 Radial Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257954#257954 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/guidadv_recmeth_lash0_213.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: David Nelson <david.nelson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: E-Buss and Master Switches
Hi Bob, I'm going over the finer details of a design based largely upon Z-11. Why wouldn't one, for normal ops, have both the E-Buss and Master in the 'On' position? My reasoning being: - In the event of some electrical problems, you only have to contend with switching off one switch rather than remembering to turn the E-buss 'On' followed by turning the Master 'Off'. - If the problem persists, we aren't in any different position than if we turned on the E-Buss followed by turning off the Master. Am I missing something fundamental here or was I always assuming that the E-Buss was always originally 'Off' during normal ops? Thank you, /\/elson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Splicing wire
At 06:59 AM 8/16/2009, you wrote: > >Bob, > >I would consider a lash splice............ > >http://workmanship.nasa.gov/guidadv_recmeth_lashsplice.jsp > >covered with heatshrink. That works good. We've published similar processes on aeroelectric.com Solder and insulate techniques range from the simple processes described above to the more sophisticated (and expensive) process illustrated here: http://parts.digikey.com/1/parts-kws/solder-sleeve Any methodology that achieves good mechanical and electrical joining of the wires followed by robust insulation will serve your purposes. The simplest processes are recommended. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: E-Buss and Master Switches
Date: Aug 16, 2009
Hi there David, I had to write a procedure on how to use a system that I wired to one of the Z diagrams and then it became clear why one does not want to leave the e-bus alt feed on. In the event of a fault, smoke, what have you, the first thing that you want to do is isloate the power sources from the fault as fast as possible- hence the DC master; once its off only the short fat wire between the battery and your solenoid is live (and the E-bus alt to the switch wire). So, unless the fault is right there (usually unlikely), then you have removed the power that is driving the fault. In a mag equipped aircraft the engine should still run and in an all electric aircraft the ECU and fuel pumps should have directly connected wires that bypass the DC master. If you still have smoke and trouble then you know that you are now seriously in the dwang, as the fault is somewhere in those, non-isolatable, wires. However, if switching the DC master off clears the fault you can now switch the E-bus alt feed on and see what happens; then maybe switch off a few circuits on the main bus; switch the DC master back on, etc. This is assuming that landing is not a luxury that you are presently afforded- such as if you are crossing the Atlantic and you're 10 hours into a 22 hour flight... ;-) If you can land, better to figure the problem out on the ground of course, using just the E-bus to get you down. Jay -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Nelson Sent: 16 August 2009 05:30 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-Buss and Master Switches Hi Bob, I'm going over the finer details of a design based largely upon Z-11. Why wouldn't one, for normal ops, have both the E-Buss and Master in the 'On' position? My reasoning being: - In the event of some electrical problems, you only have to contend with switching off one switch rather than remembering to turn the E-buss 'On' followed by turning the Master 'Off'. - If the problem persists, we aren't in any different position than if we turned on the E-Buss followed by turning off the Master. Am I missing something fundamental here or was I always assuming that the E-Buss was always originally 'Off' during normal ops? Thank you, /\/elson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-Buss and Master Switches
At 10:30 AM 8/16/2009, you wrote: > > >Hi Bob, > >I'm going over the finer details of a design based largely upon >Z-11. Why wouldn't one, for normal ops, have both the E-Buss and >Master in the 'On' position? Could, but not necessary. Doesn't hurt. But you DO want to pre-flight test the dual power path philosophy for the e-bus. >My reasoning being: > >- In the event of some electrical problems, you only have to contend >with switching off one switch rather than remembering to turn the >E-buss 'On' followed by turning the Master 'Off'. Remember? It's recommended that you have a checklist for shutdown. It's also recommended that you consider an ergonomic arrangement of switches wherein ship's DC power controls are grouped. Leaving the airplane should be preceded by placing all switches down (OFF). >- If the problem persists, we aren't in any different position than >if we turned on the E-Buss followed by turning off the Master. > >Am I missing something fundamental here or was I always assuming >that the E-Buss was always originally 'Off' during normal ops? That was the original design philosophy. But failure mode effects analysis for the system's design included consideration of risk for having the switch ON under any flight conditions. Wired as shown, you may operate it with any philosophy you choose. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 12 volt 3 or 4 pole relay for 1 to 2 amp load?
At 09:18 PM 8/15/2009, you wrote: >Hello Bob, > >I want to add a little 3 pole relay to turn a Trutrak Flight Systems >Automatic Pitch Trim on and off. (I did not consider this >capability when I was running my wire bundle to the pitch servo area >though I do have a spare pair that could be used to control a relay.) > >Page 7 of the Trutrak manual has the wiring diagram for their Auto >Trim module. > ><http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/documents/AutomaticPitchTrim.pdf>http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/documents/AutomaticPitchTrim.pdf > >Can you recommend a relay that might be carried by Allied >Electronics? <http://www.alliedelec.com/>http://www.alliedelec.com/ > >I don't think you sell such a critter. Allied has a lot of choices. This one is suited to your task: http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?SKU=8210912&MPN=LY3F-DC12 http://www.alliedelec.com/Images/Products/Datasheets/BM/OMRON_ELECTRONICS_LLC/821-0906.PDF Emacs! Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: David Nelson <david.nelson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: E-Buss and Master Switches
Hi Jay, I certainly understand your reasoning for the below and I had a similar argument in my head. But then this scenario popped up in my head. Currently, I'm only VFR rated but plan to go for the IFR ticket within a couple of years of project completion. I imagined flying in the soup and would I want to reset all my avionics and wait for them to reinitialize? I'll be honest, I don't how long it will take for my equipment to re-initialize while flying - I'll add it as a 'todo' item for further investigation. Ugh - this is making my head hurt. To me, I guess what it comes down to is that we must architect our systems for fault tolorance, know how the systems are designed and how they work, understand the associated risks and trade-offs, and train for emergencies. Thanks to Bob, we can thank him for the 1st three. /\/elson On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Jay Hyde wrote: > > > Hi there David, > > I had to write a procedure on how to use a system that I wired to one of the > Z diagrams and then it became clear why one does not want to leave the e-bus > alt feed on. In the event of a fault, smoke, what have you, the first thing > that you want to do is isloate the power sources from the fault as fast as > possible- hence the DC master; once its off only the short fat wire between > the battery and your solenoid is live (and the E-bus alt to the switch > wire). So, unless the fault is right there (usually unlikely), then you > have removed the power that is driving the fault. In a mag equipped > aircraft the engine should still run and in an all electric aircraft the ECU > and fuel pumps should have directly connected wires that bypass the DC > master. If you still have smoke and trouble then you know that you are now > seriously in the dwang, as the fault is somewhere in those, non-isolatable, > wires. > However, if switching the DC master off clears the fault you can now switch > the E-bus alt feed on and see what happens; then maybe switch off a few > circuits on the main bus; switch the DC master back on, etc. This is > assuming that landing is not a luxury that you are presently afforded- such > as if you are crossing the Atlantic and you're 10 hours into a 22 hour > flight... ;-) > > If you can land, better to figure the problem out on the ground of course, > using just the E-bus to get you down. > > Jay > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David > Nelson > Sent: 16 August 2009 05:30 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-Buss and Master Switches > > > > > Hi Bob, > > I'm going over the finer details of a design based largely upon Z-11. Why > wouldn't one, for normal ops, have both the E-Buss and Master in the 'On' > position? > > My reasoning being: > > - In the event of some electrical problems, you only have to contend with > switching off one switch rather than remembering to turn the E-buss 'On' > followed by turning the Master 'Off'. > > - If the problem persists, we aren't in any different position than if we > turned on the E-Buss followed by turning off the Master. > > Am I missing something fundamental here or was I always assuming that the > E-Buss was always originally 'Off' during normal ops? > > Thank you, > /\/elson > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: David Nelson <david.nelson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: Re: E-Buss and Master Switches
Hi Bob, 100% agree that the pre-flight checklist should involve toggling both swithches to ensure proper operation. That should be item regardless of normal ops. I'm giving an awful lot of thought to switch placement and overall cockpit ergonomics. Being my 1st time, I'm learning that it is not as easy as a task as I had thought it would be....and I am making progress. /\/elson On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 10:30 AM 8/16/2009, you wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Bob, >> >> I'm going over the finer details of a design based largely upon Z-11. Why >> wouldn't one, for normal ops, have both the E-Buss and Master in the 'On' >> position? > > Could, but not necessary. Doesn't hurt. But you DO > want to pre-flight test the dual power path philosophy > for the e-bus. > >> My reasoning being: >> >> - In the event of some electrical problems, you only have to contend with >> switching off one switch rather than remembering to turn the E-buss 'On' >> followed by turning the Master 'Off'. > > Remember? It's recommended that you have a checklist > for shutdown. It's also recommended that you consider > an ergonomic arrangement of switches wherein ship's > DC power controls are grouped. Leaving the airplane > should be preceded by placing all switches down (OFF). > >> - If the problem persists, we aren't in any different position than if we >> turned on the E-Buss followed by turning off the Master. >> >> Am I missing something fundamental here or was I always assuming that the >> E-Buss was always originally 'Off' during normal ops? > > That was the original design philosophy. But failure > mode effects analysis for the system's design included > consideration of risk for having the switch ON under > any flight conditions. Wired as shown, you may operate > it with any philosophy you choose. > > > Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com>
Subject: E-Buss and Master Switches
Date: Aug 16, 2009
Hey David, I kinda agree... re waiting for stuff to reset; I suppose that the best is exactly what we are arming ourselves with right here- a pretty good understanding of exactly how our sytems work. As an aside, the MGL EFIS systems that I am using a lot now have the option (as many others also do) of their own standby and backup battery ( a little isty bitsy thing) that keeps them all running when you switch off the DC master- sort of like an airborne UPS you might say; so the reset doesn't really happen :-) I hope... ;-) Jay -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Nelson Sent: 16 August 2009 09:44 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: E-Buss and Master Switches Hi Jay, I certainly understand your reasoning for the below and I had a similar argument in my head. But then this scenario popped up in my head. Currently, I'm only VFR rated but plan to go for the IFR ticket within a couple of years of project completion. I imagined flying in the soup and would I want to reset all my avionics and wait for them to reinitialize? I'll be honest, I don't how long it will take for my equipment to re-initialize while flying - I'll add it as a 'todo' item for further investigation. Ugh - this is making my head hurt. To me, I guess what it comes down to is that we must architect our systems for fault tolorance, know how the systems are designed and how they work, understand the associated risks and trade-offs, and train for emergencies. Thanks to Bob, we can thank him for the 1st three. /\/elson On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Jay Hyde wrote: > > > Hi there David, > > I had to write a procedure on how to use a system that I wired to one of the > Z diagrams and then it became clear why one does not want to leave the e-bus > alt feed on. In the event of a fault, smoke, what have you, the first thing > that you want to do is isloate the power sources from the fault as fast as > possible- hence the DC master; once its off only the short fat wire between > the battery and your solenoid is live (and the E-bus alt to the switch > wire). So, unless the fault is right there (usually unlikely), then you > have removed the power that is driving the fault. In a mag equipped > aircraft the engine should still run and in an all electric aircraft the ECU > and fuel pumps should have directly connected wires that bypass the DC > master. If you still have smoke and trouble then you know that you are now > seriously in the dwang, as the fault is somewhere in those, non-isolatable, > wires. > However, if switching the DC master off clears the fault you can now switch > the E-bus alt feed on and see what happens; then maybe switch off a few > circuits on the main bus; switch the DC master back on, etc. This is > assuming that landing is not a luxury that you are presently afforded- such > as if you are crossing the Atlantic and you're 10 hours into a 22 hour > flight... ;-) > > If you can land, better to figure the problem out on the ground of course, > using just the E-bus to get you down. > > Jay > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David > Nelson > Sent: 16 August 2009 05:30 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-Buss and Master Switches > > > > > Hi Bob, > > I'm going over the finer details of a design based largely upon Z-11. Why > wouldn't one, for normal ops, have both the E-Buss and Master in the 'On' > position? > > My reasoning being: > > - In the event of some electrical problems, you only have to contend with > switching off one switch rather than remembering to turn the E-buss 'On' > followed by turning the Master 'Off'. > > - If the problem persists, we aren't in any different position than if we > turned on the E-Buss followed by turning off the Master. > > Am I missing something fundamental here or was I always assuming that the > E-Buss was always originally 'Off' during normal ops? > > Thank you, > /\/elson > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-Buss and Master Switches
At 02:56 PM 8/16/2009, you wrote: > > >Hi Bob, > >100% agree that the pre-flight checklist should involve toggling >both swithches to ensure proper operation. That should be item >regardless of normal ops. > >I'm giving an awful lot of thought to switch placement and overall >cockpit ergonomics. Being my 1st time, I'm learning that it is not >as easy as a task as I had thought it would be....and I am making progress. Add this drawing to your sources of ideas . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Switch_Panels/Switches.pdf In several variations I've suggested an ordering of switches that groups function and mitigates the effects of mistakenly grabbing an adjacent switch. Operating the wrong switch is high on the list of concerns for some builders. Here I've built the switch strings where the least used are at the far left and most used at far right with power distribution and control in the middle. You may have other design goals in mind but these drawings may offer a place to start. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: E-Buss and Master Switches
>I imagined flying in the soup and would I want to reset all my >avionics and wait for them to reinitialize? I'll be honest, I don't >how long it will take for my equipment to re-initialize while flying >- I'll add it as a 'todo' item for further investigation. I forgot another item from your posting. If it's ever necessary to force any piece of equipment to re-boot, it's ill-advised to initiate it with any part of the power distribution system that affects more than one piece of equipment. Any such processes are best accomplished on one piece at a time with controls unique to that piece of equipment and then perhaps only if you really need that piece of equipment for comfortable completion of that flight. More than one dark-n-stormy night story advanced to higher levels of interest and intrigue as pilot attempts to diagnose/fix some problem by manipulation that serves only distracted him or made other things happen that worsened the situation. >Ugh - this is making my head hurt. To me, I guess what it comes down >to is that we must architect our systems for fault tolorance, know >how the systems are designed and how they work, understand the >associated risks and trade-offs, and train for emergencies. Thanks >to Bob, we can thank him for the 1st three. It shouldn't be painful. It's called failure mode effects analysis and generally takes a LONG time to do a good job. Not that it's difficult . . . but new possibilities or combinations arise with thought, time and conversation with others. I'm pretty sure that every FMEA report I've submitted was considered by others "complete" and suitable for publication. Personally, I've considered them perhaps 99 percent complete while keeping an eye out for new ideas. Don't rush it. The thing that's nice about the airplanes we build here is that the last 1% item can be accommodated in a timely manner and at our convenience. The TC airplane guys HAD to call the work 100% complete because any changes after certification was a horribly protracted process. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: David Nelson <david.nelson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: E-Buss and Master Switches
Hi Jay, "Airborne UPS" - haha - I like that. I had been resistant to using the internal battery option of the AFS unit. Instead opting for a small aux battery. I've recently changed my mind on that front as it somewhat simplyflied my panel and wiring while still maintaining the goal of being able to power up the EFIS before engine startup. After that, everthing else can get turned on. /\/elson On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Jay Hyde wrote: > > > Hey David, > > I kinda agree... re waiting for stuff to reset; I suppose that the best is > exactly what we are arming ourselves with right here- a pretty good > understanding of exactly how our sytems work. > > As an aside, the MGL EFIS systems that I am using a lot now have the option > (as many others also do) of their own standby and backup battery ( a little > isty bitsy thing) that keeps them all running when you switch off the DC > master- sort of like an airborne UPS you might say; so the reset doesn't > really happen :-) I hope... ;-) > > Jay > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David > Nelson > Sent: 16 August 2009 09:44 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: E-Buss and Master Switches > > > > > Hi Jay, > > I certainly understand your reasoning for the below and I had a similar > argument in my head. But then this scenario popped up in my head. > Currently, > I'm only VFR rated but plan to go for the IFR ticket within a couple of > years > of project completion. I imagined flying in the soup and would I want to > reset > all my avionics and wait for them to reinitialize? I'll be honest, I don't > how > long it will take for my equipment to re-initialize while flying - I'll add > it > as a 'todo' item for further investigation. > > Ugh - this is making my head hurt. To me, I guess what it comes down to is > that > we must architect our systems for fault tolorance, know how the systems are > designed and how they work, understand the associated risks and trade-offs, > and > train for emergencies. Thanks to Bob, we can thank him for the 1st three. > > /\/elson > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Jay Hyde wrote: > >> >> >> Hi there David, >> >> I had to write a procedure on how to use a system that I wired to one of > the >> Z diagrams and then it became clear why one does not want to leave the > e-bus >> alt feed on. In the event of a fault, smoke, what have you, the first > thing >> that you want to do is isloate the power sources from the fault as fast as >> possible- hence the DC master; once its off only the short fat wire > between >> the battery and your solenoid is live (and the E-bus alt to the switch >> wire). So, unless the fault is right there (usually unlikely), then you >> have removed the power that is driving the fault. In a mag equipped >> aircraft the engine should still run and in an all electric aircraft the > ECU >> and fuel pumps should have directly connected wires that bypass the DC >> master. If you still have smoke and trouble then you know that you are > now >> seriously in the dwang, as the fault is somewhere in those, > non-isolatable, >> wires. >> However, if switching the DC master off clears the fault you can now > switch >> the E-bus alt feed on and see what happens; then maybe switch off a few >> circuits on the main bus; switch the DC master back on, etc. This is >> assuming that landing is not a luxury that you are presently afforded- > such >> as if you are crossing the Atlantic and you're 10 hours into a 22 hour >> flight... ;-) >> >> If you can land, better to figure the problem out on the ground of course, >> using just the E-bus to get you down. >> >> Jay >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David >> Nelson >> Sent: 16 August 2009 05:30 PM >> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-Buss and Master Switches >> >> >> >> >> Hi Bob, >> >> I'm going over the finer details of a design based largely upon Z-11. Why >> wouldn't one, for normal ops, have both the E-Buss and Master in the 'On' >> position? >> >> My reasoning being: >> >> - In the event of some electrical problems, you only have to contend with >> switching off one switch rather than remembering to turn the E-buss 'On' >> followed by turning the Master 'Off'. >> >> - If the problem persists, we aren't in any different position than if we >> turned on the E-Buss followed by turning off the Master. >> >> Am I missing something fundamental here or was I always assuming that the >> E-Buss was always originally 'Off' during normal ops? >> >> Thank you, >> /\/elson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: VOM Troubles
From: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net>
Date: Aug 16, 2009
I have a Fluke model 87 digital VOM (Volt-Ohm-Milliammeter) that has just started discharging the internal 9 volt battery in less than a month while it is turned OFF. I've had this meter for 15 years and used it throughout building my airplane, as well as various hobbies before that, so I guess I got my money's worth out of it, but I'm puzzled. Using another meter, I measured about 10 microamps current out of the Fluke's internal 9 volt transistor radio battery while it's turned OFF. If a 9 volt transistor radio battery holds 0.5 amp-hours, then with 10 microamps, the battery should last 50,000 hours. But the last two batteries lasted about a month each. They test good before I put them in and have an expiration date of 2013. First, is my arithmetic correct? I think a milliamp is 0.001 amps and a microamp is 0.000001 amps. I think a 10 microamp current through a half amp-hour battery would take 50,000 hours to deplete the battery. Second, did I read my digital VOM correctly? Using a nice German BBC VOM, set on the 2 milliamp scale, it reads .009. Using a cheap Harbor Freight digital VOM, set on the 200 microamp scale, it reads 09.5. You can see that something is wrong, either with my math or the way I'm reading the scale on the VOMs. Or maybe the Duracell fairies are sneaking in and sucking all the juice out of my batteries? I talked to Fluke customer support and he said there was no published spec on the current draw from the battery while it was turned off and couldn't say if mine was bad or not. My model 87 isn't supported anymore and he wanted me to buy the new version. Any ideas? Dennis Johnson Lancair Legacy, 330 flight hours Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258060#258060 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
Subject: Re: Check this out
From: Walter Fellows <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
There is wisdom in your message but it will be helpful to those of focusing on aeroelectrics if you can mark it off topic. at, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:49 PM, wrote: > It happened sometime during my generation (born 1935). Up until and duri ng > WWII, it was =93honorable=94 to be in the trades, working with your hands . > Sometime after WWII, and before the =93information age=94, in my world, i t > became imperative to go to college and earn a degree so that one didn=92t * > have* to work with ones hands. Somehow, using brainpower instead of > muscle power became =93noble=94. There are those among us that choose to use > both. We are the =93tinkerers=94. We are driven to learn, experiment an d to > create. But we are the dinosaurs, a dying breed. Beyond the time when i t > was a given that a college education was all that was necessary to succee d, > along came the computer. Today=92s youth (and some ancients) think that y ou > can do anything if you can conquer the computer. Never mind what makes i t > work. You only need to master the keyboard, the display and a host of > programming tricks. This mentality leads one to believe that =93stuff=94 > happens without human intervention, except through the computer=92s omnip otent > power. Thus the decline in people that really make =93stuff=94 happen - t he > carpenters, millwrights, farmers, machinist, plumbers, mechanics - all th ose > that work with their hands. Of course, they are still out there, doing t he > everyday jobs that must be done, but their numbers are rapidly declining; > =91cause it=92s just not E2cool=94 to work with your hands these days. B y all > means, allow and encourage the kids to master the computer. Just don=92t let > it get in the way of learning about and doing things manually, creating a nd > above all - =93TINKERING=94. > > Jay Bannister > ------------------------------ > Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Check this out
At 06:56 PM 8/16/2009, you wrote: >There is wisdom in your message but it will be helpful to those of >focusing on aeroelectrics if you can mark it off topic. But it was on topic to the thread I originally posted under that subject . . . Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2009
From: "Johnson, Phillip (EXP)" <phillip.johnson(at)lmco.com>
Subject: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Was Said> The Princeton Capacitance Sensors I bought and connected to the AF-3400 EM do not work. I've calibrated them 7 times and they still fluctuate between full and 8 gallons when the tanks are full and fluctuate wildly when less than full. Perhaps I've done something wrong in the calibration - I know most errors are installation or operator errors - but, I tried to follow the AF-3400 instructions accurately.Date: Aug 17, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: VOM Troubles
At 05:25 PM 8/16/2009, you wrote: > > >I have a Fluke model 87 digital VOM (Volt-Ohm-Milliammeter) that has >just started discharging the internal 9 volt battery in less than a >month while it is turned OFF. I've had this meter for 15 years and >used it throughout building my airplane, as well as various hobbies >before that, so I guess I got my money's worth out of it, but I'm puzzled. Great instrument. I've had one since they came on the market. >Using another meter, I measured about 10 microamps current out of >the Fluke's internal 9 volt transistor radio battery while it's >turned OFF. If a 9 volt transistor radio battery holds 0.5 >amp-hours, then with 10 microamps, the battery should last 50,000 >hours. But the last two batteries lasted about a month each. They >test good before I put them in and have an expiration date of 2013. Emacs! A Duracell 9v has published performance data as shown above. The smallest discharge curve is for 2 ma so with a end of life voltage of say 7 volts, yes the device should deliver 500 mAh of service at 2 mA and MORE at still smaller drains. The internal resistance of the battery becomes less significant as current demands drop . . . >First, is my arithmetic correct? I think a milliamp is 0.001 amps >and a microamp is 0.000001 amps. I think a 10 microamp current >through a half amp-hour battery would take 50,000 hours to deplete the battery. Yup, that's about right. > > >Second, did I read my digital VOM correctly? Using a nice German >BBC VOM, set on the 2 milliamp scale, it reads .009. Using a cheap >Harbor Freight digital VOM, set on the 200 microamp scale, it reads 09.5. The interpretation of your observations seems correct. >You can see that something is wrong, either with my math or the way >I'm reading the scale on the VOMs. Or maybe the Duracell fairies >are sneaking in and sucking all the juice out of my batteries? > >I talked to Fluke customer support and he said there was no >published spec on the current draw from the battery while it was >turned off and couldn't say if mine was bad or not. My model 87 >isn't supported anymore and he wanted me to buy the new version. My model 87 is 100 miles away right now but I'll be back in that shop tomorrow or Wednesday. I'll duplicate your experiment so we can compare results. In the mean time, perhaps someone else here on the List has a model 87 Fluke and can do their own investigation. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2009
From: "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: Re: VOM Troubles
I've a Fluke 87 so I'll check it out this PM and report back. /\/elson ~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. ~~ On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 05:25 PM 8/16/2009, you wrote: > > I have a Fluke model 87 digital VOM (Volt-Ohm-Milliammeter) that has just started discharging the internal 9 volt battery in less than a month while it is turned OFF. I've had this > meter for 15 years and used it throughout building my airplane, as well as various hobbies before that, so I guess I got my money's worth out of it, but I'm puzzled. > > > Great instrument. I've had one since they came > on the market. > > Using another meter, I measured about 10 microamps current out of the Fluke's internal 9 volt transistor radio battery while it's turned OFF. If a 9 volt transistor radio battery > holds 0.5 amp-hours, then with 10 microamps, the battery should last 50,000 hours. But the last two batteries lasted about a month each. They test good before I put them in and > have an expiration date of 2013. > > > Emacs! > > A Duracell 9v has published performance data as shown > above. The smallest discharge curve is for 2 ma > so with a end of life voltage of say 7 volts, yes > the device should deliver 500 mAh of service at > 2 mA and MORE at still smaller drains. The internal > resistance of the battery becomes less significant > as current demands drop . . . > > First, is my arithmetic correct? I think a milliamp is 0.001 amps and a microamp is 0.000001 amps. I think a 10 microamp current through a half amp-hour battery would take 50,000 > hours to deplete the battery. > > > Yup, that's about right. > > > Second, did I read my digital VOM correctly? Using a nice German BBC VOM, set on the 2 milliamp scale, it reads .009. Using a cheap Harbor Freight digital VOM, set on the 200 > microamp scale, it reads 09.5. > > > The interpretation of your observations seems > correct. > > > You can see that something is wrong, either with my math or the way I'm reading the scale on the VOMs. Or maybe the Duracell fairies are sneaking in and sucking all the juice out > of my batteries? > > I talked to Fluke customer support and he said there was no published spec on the current draw from the battery while it was turned off and couldn't say if mine was bad or not. My > model 87 isn't supported anymore and he wanted me to buy the new version. > > > My model 87 is 100 miles away right now > but I'll be back in that shop tomorrow or > Wednesday. I'll duplicate your experiment > so we can compare results. In the mean time, > perhaps someone else here on the List has > a model 87 Fluke and can do their own > investigation. > > Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2009
From: David Posey <dlposey-atlanta(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: electric system for round the world flight
Bob, I am assisting a friend with his RV8 that he will fly around the world. Engine is Lyc O-360 (new) with fuel injection, oem alternator, Vac pad B&C 8amp pm alternator, 2 batteries, one oem mag and one Lightspeed electronic ignition. Panel will be typical glass stuff w/autopilot, two axis. What are your recommendations for the electrical system? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2009
From: "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: Re: VOM Troubles - Datapoint
I measured 7.2 uA for my Fluke 87. /\/elson ~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. ~~ On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, David E. Nelson wrote: > > > > I've a Fluke 87 so I'll check it out this PM and report back. > > /\/elson > > ~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. > ~~ > > On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> At 05:25 PM 8/16/2009, you wrote: >> >> >> I have a Fluke model 87 digital VOM (Volt-Ohm-Milliammeter) that has >> just started discharging the internal 9 volt battery in less than a month >> while it is turned OFF. I've had this >> meter for 15 years and used it throughout building my airplane, as >> well as various hobbies before that, so I guess I got my money's worth out >> of it, but I'm puzzled. >> >> >> Great instrument. I've had one since they came >> on the market. >> >> Using another meter, I measured about 10 microamps current out of the >> Fluke's internal 9 volt transistor radio battery while it's turned OFF. If >> a 9 volt transistor radio battery >> holds 0.5 amp-hours, then with 10 microamps, the battery should last >> 50,000 hours. But the last two batteries lasted about a month each. They >> test good before I put them in and >> have an expiration date of 2013. >> >> >> Emacs! >> >> A Duracell 9v has published performance data as shown >> above. The smallest discharge curve is for 2 ma >> so with a end of life voltage of say 7 volts, yes >> the device should deliver 500 mAh of service at >> 2 mA and MORE at still smaller drains. The internal >> resistance of the battery becomes less significant >> as current demands drop . . . >> >> First, is my arithmetic correct? I think a milliamp is 0.001 amps >> and a microamp is 0.000001 amps. I think a 10 microamp current through a >> half amp-hour battery would take 50,000 >> hours to deplete the battery. >> >> >> Yup, that's about right. >> >> >> Second, did I read my digital VOM correctly? Using a nice German BBC >> VOM, set on the 2 milliamp scale, it reads .009. Using a cheap Harbor >> Freight digital VOM, set on the 200 >> microamp scale, it reads 09.5. >> >> >> The interpretation of your observations seems >> correct. >> >> >> You can see that something is wrong, either with my math or the way >> I'm reading the scale on the VOMs. Or maybe the Duracell fairies are >> sneaking in and sucking all the juice out >> of my batteries? >> >> I talked to Fluke customer support and he said there was no published >> spec on the current draw from the battery while it was turned off and >> couldn't say if mine was bad or not. My >> model 87 isn't supported anymore and he wanted me to buy the new >> version. >> >> >> My model 87 is 100 miles away right now >> but I'll be back in that shop tomorrow or >> Wednesday. I'll duplicate your experiment >> so we can compare results. In the mean time, >> perhaps someone else here on the List has >> a model 87 Fluke and can do their own >> investigation. >> >> Bob . . . >> >> --------------------------------------- >> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) >> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) >> ( appearance of being right . . . ) >> ( ) >> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) >> --------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com>
Subject: VOM Troubles
Date: Aug 17, 2009
Dennis, your math is correct. You will get 50,000 hrs out of a 0.5 Amp-Hr battery at 10 uA. I took my trusty Fluke 87 into work today to have its battery current measured. It was 7.9 uA. There is something wrong with your meter. I'm guessing one of the components has failed or there is FOD somewhere causing low resistance. If it is FOD, possibly you can solve it by cleaning the PWB or the rotary switch. This particular problem may be exacerbated by the auto-turn off feature, which is controlled by a microcontroller. The reason is because a FOD can cause a small amount of current to flow in the right place and tell the microcontroller to turn the whole meter on and keep it on. It may be worth it to blow clean both the PWB and the rotary switch and then retest it. I've had this meter since the 1980s, and I'd hate to see it go. It's a really good meter! Good luck. Simon Ramirez Copyright 2009 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:25 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: VOM Troubles I have a Fluke model 87 digital VOM (Volt-Ohm-Milliammeter) that has just started discharging the internal 9 volt battery in less than a month while it is turned OFF. I've had this meter for 15 years and used it throughout building my airplane, as well as various hobbies before that, so I guess I got my money's worth out of it, but I'm puzzled. Using another meter, I measured about 10 microamps current out of the Fluke's internal 9 volt transistor radio battery while it's turned OFF. If a 9 volt transistor radio battery holds 0.5 amp-hours, then with 10 microamps, the battery should last 50,000 hours. But the last two batteries lasted about a month each. They test good before I put them in and have an expiration date of 2013. First, is my arithmetic correct? I think a milliamp is 0.001 amps and a microamp is 0.000001 amps. I think a 10 microamp current through a half amp-hour battery would take 50,000 hours to deplete the battery. Second, did I read my digital VOM correctly? Using a nice German BBC VOM, set on the 2 milliamp scale, it reads .009. Using a cheap Harbor Freight digital VOM, set on the 200 microamp scale, it reads 09.5. You can see that something is wrong, either with my math or the way I'm reading the scale on the VOMs. Or maybe the Duracell fairies are sneaking in and sucking all the juice out of my batteries? I talked to Fluke customer support and he said there was no published spec on the current draw from the battery while it was turned off and couldn't say if mine was bad or not. My model 87 isn't supported anymore and he wanted me to buy the new version. Any ideas? Dennis Johnson Lancair Legacy, 330 flight hours Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258060#258060 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: VOM Troubles
From: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net>
Date: Aug 17, 2009
Thanks to Bob for confirming that my calculations weren't off by a few decimal points. Thanks to Simon for measuring the current draw of his Fluke 87. Simon's current draw, when turned off, was 7.9 micro amps. Mine was 9.5 micro amps. So it seems like my meter is probably okay. I'll try blowing out dust and I'll go with another new 9 volt battery and hope the gremlins leave me alone. Could be a bad batch of 9 volt batteries? Still a puzzle. Thanks, guys! Dennis Johnson Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258334#258334 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2009
Subject: Checking Coil
From: philip smith <madriver(at)wildblue.net>
Question - could say it's for an aircraft project - but can anybody tell me how to ohm out a 12v ignition coil on my case tractor to see if its any good. Phil CH-701 about done ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2009
Subject: Re: electric system for round the world flight
From: Walter Fellows <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
I flew a Cessna 210 from New York to Hawaii, Christmas Island and the Cooke Islands and a return in 1984. This included many long overwater segments (up to 14 hours). I was relatively inexperienced and encountered electrical problems on the last leg from Hilo to San Jose partly at night. It turned out to be a loose nut for the field wire at the alternator and it was unnerving to watch the lights flicker for a few hours. I would highly recommend Z-14. Even if he chooses not to have the long overwater segments, getting repairs in remote places can be difficult and a fully redundant system may well come in handy. He should also not set out over water until he has flown the system for long extended periods over land without constant radio communication to make sure everything is working well. I choose the great plains from Indiana to Colorado Springs, which can be traversed without crossing any real traffic area. He also should have an HF or sat phone with proven ability to communicate with ATC (ARINC and the the other controlling agencies). He should also pay attention to survival, it is not that dangerous of a trip for an experienced pilot who understands survival techniques. Walter Fellows On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, David Posey wrote: > dlposey-atlanta(at)earthlink.net> > > Bob, I am assisting a friend with his RV8 that he will fly around the > world. Engine is Lyc O-360 (new) with fuel injection, oem alternator, Vac > pad B&C 8amp pm alternator, 2 batteries, one oem mag and one Lightspeed > electronic ignition. Panel will be typical glass stuff w/autopilot, two > axis. What are your recommendations for the electrical system? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: electric system for round the world flight
At 04:02 PM 8/17/2009, you wrote: > > >Bob, I am assisting a friend with his RV8 that he will fly around >the world. Engine is Lyc O-360 (new) with fuel injection, oem >alternator, Vac pad B&C 8amp pm alternator, 2 batteries, one oem mag >and one Lightspeed electronic ignition. Panel will be typical glass >stuff w/autopilot, two axis. What are your recommendations for the >electrical system? Figure Z-13/8 with Z-30 aux battery added Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Checking Coil
At 09:36 PM 8/17/2009, you wrote: >Question - could say it's for an aircraft project - but can anybody >tell me how to ohm out a 12v ignition coil on my case tractor to see >if its any good. Measure resistance between screw terminals and look for 4-8 ohms. Measure between any screw termnial and the tower (spark) terminal and you should see perhaps 1000 ohms or more. This only shows continuity and won't reveal shorted turns . . . but since these things are generally oil filled, shorted turns are unlikely. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2009
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: VOM Troubles
Hey Guys, Can't say about the batteries you have but the Duracells are not the battery they used to be. You used to be able to put them into a piece of equipment and not have to worry about them leaking, were great for meters and cameras, not so any more. If I had to put my finger on it I would say it started when they came out with their more expensive (longer life) ultra's. Ever wonder what's inside a Duracell battery, see the link below. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1155268,00.asp Sounds like your going to need a new Du-witcher - cost $150 bucks - that's the thing the test leads plug into to. Note, if you have a Duracell (alkaline) battery that has leaked, clean it up best you can using white vinegar & Q--Tips for the tight spots. Alkaline is a base - when it leaks it is quite aggressive and can eat things up in a short time. It can be neutralized with a acid which vinegar supplies. jerb At 07:00 PM 8/17/2009, you wrote: > > >Thanks to Bob for confirming that my calculations weren't off by a >few decimal points. Thanks to Simon for measuring the current draw >of his Fluke 87. > >Simon's current draw, when turned off, was 7.9 micro amps. Mine was >9.5 micro amps. So it seems like my meter is probably okay. I'll >try blowing out dust and I'll go with another new 9 volt battery and >hope the gremlins leave me alone. Could be a bad batch of 9 volt >batteries? Still a puzzle. > >Thanks, guys! > >Dennis Johnson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: VOM Troubles
At 11:22 PM 8/17/2009, you wrote: > >Hey Guys, >Can't say about the batteries you have but the Duracells are not the >battery they used to be. You used to be able to put them into a >piece of equipment and not have to worry about them leaking . . . I've not experienced a leaking incident with flashlight cells in years. I did loose a digital caliper last month because an alkaline button cell leaked . . . but it was a case where the tool was stored for a long time with a discharged cell. Our battery powered devices are working tools that generally don't get stored for long periods of time with dead cells. . . . they were great for meters and cameras, not so any more. I've not detected any 'changes' in these products tendencies to leak in our regular change-out working environment. Has anyone else on the list experienced a messy event with their alkaline cells of any brand? Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Scott & May Beth Williamson <dinahdog(at)cox.net>
Subject: 22awg fusible link
Date: Aug 18, 2009
Hi Bob: Building a Bearhawk; using your written guidance on the electrical system for which I much appreciate. Dynon D180 uses 22awg from shunt to loadmeter and requires fusible links or fuses. Fusible link requires 26awg to be 4 step sizes from 22awg. Having difficulty finding 26awg tefzel after checking BandC, Stein, Spruce. Will 24awg packaged in BandC part FLK-1 provide proper protection? Rather not use in line fuses for this. Also, S700-2-5 switches, wired IAW Z-11 ver. 12 can be used for either two mags or one mag/ one electronic ignition? Thank You for all you do, Scott ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2009
Subject: Re: VOM Troubles
From: Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Bob, When I had my LSA inspected I found the Duracells in the ELT (dated to 2010) had leaked all over the inside. Later that summer I had a maglite also taken out of commission by some Duracells. In both cases they were D size. That was last year. Except for the new ELT in which I have to, I don't buy Duracell anymore. Going by a study you did a few years back, I buy the chicom batteries at Dollar General. Can't tell you anything about electrical characteristics, but I do know that we've never had one of any size leak. Rick Girard On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > At 11:22 PM 8/17/2009, you wrote: > >> >> Hey Guys, >> Can't say about the batteries you have but the Duracells are not the >> battery they used to be. You used to be able to put them into a piece of >> equipment and not have to worry about them leaking . . . >> > > I've not experienced a leaking incident with > flashlight cells in years. I did loose a digital > caliper last month because an alkaline button cell > leaked . . . but it was a case where the tool was > stored for a long time with a discharged cell. Our > battery powered devices are working tools that generally > don't get stored for long periods of time with dead > cells. > > . . . they were great for meters and cameras, not so any more. > > I've not detected any 'changes' in these products > tendencies to leak in our regular change-out working > environment. Has anyone else on the list experienced > a messy event with their alkaline cells of any brand? > > > Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)neitel.net>
Subject: Re: VOM Troubles
Date: Aug 18, 2009
Bob, I had the Duracell D's in my ETL leak also. I had the Batterys.com AA cells leak in my Lowrance 2000C. Had Duracell AA cells swell in my Mag Lite. Had one hell-of-a time shaking it out. Did get it out though. A bit of a mess to clean up, but no apparent damage to any of my devices. Kevin Boddicker Tri Q 200 N7868B 140.6 hours Luana, IA. On Aug 18, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 11:22 PM 8/17/2009, you wrote: >> >> Hey Guys, >> Can't say about the batteries you have but the Duracells are not >> the battery they used to be. You used to be able to put them into >> a piece of equipment and not have to worry about them leaking . . . > > I've not experienced a leaking incident with > flashlight cells in years. I did loose a digital > caliper last month because an alkaline button cell > leaked . . . but it was a case where the tool was > stored for a long time with a discharged cell. Our > battery powered devices are working tools that generally > don't get stored for long periods of time with dead > cells. > > . . . they were great for meters and cameras, not so any more. > > I've not detected any 'changes' in these products > tendencies to leak in our regular change-out working > environment. Has anyone else on the list experienced > a messy event with their alkaline cells of any brand? > > > Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: Duracell
Date: Aug 19, 2009
Just yesterday morning, I reached for my Frequency Counter, which I hadn't used for about a year, and found it dead. ....opened it up and pulled out a Duracell 9Vdc battery - clean and dry - with the sticker (I put on every battery) reading 09OCT2003. Cheers, Ferg PS: Maybe they were good then....? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2009
From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Duracell
That was my point, didn't used to have to worry about Duracells leaking unless you left them for years and years which made them worth more. Now they almost leak coming out of the package. I was just trying to confirm if anyone else is experiencing this new leaking symptom. They have changed them in some way that is causing the recent produced batteries to leak, (last 2-4 years). Previously I never had a problem with them. Rayovacs used to have leaking problem, Energizers were better in that regard but still would leak after a longer period of time. Duracells seldom ever leak ever leak which made them good choice for use in more expensive things like camera, test equipment. etc. You paid a little more for them but you had peace of mind that they wouldn't leak, not so any more. I had a package of Duracell AAA that I was using for my PDA. They normally last about 3 weeks to a month. The package I had were well in shelf date, if they were even close to being run down you wanted them out of the device. Once you had them out you better have them in some container cause they would leak with a few weeks, Note I am experiencing the same problem with other sizes as well. Well, a couple of you have confirmed similar characteristics. I know this topic was off from the normal list content but since batteries have been a topic in the past by Bob I thought I would poll the members to see if their recent experience has been similar to mine. Guess I need to approach the company and see what they have to say. At this point I've lost my confidence in their product. jerb At 01:09 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote: >Just yesterday morning, I reached for my Frequency Counter, which I hadn't >used for about a year, and found it dead. ....opened it up and pulled out a >Duracell 9Vdc battery - clean and dry - with the sticker (I put on every >battery) reading 09OCT2003. >Cheers, Ferg >PS: Maybe they were good then....? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2009
From: Jim Streit <wooody04(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Radio noises
is that answer in miles? z747pilot wrote: > Hey Flyers, > > A small formula here that may help you out: take the Square root of > the antennea hight (aircraft hight) and multiply it by 2.23 and this > should give you a rough idea of your VHF range. > > Regards, > > z747pilot > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of > *Rodney Dunham > *Sent:* Saturday, August 08, 2009 8:12 AM > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio noises > > Jeff, > > Just my $0.02 worth but... > > I think your friend suffers from what I consider to be the most common > cause of dissatisfaction with VHF COMM performance in OBAM aircraft... > unrealistic expectations! > > With all due respect, gentlemen... > > If the AM background noise is the same during flight as it is on the > ground with the engine off, that's as good as it gets. > > If, while on the ground with the belly mounted antenna inches from the > ground and upward radiation blocked by the aircraft itself, you can > clearly understand ATC, ATIS and another plane 12 miles away, that's > as good as it gets. > > The directionality of the "static" and the transmit is not curious at > all. All antennae, except "ideal" antennae of urban legend, produce a > signal strength pattern that is lobular. That is, the radio "reaches > out" more (or less) in certain directions than others. With the > antenna on the belly, there are numerous metallic objects nearby, like > gear legs, that serve to produce sometimes dramatic and unpredictable > signal strength lobes. So, once again, that's as good as it gets. > > Not sure on this one but... The fact that you can hear ATIS without an > antenna just serves to underscore how good your radio is(!) and how > close you are to the ATIS antenna. Bob has mentioned on this forum > that we should not obsess over dimensions of marker beacon antennae > because the MB signal is so strong and we're flying just dozens of > yards over the thing that we'll get the info anyway. This is a similar > situation I suspect. > > Again, if you guys can communicate "very clearly" from 20 miles apart, > that's as good as it gets. > > "Ideas what should be done next?" Bolt it down, adjust the squelch and > start punching holes in the sky! > > Enjoy. > > Rodney in Tennessee > Unabashed Nuckollhead > > Standard Disclaimer: I'm no avionics engineer. But, I plan on staying > in a Holiday Inn Express next month at the American Sonex Association > Fly-in in Crossville, TN. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for > Hotmail. Try it now. > <http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009> > > * > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c > * > * > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 19, 2009
Subject: Re: Duracell
Good Morning Jerb, I have found the same problem. All these years of trusting the Duracell now destroyed! I had one leak in a four D cell Maglite. Could not get the offending cell out. I contacted Duracell via their website and sent them the messed up Maglite. It took a couple of months, but they did send me a check which almost covered the cost of a new Maglite and the nine bucks I spent to send the bad one to them. I appreciate the customer service response, but I would like it better if I could get back the confidence that I previously had in the Duracell! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/19/2009 10:18:07 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: jerb That was my point, didn't used to have to worry about Duracells leaking unless you left them for years and years which made them worth more. Now they almost leak coming out of the package. I was just trying to confirm if anyone else is experiencing this new leaking symptom. They have changed them in some way that is causing the recent produced batteries to leak, (last 2-4 years). Previously I never had a problem with them. Rayovacs used to have leaking problem, Energizers were better in that regard but still would leak after a longer period of time. Duracells seldom ever leak ever leak which made them good choice for use in more expensive things like camera, test equipment. etc. You paid a little more for them but you had peace of mind that they wouldn't leak, not so any more. I had a package of Duracell AAA that I was using for my PDA. They normally last about 3 weeks to a month. The package I had were well in shelf date, if they were even close to being run down you wanted them out of the device. Once you had them out you better have them in some container cause they would leak with a few weeks, Note I am experiencing the same problem with other sizes as well. Well, a couple of you have confirmed similar characteristics. I know this topic was off from the normal list content but since batteries have been a topic in the past by Bob I thought I would poll the members to see if their recent experience has been similar to mine. Guess I need to approach the company and see what they have to say. At this point I've lost my confidence in their product. jerb At 01:09 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote: >Just yesterday morning, I reached for my Frequency Counter, which I hadn't >used for about a year, and found it dead. ....opened it up and pulled out a >Duracell 9Vdc battery - clean and dry - with the sticker (I put on every >battery) reading 09OCT2003. >Cheers, Ferg >PS: Maybe they were good then....? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2009
Subject: Re: Radio noises
From: thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com>
Jim: In what units do you measure the antenna? Inches? What if you have bent whip antenna? Is it the total length of the antenna or the perpendicular distance from the fuselage? On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Jim Streit wrote: > is that answer in miles? > > z747pilot wrote: > > Hey Flyers, > > A small formula here that may help you out: take the Square root of the > antennea hight (aircraft hight) and multiply it by 2.23 and this should give > you a rough idea of your VHF range. > > Regards, > > z747pilot > > ------------------------------ > > -- Tom Sargent ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2009
From: John Markey <markeypilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 08/18/09
Bob, In the last two years, I have lost 3 led flashlights and my ELT - all to Du racell batteries. The new elt was upgraded to the 406 Mhz, so it cost me $6 50. Duracell guarantees $25 !!! The led flashlights were more than this limit. Several of my hanger mates have seen similar results with this brand batter y. I heard that productin was moved to China - not confirmed. No more Duracells - ever! Glasair John III Deep peace of the Light of the World to you. -------- ------------------------- ---------------- --A Gaelic Blessing >Hey Guys, >Can't say about the batteries you have but the Duracells are not the >battery they used to be.- You used to be able to put them into a >piece of equipment and not have to worry about them leaking . . . - - I've not experienced a leaking incident with - - flashlight cells in years. I did loose a digital - - caliper last month because an alkaline button cell - - leaked . . . but it was a case where the tool was - - stored for a long time with a discharged cell. Our - - battery powered devices are working tools that generally - - don't get stored for long periods of time with dead - - cells. . . . they were great for meters and cameras, not so any more. - - I've not detected any 'changes' in these products - - tendencies to leak in our regular change-out working - - environment. Has anyone else on the list experienced - - a messy event with their alkaline cells of any brand? - - - - Bob . . . - -- =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Duracell
Date: Aug 19, 2009
Ol' Bob, Always glad to see your comments. I too had a 4 D cell Maglite go bad with leaky Duracell's. I saved the flashlight using penetrating oil down through the corrosion areas and the cells finally let go. Interestingly, the Maglite cleaned up very well inside. I must be make of or coated with a pretty good plating inside. I do not use the light much as it is the auto light when needed to thump someone on the head or search the trunk at night, etc. I also now open it every month or so and roll out the D cells to check for any leaky critters..... Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:28 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Duracell Good Morning Jerb, I have found the same problem. All these years of trusting the Duracell now destroyed! I had one leak in a four D cell Maglite. Could not get the offending cell out. I contacted Duracell via their website and sent them the messed up Maglite. It took a couple of months, but they did send me a check which almost covered the cost of a new Maglite and the nine bucks I spent to send the bad one to them. I appreciate the customer service response, but I would like it better if I could get back the confidence that I previously had in the Duracell! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/19/2009 10:18:07 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes: That was my point, didn't used to have to worry about Duracells leaking unless you left them for years and years which made them worth more. Now they almost leak coming out of the package. I was just trying to confirm if anyone else is experiencing this new leaking symptom. They have changed them in some way that is causing the recent produced batteries to leak, (last 2-4 years). Previously I never had a problem with them. Rayovacs used to have leaking problem, Energizers were better in that regard but still would leak after a longer period of time. Duracells seldom ever leak ever leak which made them good choice for use in more expensive things like camera, test equipment. etc. You paid a little more for them but you had peace of mind that they wouldn't leak, not so any more. I had a package of Duracell AAA that I was using for my PDA. They normally last about 3 weeks to a month. The package I had were well in shelf date, if they were even close to being run down you wanted them out of the device. Once you had them out you better have them in some container cause they would leak with a few weeks, Note I am experiencing the same problem with other sizes as well. Well, a couple of you have confirmed similar characteristics. I know this topic was off from the normal list content but since batteries have been a topic in the past by Bob I thought I would poll the members to see if their recent experience has been similar to mine. Guess I need to approach the company and see what they have to say. At this point I've lost my confidence in their product. jerb At 01:09 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote: >Just yesterday morning, I reached for my Frequency Counter, which I hadn't >used for about a year, and found it dead. ....opened it up and pulled out a >Duracell 9Vdc battery - clean and dry - with the sticker (I put on every >battery) reading 09OCT2003. >Cheers, Ferg >PS: Maybe they were good ====================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Radio noises
Date: Aug 19, 2009
Tom, I believe what Jim is saying has NOTHING to do with antenna length. It is the ALTITUDE of the aircraft! So, the range is the square root of the altitude times 2.23. Maybe Tom can clarify this and give us units of measure. Roger Jim: In what units do you measure the antenna? Inches? What if you have bent whip antenna? Is it the total length of the antenna or the perpendicular distance from the fuselage? On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Jim Streit wrote: is that answer in miles? z747pilot wrote: Hey Flyers, A small formula here that may help you out: take the Square root of the antennea hight (aircraft hight) and multiply it by 2.23 and this should give you a rough idea of your VHF range. Regards, z747pilot _____ -- Tom Sargent ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2009
Subject: Re: Radio noises
From: thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com>
Yes, of course! You should never read the RV-list while at work - it's too distracting. Just stop work and focus on the list. On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:29 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS < mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> wrote: > Tom, > > > I believe what Jim is saying has NOTHING to do with antenna length. It is > the ALTITUDE of the aircraft! So, the range is the square root of the > altitude times 2.23. > > > Roger > > -- Tom Sargent ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net>
Subject: Radio noises
Date: Aug 19, 2009
Altitude is in feet, range is in miles. - I think. Tony Velocity SEFG 62% done, 78% to go www.alejandra.net/velocity -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER & JEAN CURTIS Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:29 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio noises Tom, I believe what Jim is saying has NOTHING to do with antenna length. It is the ALTITUDE of the aircraft! So, the range is the square root of the altitude times 2.23. Maybe Tom can clarify this and give us units of measure. Roger Jim: In what units do you measure the antenna? Inches? What if you have bent whip antenna? Is it the total length of the antenna or the perpendicular distance from the fuselage? On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Jim Streit wrote: is that answer in miles? z747pilot wrote: Hey Flyers, A small formula here that may help you out: take the Square root of the antennea hight (aircraft hight) and multiply it by 2.23 and this should give you a rough idea of your VHF range. Regards, z747pilot _____ -- Tom Sargent http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Duracell
At 11:08 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote: >Ol' Bob, >Always glad to see your comments. I too had a 4 D cell Maglite go >bad with leaky Duracell's. I saved the flashlight using penetrating >oil down through the corrosion areas and the cells finally let >go. Interestingly, the Maglite cleaned up very well inside. I must >be make of or coated with a pretty good plating inside. I do not >use the light much as it is the auto light when needed to thump >someone on the head or search the trunk at night, etc. I also now >open it every month or so and roll out the D cells to check for any >leaky critters..... Hmmmm . . . did a Goggle search on Energizer battery leak 40,000 hits Duracell battery leak 28,000 hits Ray-o-Vac battery leak 19,000 hits Read a few hits on each. Seems that somebody, somewhere, has had some leaking experiences with about every kind of cell. No doubt there is a high probability of process change or even root-source manufacturing for any brand of alkaline cell. We've heard of many instances where big brand manufacturers do re-branded products on the same production line . . . that retail for less because the off-brand is not burdened with advertising costs. Another increasing trend is the use of off-shore manufacturing facilities for about ANY brand. It's the free market way. My personal experience with leaking cells has been very limited . . . and I attribute that to the fact that we cycle through fresh cells at a reasonably fast pace . . . I'm more likely to replace a cell because it fails to energize a tool I'm using right now than to pick up a tool that has not been used for a long time and discovered dead cells. Certainly, applications that expose any cell to extremes of temperature and long periods between replacement are more likely to be leakers. This is especially true of ELTs, flashlights and other accessories that sit in a parked airplane. It would be interesting to craft a study on consumer flashlight cells on a par with the one in which I participated that looked at aircraft batteries some years back. It seems that our unusually burdensome failure rate for batteries was attributable to how we were handling batteries and not on variability in quality. I'm not suggesting that the same cause/effect applies here . . . but I can suggest that seeking out and finding root cause is a more rigorous activity than anyone who frequents this List can fund. This leaves us with anecdotal reports . . . of which there are tens of thousands on the 'net to consider. It may be true that Duracell's tendencies to leak have increased over the years . . . but equally probable that other brands are getting worse for similar reasons. I seldom purchase name brand batteries for reasons cited in . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf Of course, that study was limited to exploration of contained energy. Each discharged cell was discarded when the tests were over. Maybe I ought to do it again but keep the dead cells laying around (or boxed up on my patio) to see if I can encourage them to leak. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2009
From: "Johnson, Phillip (EXP)" <phillip.johnson(at)lmco.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Mine is not flying yet. I was just relating to what I had done and what was in the instructions. I will be using auto fuel though. Phillip Johnson Cozy MK IV Powered by Subaru IO-200 www.canardzone.com/members/phillipjohnson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2009
From: "Johnson, Phillip (EXP)" <phillip.johnson(at)lmco.com>
Subject: Two batteries in Parallel
Bob, I was looking at your Z-10/8 diagram (that's the one with brown out protection) in http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A3.pdf and noticed the main battery and the brown out battery are connected in parallel except for the starting cycle. Is it OK to have two, different, batteries connected in parallel for 24/7? Not even the master solenoid disconnects them. Regards Phillip Johnson Cozy MK IV Powered by Subaru IO-200 www.canardzone.com/members/phillipjohnson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 22awg fusible link
At 11:47 AM 8/18/2009, you wrote: > > >Hi Bob: > >Building a Bearhawk; using your written guidance on the electrical >system for which I much appreciate. Dynon D180 uses 22awg from shunt >to loadmeter and requires fusible links or fuses. Fusible link >requires 26awg to be 4 step sizes from 22awg. Having difficulty >finding 26awg tefzel after checking BandC, Stein, Spruce. Will 24awg >packaged in BandC part FLK-1 provide proper protection? Rather not >use in line fuses for this. Step your signal wires up to 20AWG and use 24AWG fusible links. >Also, S700-2-5 switches, wired IAW Z-11 ver. 12 can be used for >either two mags or one mag/ one electronic ignition? 2-5 switches are useful for any combination of electronic/magneto ignition systems. Other Z-figures offer suggestions for various combinations with and without starter lock-out. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Two batteries in Parallel
At 08:13 AM 8/20/2009, you wrote: >Bob, > >I was looking at your Z-10/8 diagram (that's the one with brown out >protection) in ><http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A3.pdf>http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A3.pdf >and noticed the main battery and the brown out battery are connected >in parallel except for the starting cycle. Is it OK to have two, >different, batteries connected in parallel for 24/7? Not even the >master solenoid disconnects them. Sure. Most if not all the prohibitions for paralleling batteries are popular myths. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Multiple_Battery_Myths_A.pdf Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 20, 2009
Subject: Re: Duracell (durajunk)
I concur. I refuse to purchase any size Duracell anymore. Sometimes when they come packaged with a product, I immediately dispose of them and buy new Energizers. The Energizers seem to still be reasonably good about not leaking. The Rayovacs had leakage problems years ago, but I haven't tried them in a long time - because of that. Stan Sutterfield Do no archive They have changed them in some way that is causing the recent produced batteries to leak, (last 2-4 years). Previously I never had a problem with them. Rayovacs used to have leaking problem, Energizers were better in that regard but still would leak after a longer period of time. Duracells seldom ever leak ever leak which made them good choice for use in more expensive things like camera, test equipment. etc. You paid a little more for them but you had peace of mind that they wouldn't leak, not so any more. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "CHARLES T BECKER" <ctbecker(at)atlanticbb.net>
Subject: Voltage thru 9-Pin Mini D
Date: Aug 20, 2009
What is the maximum amperage to run 12vdc thru a 9pin mini D connector? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Voltage thru 9-Pin Mini D
At 09:50 AM 8/20/2009, you wrote: > > >What is the maximum amperage to run 12vdc thru a 9pin mini D connector? 5A any pin but I would de-rate to 3A or so for any appliation that is continuous duty. You can increase the current that passes through a d-sub by paralleling pins. http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Paralleled_DSub_Pins.pdf . . . again, for continuous duty, de-rate pins to about 3A and then parallel enough to cover the requirement. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2009
Hello :-) I'm posting my latest draft of my wiring schematic for a Jabiru 3300. There's no way I could have done this without the info provided by Bob and the members of this list. Very, very thankful for you guys! Notes about the schematic I may not go with a starter engaged light. I understand monitoring the system voltage would show a big drain if this were engaged. Not being a pilot and never having started an airplane engine leaves me at a bit of a disadvantage. I plan to get something like the Enigma. The basic unit would be able to monitor system voltage, but would alarm only for undervoltage. The alarm level is customizable. For me, I see little value putting in an ammeter shunt and getting an add-on IOX needed for this. Just more weight and expense. I may not have an alternator disconnect light, either. So I would be notified of an OV situation by the CB being tripped and a bit later by the low voltage alarm in the EIS. Two aux power 'Powerelet' sockets. They are rated at 15A. I thought getting these higher capacity sockets might help speed recharging a dead battery. Alternator disconnect relay placed in the AC output. If the regulator were to short out, the 25A inline fuse would burn up before the regulator sucked my battery empty, wouldn't it? I got the starter 'security' ideas from the list archives. Forget who, exactly. The two mag switches would both have to be lifted into the momentary on positions while the starter button is pushed. There would also need to be a plug inserted into a microphone jack to complete the starter switch circuit. I've posted other questions directly on the schematic. Lemme know how this all looks, when you have time! -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258868#258868 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dans_z16m_mod_for_jabiru_3300_sonex_secured_164.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/dans_z16m_mod_for_jabiru_3300_sonex_secured_461.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2009
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Voltage thru 9-Pin Mini D
I've seen this question a few times and some while ago went to source documents for connectors I've seen in use, the AMP series 109 Amplmite. The AMP web site publishes data for connector/contact derating based on contact current, wire gauge, temperature and percent loading of the connector. It starts at 100% of the single contact rating for a single connector and AWG-20 wire and derates to 37% of the single contact rating for a fully populated connector; at 'normal' temperatures. I believe standard density size 20 contacts are rated for 7.5A, while high-density size 22 contacts are rated 5A. Using the AMP ratings a fully populated standard density connector with AWG-20 wire could sustain 2.775 amps per contact. With AWG-22 wire that decreases to 2.55A. So were one to flow 3A through each contact of a fully populated connector with AWG-22 wire, doing so would not be within manufacturers specifications if using an AMP series 109 connector. The derating graph and table are on page 6 of the below linked AMP document. http://tinyurl.com/n8eret or here for the source http://www.tycoelectronics.com/commerce/DocumentDelivery/DDEController?Action=showdoc&DocId=Specification+Or+Standard%7F108-1770%7FA%7Fpdf%7FEnglish%7FENG_SS_108-1770_A.pdf Ron Q. At 09:04 8/20/2009, you wrote: > > >At 09:50 AM 8/20/2009, you wrote: >> >> >>What is the maximum amperage to run 12vdc thru a 9pin mini D connector? > > 5A any pin but I would de-rate to 3A or so for any appliation > that is continuous duty. You can increase the current that > passes through a d-sub by paralleling pins. > >http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Paralleled_DSub_Pins.pdf > > . . . again, for continuous duty, de-rate pins to about > 3A and then parallel enough to cover the requirement. > > > Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: The next generation of SVLA batteries
See: http://beyondzeroemissions.org/microcell-battery-technology-firefly-energy-mil-ovan/302 I have the privilege of participating in an evaluation of this emerging technology for a client. You're not going to buy one next year . . . but ten years from now they may have replaced the best we know how to do today. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2009
Corrections and Additions I corrected the mag wiring. Had 1-3 switches and called them 1-5. They're now 2-5 and I hope I have the switch, mag P-lead and shield shown correctly. Had shown the 'push start' which isn't needed, although I called it optional here. Swapped the strobe with the nav/pos light switch positions so the strobe can be turned off and the nav/pos left on. Think those were the main things. Hopefully the fonts come out better. Having problem with software :-( -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258916#258916 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dans_z16m_mod_for_jabiru_3300_sonex_945.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
At 08:54 PM 8/20/2009, you wrote: > >Corrections and Additions > >I corrected the mag wiring. Had 1-3 switches and called them 1-5. >They're now 2-5 and I hope I have the switch, mag P-lead and shield >shown correctly. > >Had shown the 'push start' which isn't needed, although I called it >optional here. > >Swapped the strobe with the nav/pos light switch positions so the >strobe can be turned off and the nav/pos left on. > >Think those were the main things. Hopefully the fonts come out >better. Having problem with software :-( My Adobe Acrobat application said there were errors in the .pdf file . . . but it seems to open okay. 4AWG fat wires are probably unnecessary on this size system, 6AWG would do if your battery isn't behind the seat. 8AWG alternator feeder is unnecessary, 13A alternator would wire up nicely with 12AWG. You show a tach signal off the AC widings of the altenrator. This will not be useful with the alternator disconnect relay open. The alternator OFF indicator lamp shown is not applicable to this architecture. If you have the recommended low volts warning light, then the alternator OFF warning lamp is somewhat redundant. You've already discovered the error in depiction of ignition/start switches. Recommend you deep-six the push button and the "secret started disable". In situations where you're required to present a "dead airplane" (like on static display at airshows) they'll want you to disconnect the battery. 15A always hot feeders from batteries are frowned upon in the TC aircraft world. Suggest you install a battery bus fuse block, feed each power socket from it's own 5A or 7A fuse on 20AWG wire. The switch is redundant as simply pulling the plug out a tad disconnects the accessory. Don't understand the "stuff" that looks like an ammeter shunt connection in the (-) lead of the battery. I appears you may have taken a clue from the 'Connection about battery (-) current monitoring shunts. That's an aberration that needs to be removed . . . in fact will be at the next revision. 25A in-line fuse to main bus is unnecessary but doesn't hurt . . . only adds complexity and more potential failure points. The 5A alternator breaker needs to mount right beside the DC power master switch. This is why the EXTENED BUS is protected with a fusible link right at the fuseblock terminal. Have you done a load-analysis to show that you have the snort necessary for night flight? Starter engaged light wire can be 22AWG. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2009
Dan, The 15 amp inline fuse connected to the battery is too small or else the 8awg wire is too big unless you are concerned about voltage drop over a long distance. I question the purpose of the two wires connected to the ends of the cable that goes between the negative battery terminal and ground. Are the wires measuring the voltage drop and thus the current through the battery? Is the optional "Starter Engaged LED" to warn of a starter contactor that does not open the circuit after starting? Isn't the B&C 505-1 an over-voltage module? There is already an OVM connected to the master switch. A second one is not needed. Also, it appears to be wired wrong, being essentially in parallel with the alternator relay. If the two wires from the 505-1 are open, it has no affect on the circuit. If the two wires are shorted, the alternator relay no longer has control of the alternator. The 5amp circuit breaker, bottom half of the master switch, and OVM would then have no control either. The magneto shield should NOT be connected to the hot terminal of the mag switches. Something bad will happen. There are several single-point failure items in series with the electronic ignition, anyone of which can disable the ignition. The battery contactor, 25amp inline fuse, 7amp fuse, mic key switch, or any of the associated wire terminals can open up and cause the engine to quit. I suggest that one of the magnetos get its power directly from the battery or an essential bus. The 3amp tach-signal inline fuse should not blow regardless of alternator voltage provided that the EIS input has a high impedance. All of the inline fuses should be ATC or ATO type and not glass fuses. See: http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/FHA.pdf Digikey has a selection of fuse holders rated between 3 and 30 amps: http://search.digikey.com/scripts/dksearch/dksus.dll?pname&site=us;lang=en&wt.mc_id=Dxn_US_T091_Catlink;name=283-2357-ND Nice drawing. What program did you use? Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259000#259000 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: KAA-445
From: "tjyak50" <tomjohnson(at)cox.net>
Date: Aug 21, 2009
I have a KAA-445 installed in a turboprop. We were having voice feedback through the overhead speaker while transmitting. I found a setting on the KAA-445 blackbox with a POT called Speaker Transmit Sidetone. Seems whenever we transmit, the Audio Panel was giving unwanted sidetone through the overhead speaker even though we already had it via the intercom. I turned it to ZERO and things seem much better. Is this just an old feature from when people used hand mics? Also... , how do I adjust the sidetone on a KTR-905? Is there a POT in the back? or inside the box somewhere? TJ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259008#259008 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2009
> 4AWG fat wires are probably unnecessary on this size > system, 6AWG would do if your battery isn't behind the > seat. That would be nice. I'll have to check, but I think I might have been following the crowd...you know, like how the ants do it? The term "emergence theory" comes to mind. > Recommend you deep-six the > push button and the "secret started disable". I was just trying to come up with an easy, keyless, dependable, and secure ignition system. From what you and others are showing me, "keyless" and "secure" may be the only two of the original four attributes left standing. > 15A always hot feeders from batteries are frowned upon I didn't want to go with the weight and expense of a traditional ground power system confined to the engine compartment. I knew I'd prolly want a couple cigarette type sockets for small draw electrogizmos, too. Seems like there was a 12A recharger (Shumacher?) mentioned and the Powerlet sockets and their plugs are rated 15A. So I put all of that together and came up with my aux power system. The ONLY time I would ever want 15A would be for a recharge. So maybe instead I should look at separating things a bit. Seems like I'd heard of putting this type of socket FWF, accessed through an oil door or something. Then I could downsize the aux power lines to 20awg, like you suggested. > Don't understand the "stuff" that looks like an ammeter > shunt connection in the (-) lead of the battery. I appears > you may have taken a clue from the 'Connection about battery > (-) current monitoring shunts. Bingo! That's where I got it from. I doubt I'd use one anyway, since I could get the system voltage without one. > 25A in-line fuse to main bus is unnecessary I thought it was more or less a rule to place fuses in all wires small enough to have a fuse and longer than a few inches. > The 5A alternator breaker needs to mount right beside > the DC power master switch. This is why the EXTENED > BUS is protected with a fusible link right at the > fuseblock terminal. Are you talking about the main bus to crowbar circuit? Z16 goes main bus-22awg fuselink-18awg wire-5A fuse-22awg wire-switch-red wire-crowbar-black wire-ground. In my drawing, I put in 22awg in place of the 18awg. But I don't understand why both a fuselink AND a fuse are used. Also could use some help with why the wires change from 22-18-22. I'm guessing the red and black wires come with the OVM, so I don't need to figure that out. > Have you done a load-analysis to show that you have > the snort necessary for night flight? You mean enough juice for night flight? I'd have 10-12A, as I recall, going with a 15A Jab alternator. Speaking of which, is there a conversion ratio between US and AUS, similar to the dollars? They call it a 20A alternator, but I can only get 13A out of 200W that they site. But I will prolly never do night flight in this bird, but would like to size the system as if I were to. Thanks for all the info, including the few things I didn't ask follow ups on! -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259016#259016 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2009
Last post of mine was to reply to Bob, this is to Joe (as if you couldn't have figured that out by the following): Hey, Joe! > The 15 amp inline fuse Yeah, that was sized only on the 15A sockets and 12A recharger I had planned for that. > I question the purpose of the two wires connected to the ends of the cable that goes between the negative battery terminal and ground. Are the wires measuring the voltage drop and thus the current through the battery? That was the idea. See above post. No longer planning on it, regardless of how it would best be wired. But it would have been for a shunt connected to an MGL Enigma IOX. > > Is the optional "Starter Engaged LED" to warn of a starter contactor that does not open the circuit after starting? Yes. > Isn't the B&C 505-1 an over-voltage module? It is their OVM kit. the crowbar connected to the master switch is part of that kit. Only one crowbar. > Also, it appears to be wired wrong I had tried to just copy it. I'm running a bit late now, so I'll look at it later, thanks :-) > The magneto shield should NOT be connected to the hot terminal of the mag switches I'll look at that, too. I'd thought I'd figured out how the shields are wired. It would be nice to get that straight. I don't want bad things to happen :-( > There are several single-point failure items in series with the electronic ignition, anyone of which can disable the ignition. The battery contactor, 25amp inline fuse, 7amp fuse, mic key switch, or any of the associated wire terminals can open up and cause the engine to quit. I suggest that one of the magnetos get its power directly from the battery or an essential bus. I don't have electronic ignition. At least I don't think I do. 'dual transistorized magnetos' is what I've seen. I thought that everything electrical went TU, I'd still have spark and with a gravity fed fuel system, I could fly until the tank emptied. But...I'm getting the distinct feeling that regardless of the gender of the iginition system, the design I've put forth is a bit complicated. Or I should just seek counsel from an electronic attorney? I've ordered ATO fuses from either Digikey, Waytek, or B&C. Can't remember which, but they are ATO. And thanks for the drawing compliment. I've spent hours resurrecting a small fraction of the small skills I had years ago with Adobe Illustrator. It's version 10, copyright 2002, I think, which was about the last time I used it. Would have saved me several hours if i had realized it converted the dwg files into ai vectors. I used the pdf files, which were for some reason all rasterized to Nova Scotia and back. -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259020#259020 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
At 04:22 PM 8/21/2009, you wrote: > > > Recommend you deep-six the > > push button and the "secret started disable". > >I was just trying to come up with an easy, keyless, dependable, and >secure ignition system. From what you and others are showing me, >"keyless" and "secure" may be the only two of the original four >attributes left standing. Secure from what? Airplane theft and even accidents due to inadvertent starter engagement is very rare. You already have a very non-traditional starter-engage protocol that requires two switches to be raised from the mid-ON position. Just don't label the upper excursions START . . . that can be YOUR secret. The casual thief or dingy-brained switch-flipper isn't going to figure it out. > > 15A always hot feeders from batteries are frowned upon > >I didn't want to go with the weight and expense of a traditional >ground power system confined to the engine compartment. I knew I'd >probably want a couple cigarette type sockets for small draw >electrogizmos, too. Seems like there was a 12A recharger >(Shumacher?) mentioned and the Powerlet sockets and their plugs are >rated 15A. So I put all of that together and came up with my aux power system. > >The ONLY time I would ever want 15A would be for a recharge. So >maybe instead I should look at separating things a bit. Seems like >I'd heard of putting this type of socket FWF, accessed through an >oil door or something. Then I could downsize the aux power lines to >20awg, like you suggested. Get a Schumacher 1562 series charger/maintainer. 2A output. WELL within the limits of your 5 or 7 amp battery bus feeders to a cigar lighter socket. > > Don't understand the "stuff" that looks like an ammeter > > shunt connection in the (-) lead of the battery. I appears > > you may have taken a clue from the 'Connection about battery > > (-) current monitoring shunts. > >Bingo! That's where I got it from. I doubt I'd use one anyway, since >I could get the system voltage without one. Okay, if you HAVE an ammeter input to your engine instrumentation system, recommend you use it to monitor alternator LOAD. You only have 13.5A to play with and things add up quickly. Particular attention needs to be paid to the interval right after takeoff when the alternator is huffing to get the battery recharged . . . you need ALL the excess capacity you can put your hands on and knowing when it's all used up is a very useful bit of flight management knowledge. > > 25A in-line fuse to main bus is unnecessary > >I thought it was more or less a rule to place fuses in all wires >small enough to have a fuse and longer than a few inches. Not for power distribution feeders of fat wires. > > The 5A alternator breaker needs to mount right beside > > the DC power master switch. This is why the EXTENED > > BUS is protected with a fusible link right at the > > fuseblock terminal. > >Are you talking about the main bus to crowbar circuit? Z16 goes main >bus-22awg fuselink-18awg wire-5A fuse-22awg wire-switch-red >wire-crowbar-black wire-ground. Yes . . . 5A breaker is a circuit protection remotely mounted from the main bus which is self contained within the fuseblock. Hence, the feeder that extends your bus to the 5A breaker next to the DC PWR MASTER switch needs ROBUST protection like a fusible link or MANL current limiter. >In my drawing, I put in 22awg in place of the 18awg. But I don't >understand why both a fuselink AND a fuse are used. Also could use >some help with why the wires change from 22-18-22. I'm guessing the >red and black wires come with the OVM, so I don't need to figure that out. Yes, see: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Products/9003_B&C/OVM-14_C.jpg depending on the revision level, the RED wire may be some other color but black is always ground and the other color is (+). Where did you see a fusible link and a fuse? I show a fusible link and a BREAKER. The upstream fusible link needs to be 10x more robust than the breaker so that a nuisance trip opens the breaker (which you can reach) and not the fusible link (which you cannot reach . . . and couldn't do anything about it if you could). > > Have you done a load-analysis to show that you have > > the snort necessary for night flight? > > >You mean enough juice for night flight? I'd have 10-12A, as I >recall, going with a 15A Jab alternator. Speaking of which, is there >a conversion ratio between US and AUS, similar to the dollars? They >call it a 20A alternator, but I can only get 13A out of 200W that they cite. > >But I will prolly never do night flight in this bird, but would like >to size the system as if I were to. > >Thanks for all the info, including the few things I didn't ask follow ups on! Okay, traditional nav lights are the biggest ENERGY hoggs on an airplane (6+ amps for duration of flight). If you're planning on LED nav lights, it's another matter. But in any case, make yourself a chart of loads (and proof it during your flight testing) to establish a protocol of what electro- whizzies can be turned on and still leave something extra for recharging a battery. On same topic, Joe offers: >There are several single-point failure items in series with the >electronic ignition, anyone of which can disable the ignition. The >battery contactor, 25amp inline fuse, 7amp fuse, mic key switch, or >any of the associated wire terminals can open up and cause the >engine to quit. I suggest that one of the magnetos get its power >directly from the battery or an essential bus. I believe the ignition systems on this engine are similar to those found on Rotax and even some lawn mowers. They are self-powered by means of magnets on the flywheel but utilize some electronics for control and timing features. They do not get power from the ship's electrical system and are treated much the same as a traditional magneto: Switch closed - engine doesn't run. Switch open - engine runs. >The 3amp tach-signal inline fuse should not blow regardless of >alternator voltage provided that the EIS input has a high impedance. I doubt that his engine instrumentation (unless specifically designed for this engine) uses the alternator waveform frequency to deduce engine RPM. But if it does, you need to treat the AC signal to the tach as if it were attached to a significant energy source . . . that can burn wires. Any fuse in the 1 to 3 amp range would be fine. Some tachs might work fine with a 1000 ohm, 2W resistor in series with the tach signal lead. This too would current limit the fault on the tach signal wire. The magneto shield should NOT be connected to the hot terminal of the mag switches. Something bad will happen. It's a common convention to use the p-lead shield (grounded at the engine end) to provide a magneto-killing ground at the panel end when the magneto is switched off. Further, the p-lead shields should get to ground ONLY at the engine end to avoid crafting a ground-loop . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2009
Dan, The reason that I assumed (incorrectly) that you have electronic ignition is because the schematic shows a 7amp fuse supplying power to the mag switches. You need to replace the mag switches with double pole switches, one pole for the start circuit and one pole for grounding out the magneto. Move the hot wire to the second pole (for the start circuit) and then nothing bad will happen. Another option that would simplify things is to separate the start circuit from the magneto switches like Z-20. You could go directly from the 7amp fuse to the start push button without any other switches. Or you can keep the key switch in the circuit, either your mic plug or a real key switch or even a hidden switch. The Department of Homeland Security is concerned about a stolen Sonex being flown into a skyscraper. :D One advantage to keeping the mags and starter separate is that you can crank the engine with the mags off if desired for testing or maintenance. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259037#259037 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2009
> Okay, if you HAVE an ammeter input to your engine > instrumentation system, recommend you use it to monitor > alternator LOAD. I'm planning on getting an Enigma. As I understand it, the stand alone instrument will give the system voltage without an additional shunt. So I assume voltage would be measured on either side of it's own load, or somehow reference the measurement to ground. Not clear on that. If I want to measure current elsewhere, I need to get a separate shunt, or as they suggest, use the part of the system itself as a shunt. With any luck, I'll upload a their diagram of this. So now I can monitor current wherever I place this shunt. Well, not quite. I have to buy their Input Output eXtender (IOX), a decent sized piece of hardware that the shunt wires plug into. There are several other fancy things that can be done with this IOX, but for me, there wouldn't be much else to use it for. > The upstream fusible > link needs to be 10x more robust than the breaker > so that a nuisance trip opens the breaker Oh! I'd thought the fuselink was LESS robust than the breaker. Makes sense now :-) And I meant earlier to say breaker but put fuse instead. Fuselink and breaker, fuselink and breaker. Okay, think I got it. > It's a common convention to use the p-lead shield (grounded > at the engine end) to provide a magneto-killing ground at > the panel end when the magneto is switched off. Further, > the p-lead shields should get to ground ONLY at the engine > end to avoid crafting a ground-loop . . . Is this what you see in my diagrams? I took the Z diagram and extended both the p_lead and the shield to show them hooked up at both ends. In the second diagram, I added the ground triangle to show that the dots connected to the little hoops went to ground. I've learned alot, Bob, thanks. Lots more to go! -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259051#259051 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/enigma_shunt_wiring_to_iox_840.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2009
Joe: > You need to replace the mag switches with double pole switches, one pole for the start circuit and one pole for grounding out the magneto. Isn't that what I show in the 2nd diagram, i.e. my diagram from my second post in this thread? > One advantage to keeping the mags and starter separate is that you can crank the engine with the mags off if desired for testing or maintenance Actually, I've been trying to come up with a way to use two switches that would allow just this. It is an adaptation of what Bob described in Note 2 of the Z chapter. It was pointed out to me that my adaptation doesn't allow for dual mags at starting. I didn't think that was an issue, but maybe it is? -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259053#259053 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/note_2_starter_mods_3_198.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2009
Dan, You are right. You do have two pole switches. I was looking at the wrong (original) schematic that you posted and not the updated one. I was wondering why no one else commented on the hot wire going to the magneto shield. Looking at the updated schematic with a file size of 324.58 KB, the starting circuit and mag switch circuit look fine. I see nothing unsafe. > It was pointed out to me that my adaptation doesn't allow for dual mags at starting. Unless I am missing something, both mags will be on when the switches are in the start position. > As I understand it, the stand alone instrument will give the system voltage without an additional shunt. So I assume voltage would be measured on either side of it's own load, I'm not sure what you mean by that. But the EFIS should provide the voltage readout without connecting any wires other than those that power up the EFIS. The IOEX seems like extra weight and expense just to measure current. I read the calibration procedure at http://www.mglavionics.com/IOEX.pdf. The most useful location for a current sensor is in the alternator output. The shunt could be in series with the alternator output between the 10000 microfarad capacitor and the 25amp fuse on your schematic. The easy calibration method would be to use a shunt of known resistance. Using the aircraft wire in lieu of a shunt will save weight and expense but will make calibrating more difficult because they want the unit calibrated with the engine off. You would have to temporarily remove that #8awg wire from the capacitor and connect it to a battery and measure the current with a portable meter and enter that information into the EFIS. Actually 8awg is much too big as Bob said. If you intend to use that wire as a shunt, it needs to be small enough (or long enough) to have a voltage drop from end to end. Perhaps 16awg would work. Regardless of the type of shunt used, the signal wires going back to the IOEX need to be protected with fuses or fuselinks. The positive signal wire should be connected to the end of the shunt closest to the capacitor. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259083#259083 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
If I want to measure current elsewhere, I need to get a separate shunt, or as they suggest, use the part of the system itself as a shunt. With any luck, I'll upload a their diagram of this. Where do they suggest this? I've poked around in their downloads and was unable to find an install manual for their i/o extender. So now I can monitor current wherever I place this shunt. Well, not quite. I have to buy their Input Output eXtender (IOX), a decent sized piece of hardware that the shunt wires plug into. There are several other fancy things that can be done with this IOX, but for me, there wouldn't be much else to use it for. Then leave it off. It's a lot of money to spend for so little useful data. If you can accurately know the system voltage, then it's easy to deduce whether or not the alternator is keeping up, is over-burdened, or broke. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2009
Bob and Joe: Joe gave the link, I think. Here's what I read, starting on page 3: > Current monitoring > The I/O Extender provides a bi-directional current monitoring system. This is intended to > measure the charge and discharge currents to and from the aircraft battery. > Current is measured indirectly by measuring the small voltage drop created by current flowing > through a suitable shunt resistor. Typical shunt resistors are in the range of 0.010 ohm (10 > milli-ohm) to 30 milli ohm. However, the current measuring system has been designed to > accept any shunt. In particular, you can usually use the +12V supply cable from the battery + > terminal to the power distribution system as a suitable shunt. Connect the I/O Extender shunt > terminals using two wires (these can be thin wires) to each side of the cable connecting the > battery + terminal to the current distribution system. > In this scheme, large, temporary current users such as electrical starter motors should NOT > be routed through the shunt. These should be wired directly to the battery via their starter > solenoids using adequately dimensioned cable. > Calibrating the shunt (known current): > The I/O Extender needs to know the resistance of the shunt in order to correctly calculate the > current flowing through it. > Our suggested method involves using a cheap digital or analog multimeter (they tend to have > a 10A DC range). Wire this meter in series with the shunt and switch some electrical users on > so you have a reasonable current flow (for example 2 4 A). Do not run the engine or have > any charging active for this calibration. > Using the connected EFIS, activate the current calibration and enter the amount of current > your meter is reporting. > Calibrating the shunt (known resistance): > If you are using a shunt with a known resistance, use the provided functions in the EFIS > system to set the shunt resistance value. This method does not require the use of a current > meter for calibration although we would recommend that you verify the current reported using > a current meter to ensure that your shunt resistance is correct. > Calibrating the zero current point. > This is a calibration that has happened at the factory but you can perform it yourself if > needed. The idea is to ensure that the I/O Extender returns a 0 current flow if no current is > flowing through the shunt. > For this, disconnect one of the wires to the shunt and connect it to the other side of the shunt. > Both wires will not be connected to the same side of the shunt (it does not matter which side). > Once this has been done, perform the set current zero calibration function in your EFIS > system. > Polarity of the shunt wires: > For correct operation the shunt wires should be connected so that Shunt + terminal connects > to the battery + terminal and Shunt connects to the load. > This will ensure that charge current with be reflected as positive current reading while > discharge current will be reflected as negative reading. > About current measurement: > All current calibration should be done using DC current. > The I/O Extender system measures average current. This is NOT RMS. Many meters > cannot accurately measure A/C or pulsating currents. They can only give a good reading if > they are measuring a sine-wave (such as mains power). > Current through a typical aircraft shunt is best described as pulsed A/C. The charging > system provides short but powerful current bursts to the battery while the time between the > bursts the battery supplies current to the load. The battery is effectively changing between > charge and discharge all the time very rapidly. > The I/O Extender averages current measurements in both directions and returns the > averaged result of this. This shows the net charge or discharge current. > A normal battery, when fully charged, will show a small residual charging current (assuming > the charger is not overcharging the battery). This charging current is required to maintain the > battery charge as it is supplying current all the time (between the pulsed charge current). The > battery, depending on its chemistry has a charge efficiency of around 80% so it needs a > constant charge under these conditions. > Unless I am missing something, both mags will be on when the switches are in the start position. The file "note 2 starter mods 3.pdf" diagram 3 shows the upper switch closing the starter circuit, but the switches mag circuit is grounded by the red jumper. It may be confusing because I also label both switches as 'left mag'. So I've played around with the mag wiring and replaced the lower single pole switch with another 2-5 double pole switch. Please see how the new wiring looks in the attachment here. I hope I have it setup so the left mag would be used as the main start switch with both mags hot. The right switch would crank but not start, if the left switch is left off. The engine could also be started by the right switch when the left mag is 'on'. I don't intend for this config to ever be used, as it would then only have one mag firing. -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259086#259086 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/note_2_both_mags_start_mod_201.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Collins 350A
Date: Aug 22, 2009
From: jtortho(at)aol.com
This is? more avionics then electric but a question anyway. Wiring a Garmin 300 xl to a collins ind 350-A indicator.?? The Garmin does not provide a? resolver H output. What is the function pf resolver H? ( or any of the other Resolvers)? Is it necessary in this setting? Jim Timoney ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2009
Dan, In addition to the 4 combinations that you have in http://forums.matronics.com/download.php?id=17457 there are 4 more: Left switch down and right one centered Left switch centered and right one up Left switch centered and right one down Left switch up and right one down Would there ever be a situation where one would want to start the engine on the right mag without using the left switch? There could be a safety issue if someone unfamiliar with your plane turned on a mag switch and the engine cranked unexpectedly. You have put a lot of thought into this and did a good job. It is complicated and would be hard for me to remember what switch position does what. Of course I suffer from CRS syndrome. :) If it were my plane, I would use two single-pole, single-throw switches for the magnetos, and a momentary push button in series with a security switch to start the engine. But to each his own. Getting back to the The I/O Extender. > . . . . .provides a bi-directional current monitoring system. This is intended to measure the charge and discharge currents to and from the aircraft battery. Measuring the current in or out of the battery is not very useful information because the battery does not supply energy to the aircraft under normal operations, the alternator does. Most homebuilders measure the output of the alternator, not the charging current of the battery. Even though MGL suggests installing a shunt in the battery circuit, their ammeter will work just fine with the shunt installed in the alternator output wire. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259138#259138 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kesley Electric" <kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net>
Subject: Mason City, Iowa Aero-Electric seminar
Date: Aug 22, 2009
EAA Chapter 94 in Mason City, Iowa, will be hosting Bob's weekend Aero-Electric Seminar on October 17-18, 2009. See Bob's website for complete details. The classroom will be a spacious, well appointed hangar at the Mason City airport. Hope to see some of you there. Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Tom Barter Kesley, IA kesleyelectric(at)iowatelecom.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2009
Hey, Joe :-) My objective is to explore the possibility of eliminating the push start button by integrating it's function into two 2-5 switches. I am indeed concerned about the intuitiveness (not sure if that's a word, but let's go with it) of the start sequence. There are two separate switches, each capable of starting the engine. In a 3 switch system, where there is a push starter switch, the mag switches are flipped into the 'on' position and the starter button is pushed. The same thing here, mag switches are flipped into the 'on' position. The only thing that differs is there is no start button. Instead lift the left switch into the momentary 'start' position, which to me sounds very similar to starting my car which also has a momentary 'start' feature. If I forget and start with the right mag, no worries, it will start. And if there is an in-flight need to restart and it doesn't start by the windmilling prop, holding either start switch up in the start/crank position would work. To summarize, when starting, flip both mag switches on. Lift either one of them to the momentary 'start/crank' position and release when it's started. Mag check by flipping one off, return it to on, then repeat with the other mag. Flipping both switches down to the 'off' position will kill the engine. To me, this sounds fairly simple. But I am a bit subjective, since it is my idea. And, I'm not a pilot, have never started an airplane engine. This is why I'm posting. Gives me some perspective on things by people who are much more intimate with airplanes. Regarding your list of combinations, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, there are several possible switch combinations. There are also several combinations of a 3 switch start system that are seldom or never used: 1. left mag on, right mag off, start button not engaged 2. left mag on, right mag off, start button engaged 3. left mag off, right mag off, start button engaged etc. My point is there are several useless switch positions in either a two- or three-switch starting system. If I feel overburdened by either one of these systems, I could get a single switch that will eventually start if I keep turning it clockwise, and will eventually kill the engine if I turn it counterclockwise. Man, so now I'll have to get an old fashioned watch with a dial [Crying or Very sad] And then I'll have to make sure its hands only move clockwise. -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259153#259153 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Aug 23, 2009
Ok Dan, You convinced me that your start circuit is simple enough to operate, even for someone with CRS. The cost of switches is probably about the same whether one uses 2 expensive DP3T switches or 3 inexpensive SPST switches. Using 2 switches saves panel space if that is an issue. I do not know if there are any regulations requiring switch functions to be labeled. Good job figuring out the wiring of switches to accomplish your goal. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259168#259168 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2009
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
Starting will work well. But if one likes to do checks by feel (such as at night or when looking for traffic) it complicates things as confirming a switch is up might activate the starter. In daytime, the position of some switches is not obvious by looking which is further complicated by the human tendancy to see what they expect to see. A separate starter switch has some advantages. Ken user9253 wrote: > > Ok Dan, You convinced me that your start circuit is simple enough to operate, even for someone with CRS. The cost of switches is probably about the same whether one uses 2 expensive DP3T switches or 3 inexpensive SPST switches. Using 2 switches saves panel space if that is an issue. I do not know if there are any regulations requiring switch functions to be labeled. Good job figuring out the wiring of switches to accomplish your goal. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Aug 23, 2009
Ken, I agree that a separate starter switch (perhaps in series with mag switches) is safer. Whether on the ground or in the air, inadvertent operation of the starter is not desired. But it could be done by a new owner or a mechanic or even a kid. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259180#259180 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2009
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Collins 350A
At 11:28 8/22/2009, you wrote: >This is more avionics then electric but a question anyway. > >Wiring a Garmin 300 xl to a collins ind 350-A indicator. The >Garmin does not provide a resolver H output. > >What is the function pf resolver H ( or any of the other Resolvers)? >Is it necessary in this setting? > >Jim Timoney And likely may get a better answer there as well, but here goes... Resolvers, generally associated with NAV and VOR's, most commonly have a six wire interface. Rotor connections A & C are fed a 30Hz reference signal and stator sin and cos connections D & E and F & G are connected to phase detectors in the receiver to resolve the difference between the reference and received, based on position relative to a VOR station, signal. For a heading system, perhaps with a remote flux gate, some similar sounding connections exist. There is again a rotor with H & C connections, and a stator with three, 120 deg spaced windings labeled X, Y & Z. Notice the similarity with the rotor; A & C vs. H & C. Where C is generally a common, and perhaps at ground potential, and the A and H connections are 'hot'. There seems to be a tendency not to differentiate in labeling between the A & H signals, and in both cases, heading system and VOR resolver, to call hot signal connection "H". Some GPS navigators incorporate the capability for an OBS like mode where a course can be defined as a 'radial' to or from an active waypoint; in a manner analogous to a radial to or from a VOR station. For this feature to function, a NAV, VOR or HSI head with OBS setting capability must be connected to the navigator. Minimally this will require four connections, a common connection, stator 'hot' sin and cos signals D & F and a rotor 'hot' connection A or H, depending on how the manufacturer has chosen to label the rotor hot signal. Hope this helps... Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 23, 2009
Subject: Re: Collins 350A
Good Morning Jim and Ron, While all such electronic discussions are over my head, I do have a Garmin 300XL mounted in my Stearman without using a resolver. I doubt if I could get the FAA to certificate it for IFR the way I have it, but I can do all of the IFR functions. With a blanket over my head and a safety pilot in the front pit, I have shot all of the GPS approaches in our area. The resolver was one of the very stupid requirements forced on the industry by one particular FAA inspector who was in charge of all GPS approvals. He wanted all GPSs to work just like a VOR and he insisted that a resolver be used. Trimble, Apollo, and Northstar realized the absurdity of the situation and fought the good fight to not have a resolver. Garmin caved in as did King. They got their boxes approved a full year before Trimble, Apollo, and Northstar. I still think the Trimble was the best of the lot and the Northstar was a close second, but by caving in to that one FAA inspector, Garmin got a major jump on the competition and we see who is left. Trimble and Northstar managed to get that inspector replaced, but they still lost the war! In any case, you really do not need the resolver function to use all the capabilities of the 300XL. It takes a bit more understanding of the system, but it is not hard at all. Incidentally, if you are flying a 430 or a 530 and just ignore the message that tells you to set in the course. The set will still do everything it needs to do. The resolver is not needed with either of those sets to get the job done. It is just a carry over from one misguided FAA inspector. The only disadvantage of not setting in the course is when you are using an HSI. If you don't set in the correct course, the HSI picture will look funny. Still works fine, just looks different. Not having to have the resolver saved over one thousand 1994 dollars in every installation. As you can tell this is a VERY sore subject with me! Happy Skies, Old Bob Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 In a message dated 8/23/2009 12:15:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, rjquillin(at)gmail.com writes: At 11:28 8/22/2009, you wrote: This is more avionics then electric but a question anyway. Wiring a Garmin 300 xl to a collins ind 350-A indicator. The Garmin does not provide a resolver H output. What is the function pf resolver H ( or any of the other Resolvers)? Is it necessary in this setting? Jim Timoney And likely may get a better answer there as well, but here goes... Resolvers, generally associated with NAV and VOR's, most commonly have a six wire interface. Rotor connections A & C are fed a 30Hz reference signal and stator sin and cos connections D & E and F & G are connected to phase detectors in the receiver to resolve the difference between the reference and received, based on position relative to a VOR station, signal. For a heading system, perhaps with a remote flux gate, some similar sounding connections exist. There is again a rotor with H & C connections, and a stator with three, 120 deg spaced windings labeled X, Y & Z. Notice the similarity with the rotor; A & C vs. H & C. Where C is generally a common, and perhaps at ground potential, and the A and H connections are 'hot'. There seems to be a tendency not to differentiate in labeling between the A & H signals, and in both cases, heading system and VOR resolver, to call hot signal connection "H". Some GPS navigators incorporate the capability for an OBS like mode where a course can be defined as a 'radial' to or from an active waypoint; in a manner analogous to a radial to or from a VOR station. For this feature to function, a NAV, VOR or HSI head with OBS setting capability must be connected to the navigator. Minimally this will require four connections, a common connection, stator 'hot' sin and cos signals D & F and a rotor 'hot' connection A or H, depending on how the manufacturer has chosen to label the rotor hot signal. Hope this helps... Ron Q. (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! =JulystepsfooterNO115) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Z-12 Master switch question
From: "BuckWynd" <buckwynd(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 24, 2009
I was studying various Z diagrams over the last several weeks and noticed that the Z-12 diagram has a single DPDT switch to control the main electrical system. It has a single switch instead of a split-type master switch like you see in Cessnas. With no Alternator Field switch, are there times with a Z-12 system when one might wish for a split switch, or two seperate switches? How is this system different from the electrical systems on most factory-built aircraft that separate the functions? Thanks in advance for educating me. Buck -------- Buck Wyndham RV-8 N18XL (working on fuselage & systems) Northern Illinois Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259244#259244 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 24, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-12 Master switch question
At 02:21 AM 8/24/2009, you wrote: > >I was studying various Z diagrams over the last several weeks and >noticed that the Z-12 diagram has a single DPDT switch to control >the main electrical system. It has a single switch instead of a >split-type master switch like you see in Cessnas. With no Alternator >Field switch, are there times with a Z-12 system when one might wish >for a split switch, or two seperate switches? How is this system >different from the electrical systems on most factory-built aircraft >that separate the functions? > >Thanks in advance for educating me. The S700-2-10 switch (B&C p/n) shown in the Z-figures is a progressive transfer switch that emulates the split rocker used on many type certificated single-engine airplanes. See chapter on switches in the 'Connection Alternatively, one may consider a simple double pole, double throw switch to bring battery and field on together. In this case, pulling the breaker (required for crowbar ov protection system) disables the alternator field path when the DC power switch is on for extended periods of time with the engine not running. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 24, 2009
Thanks for the help, guys :-) I've uploaded an updated version of the schematic, hopefully with all the changes made. Most or all of them can be seen in a blue font. It won't be for several weeks before I'll need to finalize the starting wiring, so I'll have the chance to get more feedback about the 2- versus 3-switch starting circuit. As drawn, I still have the 2-switch version. I may decide to stay with the Powerlet sockets for the cabin aux power, but since they wouldn't be used for more than a few amps, I could get a more standard cigarette socket. This one http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=AS212-ND has a locking mechanism. Looks like you'd just twist it when you slide the plug in. They also sell the locking plug. Digikey told me the socket accepts any cigarette plug, but it's not clear to me if they all would lock. For the batter charger connection that I'd mount FWF and access through a cowl opening, I found a few kinds that seem like they'd work. The first one below is has an SAE on one end and Anderson powerpole on the other. Never heard of Anderson before, but sounds like they are popular in the RC arena: http://www.powerwerx.com/adapter-extension-cables/bullet-connector-to-powerpole.html Another one used by RC are Deans Ultra Plugs: http://www.wsdeans.com/products/plugs/ultra_plug.html I would think any of these connectors would have no problem carrying 10-15 amps from a charger. -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259310#259310 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dans_z16m_mod_2_for_jabiru_3300_sonex_114.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Audio Alert to PM 100II
From: "Don McIntosh" <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com>
Date: Aug 24, 2009
I have a Dynon D180 that has 2 audio alert outputs that I can tie together but there is no Aux input on the PM 1000II intercom or my Garmin SL 40 to hook to. Someone said to hook it to my phone (headphone?) output but when I called PS Engineering, they weren't sure it would work and had no suggestions except that their new PM 3000 has 2 Aux inputs. Any ideas on how to get audio alert from my Dynon? I do hate to undo my existing pins and soldered shields. I have an "expansion unit" input slot that is open on the intercom harness, that is apparently used for attaching their unit to add up to six passengers. -------- Don McIntosh Kitfox Series 7 under construction Jabiru 3300 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259415#259415 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II
Date: Aug 24, 2009
Hi Don. What you need is an audio mixer. The one that we manufacture is the AMX-2A at www.vx-aviation.com. It takes 10 inputs (4 variable), which may be overkill, but it will work with any radio and intercom, even ones that do not have auxiliary inputs. The variable inputs are ideal for the Dynon D180. Some rewiring is necessary, but the unit is extremely small and can be buried in the wiring harness. Thanks, Vern Little Vx Aviation ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don McIntosh" <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 7:45 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Audio Alert to PM 100II > > > I have a Dynon D180 that has 2 audio alert outputs that I can tie together > but there is no Aux input on the PM 1000II intercom or my Garmin SL 40 to > hook to. Someone said to hook it to my phone (headphone?) output but when > I called PS Engineering, they weren't sure it would work and had no > suggestions except that their new PM 3000 has 2 Aux inputs. Any ideas on > how to get audio alert from my Dynon? I do hate to undo my existing pins > and soldered shields. I have an "expansion unit" input slot that is open > on the intercom harness, that is apparently used for attaching their unit > to add up to six passengers. > > -------- > Don McIntosh > Kitfox Series 7 under construction > Jabiru 3300 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259415#259415 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Rocky Mountain Instrument Information
Date: Aug 25, 2009
8/25/2009 This is provided for your information: "NEW SALES HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED! Rocky Mountain Instrument has discontinued sales of both the microEncoder and the microMonitor. We will continue technical support, repairs and upgrades for as long as possible. As you can imagine, some custom components for the units are high cost and must be purchased in large quantities. It is not practical or profitable to continue to offer new kits or assembled units." 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2009
From: Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Horizon Inst P-1000
Wondering if any have information on this tach? http://www.horizoninstruments.com/ Operations manual, install manual, experience with one, other...? TIA Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 25, 2009
Subject: Re: Horizon Inst P-1000
Good Morning Ron, We have one installed in our Beech J35. Works great! What would you like to know? I may be able to find the data you need, but, in the meantime, I might be able to answer an easy question. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 8/25/2009 8:54:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time, rjquillin(at)gmail.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ron Quillin Wondering if any have information on this tach? http://www.horizoninstruments.com/ Operations manual, install manual, experience with one, other...? TIA Ron Q. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2009
Dan, Just a suggestion, put the cabin lights and instrument lights on separate fuses so everything does not go dark at once. Here is the installation manual for the MGL RDAC VD if you do not have it: http://www.mglavionics.com/RDAC_VD_installation.pdf Quoting from the manual concerning the tach signal input: > After you have connected the rev counter terminal to the signal source you > need to set the number of pulses per 10 revolutions in the Calibration Menu. > The calibration itself depends on your engine type and what kind of signal you > are using. Typical sources are: > Magneto coils (suitable signal at the kill switch). > Primary (low voltage) side of ignition coil, at contact breaker or electronic > ignition module. > RPM counter output of electronic ignition systems (for example Bosh > Motronic). > RPM pickup devices such as hall-effect sensors on flywheels etc. > Typical calibration settings are 10 or 20 for most engines. Other pulse counts > per 10 revolutions are also possible for some engines. > Please note: On some of the Stratomaster instruments pulse counts are > entered as pulses per ten revolutions, on others it is pulses per single > revolution with a decimal point (i.e. 1.0). > The rev counter input on the RDAC can be used with signals from about 5Vpp > to as much as 100Vpp. A noise filter is included that results in the input > ignoring any noise signals as long as this is below the detection threshold of > about 2.5Vpp. The input impedance of the rev counter input is approximately > REV counter wire from ignition system > 10Kohm. You can use series resistors as well as load resistors for > applications that have unusual signals. Although the manual lists the magneto kill switch as a possible tach signal source, any fault in the signal wire would short out the magneto. Who knows what affect the 10K ohm impedance of the RDAC VD would have on the ignition system? Since the dynamo is integrated with the flywheel and generates AC voltage, it should provide the RPM signal. It is worth a try. Bob said: > You show a tach signal off the AC widings of the altenrator. > This will not be useful with the alternator disconnect relay > open. Bob, I do not understand this, since the tach signal wire is connected to the alternator side of the disconnect relay. Doesn't the alternator continue to generator voltage whether there is a load on it or not? Or does the regulator open the grounded alternator lead? Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259489#259489 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
> >Although the manual lists the magneto kill switch as a possible tach >signal source, any fault in the signal wire would short out the >magneto. Who knows what affect the 10K ohm impedance of the RDAC VD >would have on the ignition system? Since the dynamo is integrated >with the flywheel and generates AC voltage, it should provide the >RPM signal. It is worth a try. Resistances as low as a few hundred ohms will probably have no effect on ignition performance . . . the kill switch on magneto-type ignition systems generally places a dead short on a few turns of the spark voltage coil thus killing it's ability to function. This is a rather low impedance energy source and not easily "loaded" to the extent that the ignition fails. The biggest problem with getting tach data from ignition sources is the very trashy waveform that CAN be easily signal conditioned if the tach designer is aware of the signal's characteristics. >Bob said: > > You show a tach signal off the AC widings of the altenrator. > > This will not be useful with the alternator disconnect relay > > open. >Bob, I do not understand this, since the tach signal wire is >connected to the alternator side of the disconnect relay. Doesn't >the alternator continue to generator voltage whether there is a load >on it or not? Or does the regulator open the grounded alternator lead? The alternator leads go to a bridge rectifier's AC input poles . . . neither goes to ground. Availability of a predictable signal from the AC windings assumes that the system is producing power normally. Now, there is SOME sort of signal present with the relay open . . . but its characteristics are different that for normal operation. The designer of the tachometer probably wasn't tasked with covering this case so useful operation becomes problematic. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2009
Thanks, Joe :-) I'd heard of getting a tach signal from the P-leads. This must be the same as what they talk about with the mags. And would have the same risks of grounding, I would think. > You show a tach signal off the AC widings of the altenrator. > This will not be useful with the alternator disconnect relay > open. Here's my understanding: the alternator has two leads of AC coming out. With AC, one lead will have current go out, while the other has it come in (like a ground?). The leads switch every 180. So opening just one of the leads kills output, just like breaking a ground connection in a DC circuit. It also seems that if I did get the tach signal here, then I would have a defacto open alternator disconnect relay alarm: no tach would mean relay open. -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259502#259502 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Horizon Inst P-1000
Date: Aug 25, 2009
Horizon Tach...... I have used this tack in my Cessna 185 for 5+ years. Always works as advertized. A couple of hidden great benefits to using this tach.... * you are alerted via the 2 red LED 'status' lights if a "P" lead breaks from its mag. Thus, you know immediately that you have a hot mag. that needs fixing, * the high resolution of rpm information is very beneficial when doing things like mixture leaning, mag checks, taxi leaning, etc. Dave ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Quillin" <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:50 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Horizon Inst P-1000 > > Wondering if any have information on this tach? > > http://www.horizoninstruments.com/ > > Operations manual, install manual, experience with one, other...? > > TIA > Ron Q. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2009
From: Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II
Don... Just finished a panel for a kitfox with similar panel components. I tied the Dynon's audio out together with a potentiometer per Dynon's schematic and used an audio mixer from Flight Data Systems ($90). This provided multiple audio inputs (Dynon and SL-30 Nav audio) to be combined into one audio out that I connected to the aux input on the PM1000. http://www.fdatasystems.com/ Chris Stone RV's Newberg, OR -----Original Message----- >From: Don McIntosh <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com> >Sent: Aug 24, 2009 10:45 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Audio Alert to PM 100II > > >I have a Dynon D180 that has 2 audio alert outputs that I can tie together but there is no Aux input on the PM 1000II intercom or my Garmin SL 40 to hook to. Someone said to hook it to my phone (headphone?) output but when I called PS Engineering, they weren't sure it would work and had no suggestions except that their new PM 3000 has 2 Aux inputs. Any ideas on how to get audio alert from my Dynon? I do hate to undo my existing pins and soldered shields. I have an "expansion unit" input slot that is open on the intercom harness, that is apparently used for attaching their unit to add up to six passengers. > >-------- >Don McIntosh >Kitfox Series 7 under construction >Jabiru 3300 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259415#259415 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Remote CB
From: "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2009
I am planning Z-12 for my plane but on one of the PDF files of switches I saw that the ALT field CB is put next to the BATT/ALT switch. How should one do this if all of the other CBs will be in another place in the plane? Do you just run a single wire form the buss all of the other CBs are attached to? If so is more protection required. Sorry if this is a dumb question, just trying to understand electrons better. I like the idea of the field CB being near the switch but can put it with the other CB if that makes thing simpler. -------- Mike "Nemo" Elliott RV-8A QB (Fuselage) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259790#259790 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II
From: "Don McIntosh" <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2009
There is no aux input on the PM 1000. Do you mean the expansion unit input? Apparently the signal coming from the Dynon is not a sound, but just a signal that needs some magic to turn it into sound? -------- Don McIntosh Kitfox Series 7 under construction Jabiru 3300 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259830#259830 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II
Date: Aug 26, 2009
Quick suggestion...if you're using the standard dynon alert "beep"...just forget it. It doesn't play nice with many intercoms! The HS-34 audio on the other hand is quite good. Cheers, Stein _________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don >McIntosh >Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:39 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II > > > > >There is no aux input on the PM 1000. Do you mean the expansion >unit input? Apparently the signal coming from the Dynon is not a >sound, but just a signal that needs some magic to turn it into sound? > >-------- >Don McIntosh >Kitfox Series 7 under construction >Jabiru 3300 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259830#259830 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2009
From: Doug Ilg <doug.ilg(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II
Don, Note that he's talking about a PM 1000 II. They DO have aux audio in. I had one in my Tiger for about 8 years. FYI. Doug Ilg Grumman Tiger N74818, College Park Airport (KCGS), Maryland Challenger II LSS (N641LG reserved) - kit underway at Laurel Suburban (W18) ----- Original Message ---- > From: Don McIntosh <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:39:17 PM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II > > > > There is no aux input on the PM 1000. Do you mean the expansion unit input? > Apparently the signal coming from the Dynon is not a sound, but just a signal > that needs some magic to turn it into sound? > > -------- > Don McIntosh > Kitfox Series 7 under construction > Jabiru 3300 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259830#259830 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Remote CB
At 04:14 PM 8/26/2009, you wrote: > >I am planning Z-12 for my plane but on one of the PDF files of >switches I saw that the ALT field CB is put next to the BATT/ALT >switch. How should one do this if all of the other CBs will be in >another place in the plane? Do you just run a single wire form the >buss all of the other CBs are attached to? If so is more protection >required. Sorry if this is a dumb question, just trying to >understand electrons better. > >I like the idea of the field CB being near the switch but can put it >with the other CB if that makes thing simpler. Note that all of my z-figures recommend the fuse blocks. But when crowbar ov protection is included in your alternator controls, you need ONE cb. If you're going with circuit breakers, then by all means, place the alternator field breaker in the same panel space occupied by other breakers on the main bus. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2009
Subject: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II
Dynon beep works well with my PMA 7000b...At least it has scared the snot out of me once or twice..But that's the idea I guess..:) Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of SteinAir, Inc. Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:09 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II --> Quick suggestion...if you're using the standard dynon alert "beep"...just forget it. It doesn't play nice with many intercoms! The HS-34 audio on the other hand is quite good. Cheers, Stein _________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don >McIntosh >Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:39 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II > > > > >There is no aux input on the PM 1000. Do you mean the expansion unit >input? Apparently the signal coming from the Dynon is not a sound, but >just a signal that needs some magic to turn it into sound? > >-------- >Don McIntosh >Kitfox Series 7 under construction >Jabiru 3300 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259830#259830 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Normand Biron" <normbiron(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II
Date: Aug 27, 2009
The Dynon EMS Alarm and AOA Alarm also works well with the PS Engineering PMA6000MC when connected to the Audio Alert un-switched un-muted input. Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)<mailto:frank.hinde(at)hp.com> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:03 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II (Corvallis)" > Dynon beep works well with my PMA 7000b...At least it has scared the snot out of me once or twice..But that's the idea I guess..:) Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of SteinAir, Inc. Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:09 PM To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II --> > Quick suggestion...if you're using the standard dynon alert "beep"...just forget it. It doesn't play nice with many intercoms! The HS-34 audio on the other hand is quite good. Cheers, Stein _________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don >McIntosh >Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:39 PM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II > > >> > >There is no aux input on the PM 1000. Do you mean the expansion unit >input? Apparently the signal coming from the Dynon is not a sound, but >just a signal that needs some magic to turn it into sound? > >-------- >Don McIntosh >Kitfox Series 7 under construction >Jabiru 3300 > > > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259830#259830 > > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List .com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Audio Alert to PM 100II
From: "Don McIntosh" <don(at)contractorsnorthwest.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2009
OK. Attached is the wiring diagram for the PM1000II w/o crew PN 11922. Are we talking about the music input? It may mute when I scream when the alarm goes off but that might not be all that bad! -------- Don McIntosh Kitfox Series 7 under construction Jabiru 3300 Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260086#260086 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/pm1000ii_wiring_diagram_224.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2009
I have taken a portion of Dan's schematic that pertains to the dynamo, regulator, and tachometer and simplified it in an attempt to better understand it. I moved the bridge rectifier outside of the regulator. And I added one more diode in series with the tach so that the tach only sees half of the dynamo waveform. By adding this extra diode, I believe that the tach will see the same signal whether the alternator relay is pulled in or not, since the tach is connected in parallel with the dynamo through two diodes. The dynamo frequency is dependent upon the engine speed since it is mounted onto the flywheel. The output voltage will vary depending of the state of the disconnect relay and aircraft load. However, the voltage should not affect the tach unless it drops below the minimum (2.5 to 5 volts) required. Bob, what do you think? Will Dan's tach work as connected in his schematic if a diode is added in series with it? Or do I have it all wrong? And that could be, because I do not know what is inside of the regulator case. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260116#260116 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/tach_204.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
At 09:46 PM 8/27/2009, you wrote: > >I have taken a portion of Dan's schematic that pertains to the >dynamo, regulator, and tachometer and simplified it in an attempt to >better understand it. I moved the bridge rectifier outside of the >regulator. And I added one more diode in series with the tach so >that the tach only sees half of the dynamo waveform. By adding this >extra diode, I believe that the tach will see the same signal >whether the alternator relay is pulled in or not, since the tach is >connected in parallel with the dynamo through two diodes. The >dynamo frequency is dependent upon the engine speed since it is >mounted onto the flywheel. The output voltage will vary depending >of the state of the disconnect relay and aircraft load. However, >the voltage should not affect the tach unless it drops below the >minimum (2.5 to 5 volts) required. > Bob, what do you think? Will Dan's tach work as connected in > his schematic if a diode is added in series with it? Or do I have > it all wrong? And that could be, because I do not know what is > inside of the regulator case. Good question. You know what you do not know. Similarly, I know that I know nothing about the functional requirements for any particular tachometer. It's unwise for me to suggest that modification of the tachometer's signal path (by breaking one AC lead from the alternator) will not have a deleterious effect on its performance. You're on the right track for the crafting an experiment and verifying the significance of results before you fly the airplane. But the "2.5 to 5.0 volts minimum" requirement does not speak to distortions of waveform. I'm in CA right now sorting out the simple-ideas for the outcome of an experiment that was not conducted to a useful and significant conclusion before flight. The short answer to your question is hook it up, give it a try. It wouldn't hurt to take some 'scope waveform data on the relay-open and relay-closed conditions. Then share those pictures with the the folks who built the tach. It's a sure bet that they did not anticipate a need to remain functional with one of the AC power leads from the dynamo disconnected from the rectifier/regulator. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dan's Jabiru 3300 Wiring Schematic
From: "user9253" <fran5sew(at)banyanol.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2009
Thanks for the reply Bob. Unfortunately I live a long way from Dan. Perhaps he will let us know how he connected his tachometer to make it work to his satisfaction. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260233#260233 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Groundblock Tube/Fabric Airplane
From: "special4" <sportsflyer(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2009
I have problems with static noise/interference (Icom IC A5 Radio) on my Challenger I Ultralight. Battery is in the nose (ground to the aluminum frame tube), antenna on left wing (strut mount) and engine (2-stroke Rotax 447, sparkplug wires shielded and resistor spark plug caps) is behind the wing (pusher) What is the best place to install a groundblock ...? Is aluminum tubing/frame a good ground...?? Thanks Peter -------- Sportsflyer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260362#260362 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Groundblock Tube/Fabric Airplane
At 09:31 AM 8/29/2009, you wrote: > >I have problems with static noise/interference (Icom IC A5 Radio) on >my Challenger I Ultralight. Battery is in the nose (ground to the >aluminum frame tube), antenna on left wing (strut mount) and engine >(2-stroke Rotax 447, sparkplug wires shielded and resistor spark >plug caps) is behind the wing (pusher) What is the best place to >install a groundblock ...? Is aluminum tubing/frame a good ground...?? The groundblock is what "becomes a good ground" irrespective of where mounted and on what kind of airplane. Are you certain that your noises originate from poor ground architecture? The A5 is a hand held. Are you using internal batteries or external power cord? What is the nature of your "static". Are you certain that it's ignition noise? Is the noise so strong that it prevents you from hearing the transmission of others . . . or can you tighten the squelch control to shut off the noise and still hear others when they talk? Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Groundblock Tube/Fabric Airplane
From: "special4" <sportsflyer(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2009
I can hear loud and clear over 70 miles distance, but when I transmit there is a lot of noise.... (unicom and other airplanes report a lot of static and background noise) The radio is connected to the "ships" power, and I did try it with the internal batteries only, but with the same results. Could it be a ground loop...as I do not have connected all the wires to "one" ground....??? Thanks Peter -------- Sportsflyer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260378#260378 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2009
From: <r.r.hall(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Groundblock Tube/Fabric Airplane
Since it is a handheld could you conduct a few tests such as using it without the aircraft on or completely outside the aircraft? Find a frequency unused in your area and you and a friend try a few transmissions with the engine off and maybe even outside the plane with the portable antenna. If the noise goes away you know it is coming from the installation if it is still there it is in the radio itself. Then try with it attached to the ships antenna but the ship off etc, Introduce one element at a time until the static comes in and then deal with the cause. Rodney ---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote: > > At 09:31 AM 8/29/2009, you wrote: > > > >I have problems with static noise/interference (Icom IC A5 Radio) on > >my Challenger I Ultralight. Battery is in the nose (ground to the > >aluminum frame tube), antenna on left wing (strut mount) and engine > >(2-stroke Rotax 447, sparkplug wires shielded and resistor spark > >plug caps) is behind the wing (pusher) What is the best place to > >install a groundblock ...? Is aluminum tubing/frame a good ground...?? > > The groundblock is what "becomes a good ground" irrespective > of where mounted and on what kind of airplane. Are you > certain that your noises originate from poor ground > architecture? > > The A5 is a hand held. Are you using internal batteries > or external power cord? What is the nature of your "static". > Are you certain that it's ignition noise? Is the noise so > strong that it prevents you from hearing the transmission of > others . . . or can you tighten the squelch control to shut > off the noise and still hear others when they talk? > > > Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Groundblock Tube/Fabric Airplane
At 12:31 PM 8/29/2009, you wrote: > >I can hear loud and clear over 70 miles distance, but when I >transmit there is a lot of noise.... (unicom and other airplanes >report a lot of static and background noise) The radio is connected >to the "ships" power, and I did try it with the internal batteries >only, but with the same results. Could it be a ground loop...as I do >not have connected all the wires to "one" ground....??? As Rodney has suggested, you need to isolate the potential ingress of noise upon your signal. Your intial posting didn't mention a difference between hearing and talking, now we know that the problem manifests only while you're talking and the noise is not coming in through the power leads. Now we have to deduce what other folks are referring to as "static and background noise". It's and interesting and sometimes frustrating task to acquire accurate mental images of the meanings for other people's words. Back in my active ham radio days, we learned early on what the various common noise sources sounded like and could accurately differentiate wind noise, background sounds, generator or regulator hash, ignition noise, blower motor brush noise and alternator whine . . . none of which were referred to as "static". Static is that stuff that you hear when lightning strikes somewhere and is almost NEVER a part of anyone's actual transmitted signal. Okay, what microphone are you using when the noise complaint is raised? Built in microphones on hand- helds are one step above the mic that came with my two-year old grandson's Karaoke by Mattel. They never have effective noise cancelling nor tightly controlled pressure sensitivity patterns. So an aircraft headset with a good noise cancelling microphone is called for . . . PARTICULARLY if you like to fly with the "air conditioning" on . . . If you've already got a head-set, is it one that has been successfully used in an environment such as your cockpit? I got a really cool ride in a Trike . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Trike_Ride_1.jpg Thanks Rich! By the way, this is the platform from which I acquired the website cover shot of K1K1, the airport Dr. Dee and I owned for a time. http://aeroelectric.com/23a.jpg Unfortunately, the LEAST expensive airplanes demand the very best in microphone performance for pleasant and understandable conversation. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2009
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Balun for VOR antenna
Bob and all, While helping a friend wiring his airplane, I stumbled on the instruction leaflet for his RA-Miller VOR antenna. It calls for a specific built-in balun coax. My intention was to follow the instructions in http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html, but the coax already installed and bundled in the fuselage is RG 58. To avoid crawling into the fuselage and doing everything again, is it doable to keep the RG 58, and WHEN and IF a balun is required, to add a portion of RG 400 with the balun via a pair of BNC connectors ? Thanks in advance, Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Transponder Re-Check?
Date: Aug 30, 2009
8/30/2009 Don Wrote "Will I need another transponder/encoder cert IAW 91.413?" Here is what 91.413 says: "91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections. (a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and (b) Following any installation or maintenance on an ATC transponder where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter." It would appear that if you could satisfy yourself in some manner (preferably documented) that "data correspondence error" could not be introduced either by the repair or your subsequent reinstallation then no Appendix E recheck would be required. First flights after reinstallation should include some airborne check of the system with ATC. Why not ask the people who just did your check what their opinion is -- realizing that it may not be entirely unbiased. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ============================================ From: "Don Curry" <don.curry(at)inbox.com> Subject: Avionics-List: Transponder Re-Check? I just had my biennial transponder/encoder certification (IAW FAR 91.413) done. The system passed and log book was signed off. On the very next flight, the transponder acted up. I had it pulled and sent off for repairs and it is due back Monday with a fresh 8130. Will I need another transponder/encoder cert IAW 91.413? Don ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Groundblock Tube/Fabric Airplane
From: "special4" <sportsflyer(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 30, 2009
Thanks Bob, thanks Rodney, I will do the tests as you are recommending, and try to isolate the noise. Re headsets; I have 2 headsets, one is a PNR and the 2nd one is a ANR. With the ANR headset I could hear the rpm changes , but after I have installed the sparkplugwire shielding that noise is gone. Peter -------- Sportsflyer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260461#260461 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transmit noise
From: Ian <ixb(at)videotron.ca>
Date: Aug 30, 2009
I'd like to offer two small ideas since they both seem to make a big difference in my aircraft: 1. The headset manufacturer says put the mike 1/8" from your mouth. That's pretty close, and the further away it is the more other noises can be heard. 2. I noticed most of my transmit noise went away if I unplugged the second headset, or switched the intercom to "isolate" even though the second PTT wasn't pushed. Not sure why that is, or whether it was just noise in my headset that wasn't actually being transmitted. Ian Brown Bromont Quebec, RV-9A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Balun for VOR antenna
At 03:32 AM 8/30/2009, you wrote: ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > >Bob and all, > >While helping a friend wiring his airplane, I stumbled on the >instruction leaflet for his RA-Miller VOR antenna. It calls for a >specific built-in balun coax. >My intention was to follow the instructions in >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html, >but the coax already installed and bundled in the fuselage is RG 58. >To avoid crawling into the fuselage and doing everything again, is >it doable to keep the RG 58, and WHEN and IF a balun is required, to >add a portion of RG 400 with the balun via a pair of BNC connectors ? It is never "required". Thousands of airplanes were built in the 50's and 60's where the coax feedline to a VOR antenna "whiskers" were simply attached to the two antenna elements: center conductor to on, shield to the other. This is depicted on 'Connection drawings in the chapter on antennas. If I interpret the words describing the RA Miller AV12 antenna at: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/av12L_ant.php it says that the balun is "integral to the coax supplied". I don't see how this is done in the data supplied. However, you're not on shaky ground to simply install per manufacturer's instructions using cable supplied. While not necessarily the best we know how to do, its performance will be entirely satisfactory. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2009
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Transmit noise
At 09:45 AM 8/30/2009, you wrote: >I'd like to offer two small ideas since they both seem to make a big >difference in my aircraft: > >1. The headset manufacturer says put the mike 1/8" from your >mouth. That's pretty close, and the further away it is the more >other noises can be heard. Sure. This is typical of any noise canceling mic. The term noise cancelling is mis-leading. Microphones cannot differentiate between "noise" and "good stuff." Depending on their quality, they may do a fair job of differentiating between near-field sounds (your voice) and far-field sounds (noise). The further your voice moves away from the microphone, the less it looks like good stuff and the more it looks like noise. >2. I noticed most of my transmit noise went away if I unplugged the >second headset, or switched the intercom to "isolate" even though >the second PTT wasn't pushed. Not sure why that is, or whether it >was just noise in my headset that wasn't actually being transmitted. Aha! TWO microphones that are tied together without benefit of separate voice-operated switching. These systems suffer full-time bombardment of TWICE the noise when only one person is talking. This causes you to tighten squelch controls to silence the extra noise and requires that voices be louder (or microphone half way down your throat) in order that the tighter squelch be accommodated. I'm pretty sure that 90% of your problem arises from the combination of headsets and your audio system's handling of microphone signals. It is unlikely that you can achieve much better results without replacing the intercom, headsets or both. You're not alone in believing that stuff designed for "aircraft" is suited for cockpits with essentially open-air noise levels. I'm thinking that intercoms designed for mounting in helmets of motor cycles may be better designed for this task. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2009
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Balun for VOR antenna
Thank you for your quick and comprehensive answer. > It is never "required". Thousands of airplanes > were built in the 50's and 60's where the coax > feedline to a VOR antenna "whiskers" were simply > attached to the two antenna elements: center > conductor to on, shield to the other. This is what I did with RG 58. > > However, you're not on shaky ground to simply install > per manufacturer's instructions using cable supplied. The problem is, the antenna was purchased with no cable. Thanks again, Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder Re-Check?
From: "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2009
Here's a realistic idea. When your transponder comes back, put it in and forget about the paperwork. Al Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260540#260540 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2009
From: Don Curry <don.curry(at)inbox.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder Re-Check?
I'm fighting that very temptation. However, all too often if a person will compromise once, s/he'll do it again. And I don't want to be that person. As near as I can tell, it's best just to play by the rules. After all, it's a hobby, right? Don > -----Original Message----- > From: alfranken(at)msn.com > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder Re-Check? > > > Here's a realistic idea. > > When your transponder comes back, put it in and forget about the > paperwork. > > Al > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260540#260540 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2009
Subject: Re: Transponder Re-Check?
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 8/30/2009 8:56 PM, Don Curry wrote: > After all, it's a hobby, right? Er, no, its an addiction actually... ;-) -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder Re-Check?
From: "al38kit" <alfranken(at)msn.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2009
If it's a hobby, then I would expect the answer should be really easy. Put it back in and forget about it. If it's in a plane you're flying for a living, and could potentially lose your shirt over a lawsuit, then it's a different situation. If you're so worried about not following the rules once (how old are you?) and then thinking you'll be addicted...I don't know what to tell you...javascript:emoticon('[Twisted Evil]') [quote="don.curry(at)inbox.com"]I'm fighting that very temptation. However, all too often if a person will compromise once, s/he'll do it again. And I don't want to be that person. As near as I can tell, it's best just to play by the rules. After all, it's a hobby, right? Don > -- [Twisted Evil] [Twisted Evil] [Twisted Evil] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260557#260557


August 13, 2009 - August 31, 2009

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-iy