AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jk
March 15, 2010 - April 05, 2010
>
> Emacs!
>
>
> and . . .
>
> Emacs!
> Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
> article. So if your design goals include attention
> to details of fire-wall integrity, then perhaps
> single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
> with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
> per Tony B's writings.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
Hello all-
I have implemented Z-19 (dual battery, redundant main and engine
busses) for my bird. I would like to add the ability to easily hook
up a float trickle charger to the aircraft to keep both batteries
topped up while sitting in the hangar. Due to the design of Z-19,
however, I can't see a simple way to accomplish this that doesn't
result in the batteries being tied together in what would likely be an
undesireable way.
Is there a straight-forward way to do this? (without having to float
charge the batteries separately, thus requiring 2 chargers).
Thanks,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <william_slaughter(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
The plastic insulator portion would be incinerated within seconds, leaving a
hole in the firewall for the fire to pass through to the cockpit.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Grosse
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall
I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled with
fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a fire, but
then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems the same to
me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is apparently okay.
So could someone explain why these electrical fittings are incompatible
with firewall security.
Thanks.
John Grosse
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat, but if you look
>> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there, the cable runs from
>> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
>> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
>> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
>> enough for Piper...
>
> I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
> feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
> Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
> and mechanically, these critters function as advertised.
> The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
>
> However, if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
> firewall integrity with processes like . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
> then devices like . . .
>
> Emacs!
>
>
> and . . .
>
> Emacs!
> Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
> article. So if your design goals include attention
> to details of fire-wall integrity, then perhaps
> single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
> with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
> per Tony B's writings.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 question |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Mark,
Yes there is. Simply connect a 16 gauge wire to the positive terminals of
each battery, and connected to a regular panel-type switch. When charging
the batteries, simply flip the switch on and both will charge.
It's working well in my setup.
Sam
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Mark R. Supinski
wrote:
> mark.supinski(at)gmail.com>
>
> Hello all-
>
> I have implemented Z-19 (dual battery, redundant main and engine
> busses) for my bird. I would like to add the ability to easily hook
> up a float trickle charger to the aircraft to keep both batteries
> topped up while sitting in the hangar. Due to the design of Z-19,
> however, I can't see a simple way to accomplish this that doesn't
> result in the batteries being tied together in what would likely be an
> undesireable way.
>
> Is there a straight-forward way to do this? (without having to float
> charge the batteries separately, thus requiring 2 chargers).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
Okay, I get that. I thought that was a metal part. Guess I should have
checked the specs.
John
William Slaughter wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter"
>
> The plastic insulator portion would be incinerated within seconds, leaving a
> hole in the firewall for the fire to pass through to the cockpit.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Grosse
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:19 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Grosse
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
> more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled with
> fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a fire, but
> then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems the same to
> me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is apparently okay.
> So could someone explain why these electrical fittings are incompatible
> with firewall security.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Grosse
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat, but if you look
>>> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there, the cable runs from
>>> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
>>> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
>>> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
>>> enough for Piper...
>>>
>> I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
>> feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
>> Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
>> and mechanically, these critters function as advertised.
>> The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
>>
>> However, if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
>> firewall integrity with processes like . . .
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>>
>> then devices like . . .
>>
>> Emacs!
>>
>>
>> and . . .
>>
>> Emacs!
>> Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
>> article. So if your design goals include attention
>> to details of fire-wall integrity, then perhaps
>> single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
>> with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
>> per Tony B's writings.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
Because the plastic holder melts/burns/disappears in a fire, leaving a
hole for fumes (and possibly creating fumes), flames and a short from
the "bolt" to the firewall.
Dick Tasker
John Grosse wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
> more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled
> with fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a
> fire, but then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems
> the same to me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is
> apparently okay. So could someone explain why these electrical
> fittings are incompatible with firewall security.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Grosse
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat, but if you
>>> look
>>> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there, the cable runs from
>>> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
>>> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
>>> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
>>> enough for Piper...
>>
>> I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
>> feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
>> Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
>> and mechanically, these critters function as advertised.
>> The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
>>
>> However, if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
>> firewall integrity with processes like . . .
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>>
>> then devices like . . .
>>
>> Emacs!
>>
>>
>> and . . .
>>
>> Emacs!
>> Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
>> article. So if your design goals include attention
>> to details of fire-wall integrity, then perhaps
>> single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
>> with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
>> per Tony B's writings.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
The plastic from which they're made=2C (at least most of them) melts=2C the
n burns leaving you with flames on the "wrong" side of the firewall and an
open hole admitting more smoke and flames. Also you now have a bare=2C unin
sulated=2C live heavy wire=2C (stud) arcing like crazy against the firewall
sheetmetal. Doesn't seem like a "safe" penetration to me. The intumescent
caulk idea swells up with heat keeping the hole sealed and insulating the i
nterior from flames and smoke and preventing the wires=2C even if they them
selves are compromised=2C from shorting to the firewall.
Bob McC
> Date: Mon=2C 15 Mar 2010 19:18:30 -0500
> From: grosseair(at)comcast.net
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall
>
et>
>
> I'm sorry=2C but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
> more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled with
> fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a fire=2C but
> then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems the same to
> me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is apparently okay.
> So could someone explain why these electrical fittings are incompatible
> with firewall security.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Grosse
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls=2C III wrote:
> > At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010=2C you wrote:
> >>
> >> David=2C
> >>
> >> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat=2C but if you
look
> >> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there=2C the cable runs fr
om
> >> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
> >> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
> >> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
> >> enough for Piper...
> >
> > I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
> > feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
> > Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
> > and mechanically=2C these critters function as advertised.
> > The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
> >
> > However=2C if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
> > firewall integrity with processes like . . .
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
> >
> > then devices like . . .
> >
> > Emacs!
> >
> >
> > and . . .
> >
> > Emacs!
> > Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
> > article. So if your design goals include attention
> > to details of fire-wall integrity=2C then perhaps
> > single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
> > with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
> > per Tony B's writings.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
At 07:18 PM 3/15/2010, you wrote:
>
>I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below
>look more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall
>filled with fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat
>from a fire, but then so could a wire. The concept with these
>devices seems the same to me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic
>lines which is apparently okay. So could someone explain why these
>electrical fittings are incompatible with firewall security.
The legacy wire penetration technique calls for
bringing the wire through a standard grommet which
is then all but totally covered on the engine side
with a two-piece stainless steel shield. See:
http://tinyurl.com/ycx9dv9
This combination of hardware provides for physical
security of the firewall penetration and a good deal
of protection for the grommet against fuel-fed fire.
The final touch is addition of the fire-putty fillet
around the wire and to cover about half the surface
area of the grommet on the engine side. This
adds relative gas-tightness for CO and protection
of the exposed insulation/grommet from fire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Beaver <jason(at)jasonbeaver.com> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-13 in revision 12A |
I noticed that the e-bus alternate feed design changed from revision 11 to revision
12A. In revision 11, the alternate feed path used a 7A fuse and was wired
with 16AWG and a 20AWG fuselink. In 12A, it uses an 15A fuse and is wired with
14AWG, but still uses a 20AWG fuselink. Is this correct, or should it now
use an 18AWG fuselink?
Also at 7A, the formally specified 16AWG wire will already have a 10C temp rise,
and the 20AWG fuselink would have a 35C temp rise. If we size the wires for
a 15A feed at the same temperature rise, shouldn't we use a 10AWG wire with a
14AWG fuselink? At 15A, the currently specified 14AWG already has a 35C temp
rise and have no idea how hot an 18AWG or 20AWG fuselink would be.
Am I missing something?
thanks,
jason
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis & Anne Glaeser" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 question |
I have a cigarette lighter receptacle for each battery, fused off each
battery's hot bus, on my IP.
I made up a "Y" for my battery charger with lighter plugs, so when I want to
charge the batteries, I just plug it into the receptacle(s).
Dennis Glaeser
------------------------------------------------------
Hello all-
I have implemented Z-19 (dual battery, redundant main and engine
busses) for my bird. I would like to add the ability to easily hook
up a float trickle charger to the aircraft to keep both batteries
topped up while sitting in the hangar. Due to the design of Z-19,
however, I can't see a simple way to accomplish this that doesn't
result in the batteries being tied together in what would likely be an
undesirable way.
Is there a straight-forward way to do this? (without having to float
charge the batteries separately, thus requiring 2 chargers).
Thanks,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: Knuckolls Z-12 Power Grid Questions |
Thanks Joe. Bob and you have convinced me that the Z-12 with the E-Bus
set up this way is optimized. BTW, my AeroElectric Connection Rev 11
book doesn't have a Z-11 design in it. Guess yours is older...?
The process of thinking through the logic behind the architecture, with
yours and Bob's help, has been very helpful.
Thanks again,
Valin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
user9253
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knuckolls Z-12 Power Grid Questions
> "On the avionics contactor relay, I thought the diode was for if it
was switching inductive loads to prevent back EMF. Is a diode still
recommended for an avionics bus with resistive loads? Do I misunderstand
the diodes role here?"
A relay has two (or more) circuits. The coil is one circuit and the
relay contacts are in another circuit. The two circuits can be
completely isolated from each other. The purpose of a diode connected
across a relay (or contactor) coil is to protect the controlling switch
from high voltage spark generated by the relay coil when it is shut off
by the switch. That high voltage has nothing to do with the load on the
relay contacts, whether that load is inductive or resistive. In fact, a
relay coil will produce a high voltage when it is shut off, even if
nothing at all is connected to the relay contacts. The bigger the coil,
the bigger the spark. A relay coil will not make as big of a spark as a
contactor coil. Connecting a diode across a relay coil will prolong the
life of the switch that controls it. The diode arrow should point
towards positive.
> "Thanks for pointing out that the avionics relay is a single point
failure. What do you guys think about getting one fault tolerant by
having two avionics bus relays/switches in parallel
-=C3=A2=82=AC=9C maybe one passing power from the Battery Bus
and one from the System Bus?"
Yes, that will work. What you are proposing is similar to the E-Bus.
And it is similar to what I proposed in my previous post, although I
might not have explained it clearly. Even if you do use two relays, the
diode must still be used to prevent high current from flowing from the
avionics bus (AKA E-Bus) to the system bus.
> "I'm not yet convinced that the Essential/Endurance Bus adds that much
value."
The important feature of an E-Bus is that is has two independent current
paths. It would be easy to turn your avionics bus into an E-Bus by
adding the alternate feed path from the battery bus and a diode to
prevent back-feeding the system bus.
> "It seems, though, that it might improve reliability more for Z-12 to
have dual parallel battery contactors."
Yes, that will work, but will cost more and weigh more than using a
relay and diode along with an E-Bus that will accomplish the same thing.
It can be satisfying to design one's own electrical system. However,
there could be failure modes that you might not be aware of. The big
advantage of using one of Bob's drawings is that they have been proven
over time and scrutinized by many eyes. Any bugs have been worked out.
Your schematic looks great in colors. After a couple of minor changes,
it will be similar to Z-11.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290394#290394
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/e_bus_106.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Knuckolls Z-12 Power Grid Questions |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
You are welcome, Valin
You can get an update to your book here: http://www.matronics.com/aeroelectric/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf
It includes Z-11.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290592#290592
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question on Z-13 in revision 12A |
At 02:11 AM 3/17/2010, you wrote:
>
>I noticed that the e-bus alternate feed design
>changed from revision 11 to revision 12A. In
>revision 11, the alternate feed path used a 7A
>fuse and was wired with 16AWG and a 20AWG
>fuselink. In 12A, it uses an 15A fuse and is
>wired with 14AWG, but still uses a 20AWG
>fuselink. Is this correct, or should it now use an 18AWG fuselink?
>
>Also at 7A, the formally specified 16AWG wire
>will already have a 10C temp rise, and the
>20AWG fuselink would have a 35C temp rise. If
>we size the wires for a 15A feed at the same
>temperature rise, shouldn't we use a 10AWG wire
>with a 14AWG fuselink? At 15A, the currently
>specified 14AWG already has a 35C temp rise and
>have no idea how hot an 18AWG or 20AWG fuselink would be.
>
>Am I missing something?
Sort of. The Z-figures are NOT detailed wiring diagrams for
your airplane. They're suggestions for architectures that
offer failure tolerant solutions to design goals.
The sizes of batteries, alternators, wires, breakers, contactors,
relays, switches and the quantities of such things are dependent
on your particular suite of components.
While strict observance of any suggested wire sizes in a Z-figure
will yield a 'functional' system, it may not conform to the
best we know how to do. Check out examples of e-bus architectures
across the various Z-figures, they're not identical. And don't
get wrapped around the AC43-13 wire-sizing exercise axle. Suggest
you size wires using suggested current ratings in the chart
on page 8-8. Keep in mind too that the 'ratings' are EXCEEDINGLY
conservative. 20A through a 22AWG wire doesn't smoke it. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/22AWG_20A.pdf
Finally, if a fusible link is to FUNCTION as a fusible
link, then it MUST be thermally stressed at some level
much greater than the feeder it protects, so yes, it
will run warmer than the feeder.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RV ballscrew flap actuator performance |
At 06:49 AM 3/16/2010, you wrote:
>Caldwell"
>
>Fred
>
>It would be interesting if you could remember if you could remember
>id the position of the flaps about blowing the fuse was fully up or down.
>
>Also keep in mind that there have been at least two versions of the
>Flap drive mechanism.
>
>As to the clutch, if you operate the flaps without the engine
>running you can hear the flap clutch slip at the fully up or down
>position (if you don have any limit switches installed).
The "slip clutch" on commonly used ball-screw actuators
are a bit deceiving. When one holds an unmounted actuator
in hand, the ball-nut seems to magically "disconnect" and
spins freely at each end of travel. This type of nut
features non-circulating balls held in a cage. The grooves
in the nut are not matched to the screw (helical) but
are instead circular raceways. See:
http://tinyurl.com/ylkv85l
When the ballscrew is working in the normal mode between
stroke limits, the cage is driven by the balls and rotates
at 1/2 the velocity as the nut. But at the end of travel,
the cage hits a stop pin which locks it to the screw.
The balls now slip in their circular raceways.
When the nut-screw junction is not axially loaded, the
'freewheeling' effect is quite pronounced. One gets
the impression that there's a near total disconnect
for energy from the motor. However, when the actuator
is loaded (like at end of travel for extending flaps),
the load shedding to the motor is not so pronounced.
In fact, when operating the actuator at it's full
load capabilities (which is probably many hundreds
of pounds) there IS a sharp INCREASE in load on the
motor as the actuator hits the stop.
Yes, the 'slip clutch' does a nice job of replacing
limit switches in terms of setting absolute limits
on system stroke but there are electrical considerations
driven by how much the current spikes at end of travel.
Obviously, retracting flaps has very low force on the ball-
nut at up-limit. Further, exercising flaps on the
ground suggests that the end-of-travel event
for flaps extension is pretty benign too. AND IT
MAY BE no big deal in flight . . . if real force
is say 200 pounds out of a 1000 pound rated ball-screw.
The point is, until somebody puts the gauges on
it to go find out, we can debate the DESIGN of
flap system circuits for a long time. I suspect
the extend-limit spike is rather benign given that
many folks have told us they're flying with 10A
or even 5A fuses to protect the motor circuit.
Just be aware that until you actually fly the
airplane to load the flaps -AND- depending on how
long you hold the flap switch in the DOWN position
after the system reaches the limit is what sizes
the fuse.
It would be interesting and most useful if we
could get some in-flight current measurements
on extend-limit current draw with the airplane
flying at the IAS limit (top of the white arc)
for full flap extension.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How to tighten switch ring without scratching? |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
I have some nice knurled threaded switch rings I purchased from B+C. How
do i tighten without scratching off the black finish?
Thx.
Ron
Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How to tighten switch ring without scratching? |
| From: | "George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
Set the knurled ring to give the desired projection on the front of the
panel, and tighten the hex nut on the back side.
Neal
====================
I have some nice knurled threaded switch rings I purchased from B+C. How do
i tighten without scratching off the black finish?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | How to tighten switch ring without scratching? |
That works. I've ground wrenches down to VERY thin cross-section
for just that purpose. Of course, this pre-supposes that you
can get enough "swing" on the wrench between .8" spaced switches
to do the job.
There ARE nut-drivers specific to this task. I've not looked for one
in many years and I had some difficulty finding it then. Don't
recall now where I located it. There is RISK too that the knurled
nuts you have on hand are not fabricated to the same dimensions
as the driver you purchase. There is no doubt a standard practice
form factor for nuts made in the US over the years. But then,
EVERYBODY thinks they can build nuts nowadays. One fewer or greater
peaks in the knurl and the driver won't fit.
This is one reason why I abandoned the use of the decorative
nuts some years ago and went 100% to hex nuts. I have some special
nut drivers which I have smoothed, put radii on sharp corners,
and otherwise polished so that they cannot scratch a panel.
Bob . . .
At 12:15 PM 3/17/2010, you wrote:
Set the knurled ring to give the desired projection on the front of the
panel, and tighten the hex nut on the back side.
Neal
====================
I have some nice knurled threaded switch rings I purchased from B+C. How do
i tighten without scratching off the black finish?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: How to tighten switch ring without scratching? |
Put electrical tape on the jaws of your pliers/wrench
Dick
In a message dated 3/17/2010 11:28:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
I have some nice knurled threaded switch rings I purchased from B+C. How
do i tighten without scratching off the black finish?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slowing down the trim |
>I realize that most people will not want to bother installing a
>separate 9 volt supply but it does work.
>For those interested the shack 5 amp regulator has a schematic and
>parts list on the back of the package.
>Contact me off-line for my trim schematic. It is in autocad format.
There was some discussion about trim speed control
here on the List some years back. The discussion
prompted (or grew out of) these two postings to
the website . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS//Flight/Trim/Two_Speed_Trim_2.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Trim_System_Failures.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Question about plumbing air, not electrons |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
What sealant if any should I be using on 1/8" NPT connections for
pitot, static and AOA on instruments?
*Brass female and Brass male
*Brass female and Aluminum male
*Brass female and Nylon male
*Aluminum female and Nylon male
Is it acceptable to
use.250" OD .125" ID Tygone tubing going over .1875"
OD(before single barb) nipple for pitot, static and AOA
plumbing? A little heat on tubing from a heat gun and it slides right
on.Would it be worth it to put a double wrap of .020" safty
wire on Tygon tubng near root to act as a clamp?
I have a two
pneumatic switches, one to select between static and total energy for Ilec
variometer and one to function to allowalternate static. these
switches have a stainless body with female 10-32 straight threaded ports.
The .1875' ODnipplesI want to use are male straight threaded
10-32 that come with a flat sealing washer. What if anything shouldI
be putting on threads as a sealant?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
After several postings here about how this is the best no-nonsense maintainer for
Pb-acid chemistry I got myself one from Walmart. Model SEM 1562A. I put it
on an Odyssey PC625 and checked the voltages. The unit was charging at 15.6V.
After 3 hrs, the float charge kicked in, hovering around 14.6 volts. Later I believe
I found a review on Amazon from somebody who measured about the same voltages.
What I wanted was 14.6 charge/13.2 float since that was what was reported in this
forum as correct for the chemistry and for this unit. I think the original
units came with a 12/6V switch. This unit (same model number) has a 12/6V automatic
function with no switch. It seems the switch is not the only thing that
has changed.
I'm returning the unit and now will search for something else. Any suggestions?
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290755#290755
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
At 08:11 AM 3/18/2010, you wrote:
>
>After several postings here about how this is the best no-nonsense
>maintainer for Pb-acid chemistry I got myself one from Walmart.
>Model SEM 1562A. I put it on an Odyssey PC625 and checked the
>voltages. The unit was charging at 15.6V. After 3 hrs, the float
>charge kicked in, hovering around 14.6 volts. Later I believe I
>found a review on Amazon from somebody who measured about the same voltages.
>
>What I wanted was 14.6 charge/13.2 float since that was what was
>reported in this forum as correct for the chemistry and for this
>unit. I think the original units came with a 12/6V switch. This unit
>(same model number) has a 12/6V automatic function with no switch.
>It seems the switch is not the only thing that has changed.
>
>I'm returning the unit and now will search for something else. Any
>suggestions?
Are you sure the "float" voltage you were measuring wasn't
being supported by the battery as opposed to the Schumacher
maintainer? I have several of the 1562 and they perform
as expected. After a battery is freshly charged, it may take
some time for its terminal voltage to drop down to maintenance
levels with NO charger attached.
Repeat the experiment but as soon as the charger shuts down
(drops below the 15.6 top-off), disconnect the charger and
watch the battery's open circuit terminal voltage. It might
take several hours for the battery to drop down to the level
at which the maintainer begins to support it.
Schumacher has been in this business a very long time. It
seems unlikely that they've produced a device that fails
to perform by design. Of course a defective device is anohter
matter.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Well, what I did was to measure the voltages at the battery terminal with the Schumacher
powered on and attached. With the yellow light on, the voltage was 15.6
or thereabouts. When the green light came on, the voltage was very slowly
oscillating from 14.6 to just over 15. The battery has sat overnight, unattached
to anything and it is now at 12.86V.
Did I measure incorrectly? Is not 14.6 charge/13.2 float ideal and what I should
expect from a maintainer?
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290758#290758
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
At 09:01 AM 3/18/2010, you wrote:
>
>Well, what I did was to measure the voltages at the battery terminal
>with the Schumacher powered on and attached. With the yellow light
>on, the voltage was 15.6 or thereabouts. When the green light came
>on, the voltage was very slowly oscillating from 14.6 to just over
>15. The battery has sat overnight, unattached to anything and it is
>now at 12.86V.
>
>Did I measure incorrectly? Is not 14.6 charge/13.2 float ideal and
>what I should expect from a maintainer?
Sounds like you did good. I'd like to have that
maintainer to evaluate. I've got several 1562's
and they don't behave that way. I'd like to know
if Schumacher has changed the design or that one
is bad.
As far as a replacement, I also have several Battery
Tender Juniors that have been keeping my lab batteries
alive and well for years.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/Battery_Tender_Jr/Battery_Tender-Junior.jpeg
http://tinyurl.com/yjhhgra
If you'll send me your 1562, I'll ship it back when I'm
done with it and pay postage both ways. See front page
of website for shipping address.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Lancair battery fire |
A few weeks ago there was some discussion on the
List about a Lancair battery fire. A B&C SB-1 regulator
was found to be water damaged. The pilot's narrative
told us that smoke started after he turned the aux
alternator on to "charge the aux battery".
I've become privy to data points concerning this accident.
The SB-1 was indeed water damaged in a way that might
indeed drive the aux alternator to an OV condition.
There was no evidence of a pre-flight test of the aux
alternator functionality.
The only wiring diagram offered as a reference for
assembly of the airplane was a B&C drawing not unlike
our figure Z-12.
It is unclear how the aux battery was wired into the
system.
The battery fire point of origin was not electrical.
The battery still had liquid in it (Gill 240) and
had no internal evidence of fire or overt damage.
The battery did out-gas. Point of origin for the
fire was probably spontaneous combustion due to presence
of non-standard materials in the battery box.
The full report and more details will come out later
this summer. But it's apparent that the designer, installer
and operator of this electrical system did not have
a clear understanding of the recipes for success that
would have prevented this particular incident from
happening.
In the mean time, B&C regulator products are getting
a sticker suggesting recommended installation orientation
so that drip water won't collect inside.
While the failed regulator probably participated in the
event. Like most accidents, it was a combination of several
errors of materials selection, installation technique, and
operating procedures which stacked up to severely damage
the airplane and put the passengers at much risk.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
I spoke to Alex at Schumacher technical support. He said this model is no longer
available with the manual 12/6 volt switch. The design has changed. The unit
is now microprocessor controlled and now only comes with the automatic 12/6V
feature. He said the voltages for the new version are set somewhat higher than
the older version because the microprocessor can monitor the levels better. He
also said that the float voltages I reported are normal, initially due to a
high recent charge on the battery, but that it will eventually settle to not more
than 13.4V. I think this is what you were also saying.
So, I put the battery back on the charger. The voltage started at 14.6V and within
5 minutes went up to 15.2V. An hour later it was at 15.2V and still charging,
yellow light on. I will wait until a few hours after float to see what the
float level is then.
If results seem suspicious after this test. I may take you up on your offer, thanks.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290770#290770
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question about plumbing air, not electrons |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> |
Ron,
If your nylon fittings are Nylo-Seal brand, I recently asked this question of their
tech support and they recommend nothing on the threads. I did my pitot and
static lines with Nylo-Seal fittings throughout and both passed the manometer
test without leaks.
Jim Berry
RV10
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290772#290772
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
>
>So, I put the battery back on the charger. The voltage started at
>14.6V and within 5 minutes went up to 15.2V. An hour later it was at
>15.2V and still charging, yellow light on. I will wait until a few
>hours after float to see what the float level is then.
>
>If results seem suspicious after this test. I may take you up on
>your offer, thanks.
Give it even a day or so. It should settle down
to 13.5 or less.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Drilling holes for toggle switches? |
| From: | "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero> |
When drilling holes for standard style toggle switches, what is the common method
for creating a hole with the keyway?
Or do you just use a round hole and not worry about the keyway?
-Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290804#290804
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Drilling holes for toggle switches? |
I made a template or maybe someone sells them. you can also make one for circuit
breakers as mine had tangs too.
good luck.
Ron Burnett RV-6A coming along slowly
--
---- donjohnston wrote:
============
When drilling holes for standard style toggle switches, what is the common method
for creating a hole with the keyway?
Or do you just use a round hole and not worry about the keyway?
-Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290804#290804
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Corey Crawford <corey.crawford(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
Because I was curious, I emailed Blue Sea Systems to get information on the
flammability properties of their Bulkhead Electrical Pass-through unit
(found here: http://bluesea.com/products/2201). For those also curious, thi
s
is the information I received back:
*PN: 2201 is molded in Zytel FR50 NC010, which has a UL94 V0 flammability
rating. I'm pretty certain the Zytel FR50 is an SAE approved under the hood
material though. Almost all electrical connector housings (Molex, FCi,
Deutsch, etc.) are molded in glass reinforced Nylon 6 6.
If you didn=92t already know, UL94 is the Underwriters Laboratory test
standard for plastics flammability. V0 is the best you can do. There are
constraints or design guidelines for different thicknesses of materials
though. A 1/16" thick section of a material will likely burn more readily
than one 1/8" thick, and each material tested comes with a rating at a
thickness, but they're not all the same. In our product's case, design
thickness has been handily exceeded.
Another gauge for plastics materials underhood is elevated temp properties.
The heat deflection temperature(HDT) is actually quite high for Nylon 6 6 -
especially when glass filled as ours is. One excellent feature of a VO
thermoplastics materials is that it can still be tough. Phenolics (think
Bakelite) have the best high temperature performance, but can be very
brittle.
Having written all of that, I must confess PN: 2201 predates my tenure here
at Blue Sea. I personally have not flame tested it, though I understand the
guy who's chair I took was fond of such activities. I can say from years of
experience that PN: 2201 has some good features to help keep it from meltin
g
or burning besides the plastics material. For one thing there is a large
(relative to molded component) brass heat sink in the thru-conductor that i
s
insert molded within.
Provided you don=92t plan on using it for welding for extended periods, and
that you size wires appropriate for your application(s), there are probably
very few if any better products on the market.*
Interesting stuff. I come from computer software, so all this materials
science is something new to learn.
--
Corey Crawford
corey.crawford(at)gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:48 AM, wrote:
> The plastic from which they're made, (at least most of them) melts, then
> burns leaving you with flames on the "wrong" side of the firewall and an
> open hole admitting more smoke and flames. Also you now have a
> bare, uninsulated, live heavy wire, (stud) arcing like crazy against the
> firewall sheetmetal. Doesn't seem like a "safe" penetration to me. The
> intumescent caulk idea swells up with heat keeping the hole sealed and
> insulating the interior from flames and smoke and preventing the wires, e
ven
> if they themselves are compromised, from shorting to the firewall.
>
> Bob McC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
I have 4 of those maintainers. Use on one flooded and the rest are
AGM. I have never seen more that 14.1 at the batt terminals with the
thing connected. The batts spend most of the time at 13.1.
Suggest you get a proper meter and measure again. I went thru two
Radio Shack meters before buying a good meter. Turns out teh Harbor
Freight 3.99 one is as good as you will get for a batter volt meter.
Your experience may differ?
PW
=========
At 06:11 AM 3/18/2010, Radioflyer wrote:
>
>After several postings here about how this is the best no-nonsense
>maintainer for Pb-acid chemistry I got myself one from Walmart.
>Model SEM 1562A. I put it on an Odyssey PC625 and checked the
>voltages. The unit was charging at 15.6V. After 3 hrs, the float
>charge kicked in, hovering around 14.6 volts. Later I believe I
>found a review on Amazon from somebody who measured about the same voltages.
>
>What I wanted was 14.6 charge/13.2 float since that was what was
>reported in this forum as correct for the chemistry and for this
>unit. I think the original units came with a 12/6V switch. This unit
>(same model number) has a 12/6V automatic function with no switch.
>It seems the switch is not the only thing that has changed.
>
>I'm returning the unit and now will search for something else. Any
>suggestions?
>--Jose
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Drilling holes for toggle switches? |
| From: | joseparc(at)aol.com |
Punch and die. Try drilling a close fit round hole and deform the metal
edge with hammer and pointed punch,, where you want the key way to be, ju
st enough to prevent the switch from rotating.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: donjohnston <don(at)numa.aero>
Sent: Thu, Mar 18, 2010 7:57 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Drilling holes for toggle switches?
When drilling holes for standard style toggle switches, what is the common
method for creating a hole with the keyway?
Or do you just use a round hole and not worry about the keyway?
-Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290804#290804
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schertz" <wschertz(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Drilling holes for toggle switches? |
Drill a round hole for the switch, and a smaller hole above it for the tang
on the washers that have the keyway to prevent rotation. The small hole
doesn't need to go all the way through the panel (from the backside)
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase I testing
--------------------------------------------------
From: "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:57 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Drilling holes for toggle switches?
>
> When drilling holes for standard style toggle switches, what is the common
> method for creating a hole with the keyway?
>
> Or do you just use a round hole and not worry about the keyway?
>
> -Don
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290804#290804
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Drilling holes for toggle switches? |
| From: | "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero> |
> Drill a round hole for the switch, and a smaller hole above it for the tang on
the washers that have the keyway to prevent rotation.
Sorry. Bad description on my part. The switch has the keyway. So a hole with a
tab (or tang) is needed.
-Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290852#290852
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Drilling holes for toggle switches? |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 3/19/10 4:20 AM, donjohnston wrote:
> Sorry. Bad description on my part. The switch has the keyway. So a
> hole with a tab (or tang) is needed.
Yes, the switch has the keyway, but most such switches come with a keyed
washer which has another tang on the OD. That tang is bent, to fit into
a hole on the panel that will prevent rotation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLo24tAAoJEOnu5cZehEEuRQUH/1B9nGg836/eQ6FuJ+ylzhyi
vaEueM0h4acTOVgzHTe3K122aAoXGiwMTOnPqtBzIXSCczZ8wRIBY/QKkIUbqsOV
UsMB+d8kt+aNPqRfkSMhEzk6qNDwcybiZOJ7G5l8fEm5TmJb5OirWy0cMdoI/gLr
Zfd6XrFszQNHodlLHrMo7UMCTaEMnJeYGyVIiPgxNoA2NfjGQa4qIKGyYqY65SK0
CIkL0s+hSbTfk84u1aVNqRycsJ/dKP9izxRFZTUERXabrWj6qP3Abxj6K8fEBFyq
XG4HVwBF+P0c1R5qRkW+KNmo0mGnxzpoZOYgr2b6OGj6DChIqmpdO7ehKPGGM5I
=pD1y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
At 11:06 AM 3/18/2010, you wrote:
I have 4 of those maintainers. Use on one flooded and the rest are
AGM. I have never seen more that 14.1 at the batt terminals with the
thing connected. The batts spend most of the time at 13.1.
Suggest you get a proper meter and measure again. I went thru two
Radio Shack meters before buying a good meter. Turns out teh Harbor
Freight 3.99 one is as good as you will get for a batter volt meter.
Your experience may differ?
PW
Those instruments are a good value. Compared to my first
purchase of a multimeter in 1961 (spent about $65 on a
Triplett 630 . . . a week's take home pay for my new
job at Boeing), about any digital instrument is more
accurate and they're exceedingly inexpensive compared
to 1961!
I've only had two of the 1562 maintainers and one of them
was given away a couple years ago. I did a plot of output
voltage for the recharge of a battery on one of them
and got this curve:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
Not all charger/maintainers are equal. Even amongst
the Schumacher products, there are considerable variations
depending on model. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/
Behaviors for several Schumacher products are plotted
there. We don't know why they all differ but we DO know
that putting any RG battery on a constant "recharge"
voltage or "trickle" charge current will kill it over
time.
If you see anything that looks like a "top off" behavior
followed by an extended period of "relaxation" where
the voltage drops below 14 volts, there is a strong
likelihood that the device is doing good things for
your RG battery.
Bob . . .
=========
At 06:11 AM 3/18/2010, Radioflyer wrote:
After several postings here about how this is the best no-nonsense
maintainer for Pb-acid chemistry I got myself one from Walmart. Model
SEM 1562A. I put it on an Odyssey PC625 and checked the voltages. The
unit was charging at 15.6V. After 3 hrs, the float charge kicked in,
hovering around 14.6 volts. Later I believe I found a review on
Amazon from somebody who measured about the same voltages.
Don't know that I would call it "the best". I have no
first-hand knowledge or criteria by which I could
make such a pronouncement.
What we DO know is that all the time our engine is
running and the alternator is ON, the battery is being
recharged in a manner that is slightly abusive but
necessary. The duration of this "abuse" is no greater
than the many examples of charger/maintainer performance.
Further, time the airplane is parked with NOTHING
turned on is very high compared to time the airplane
is being flown. Hence, we see reasonably long lives from
otherwise ignored batteries be they flooded or something
more modern.
So whether your particular maintainer relaxes to 14.0
or something smaller is not terribly critical. The fact
that it tops-off first and relaxes at all is 95% of the
task.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Drilling holes for toggle switches? |
On 3/19/10 4:20 AM, donjohnston wrote:
> Sorry. Bad description on my part. The switch has the keyway. So a
> hole with a tab (or tang) is needed.
Yes, the switch has the keyway, but most such switches come with a keyed
washer which has another tang on the OD. That tang is bent, to fit into
a hole on the panel that will prevent rotation.
Correct. Back when we were selling switches . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/switch2.jpg
We shipped them with the key-way washers installed. That's
how they were shipped to us. The handiest way to use
these washers is to install them on the BACK side of
the panel with the panel tab facing aft. You can drill
a hole all the way through the panel to accept the
panel-tab if your hole is covered later with a plastic
engraved overlay. If your design calls for putting
switch labels down directly onto panel structure,
the drill the panel tab holy only a few thousanths
deep and sand off the tab a bit before installation.
Also, you can take the panel tap off completely and
bond the washer to the back side of the panel. Use
a switch to fixture the washer behind the hole while
the bonding sets up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Drilling holes for toggle switches |
I put essential bus and main bus switches in long lines on either side of
the lower panel Don. Then, I connected the hot sides together with B&C
brass bus bars (screw terminals on breakers/switches). Since all the holes
were drilled in a line and connected all switches together there is no way
they can twist in the hole. Just an idea, if you are not putting more than
one switch on a line of holes this or course will not work..... Good luck
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Flying/finishing upholstery and wheel pants
__________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Drilling holes for toggle switches?
From: "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero>
When drilling holes for standard style toggle switches, what is the common
methodfor creating a hole with the keyway? Or do you just use a round hole
and not worry about the keyway?
-Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
This from the BD-4 list. Bob made wiring harnesses for Tracy Crook's
engine controllers. Was at http://roblinstores.com/cables/
*This sad news came across the BD-4 bulletin board. Bob was someone I
could always turn to for info when it was had to get a straight answer about
both BD-4's and rotary engines. Always willing to provide info and help out
another builder!! This is a great loss!!!
Don
I am sorry I have to share sad news with you today. Bob White has passed
away last Sunday. Here is the obituary:
Quote:
WHITE -- Robert L. White, 64, passed away March 14, 2010 after sudden
cardiac arrest on March 10, 2010. He was born November 8, 1945 in Winfield,
KS
to Linville and Beth White. He grew up in Kansas and Missouri. He was
employed at Sandia National Labs for 35 years, retiring in 2001. He was a
man of
many interests. He built his own experimental aircraft, and subsequently
used the same engine in the world's first rotary engine Sunbeam Alpine. He
also enjoyed photography and computing. He is survived by his wife Linda;
son Daniel; daughter Cheryl; mother Beth; sister Cathy; grandsons Gabriel
and
James. He will be greatly missed. He was a good and honest man who did
what was right because it was the right thing to do. Cremation has taken
place. There will be a memorial service on Thursday, March 18, 2010 at
10:00
a.m. at Riverside Funeral Home at 225 San Mateo Blvd. NE.
Most of you know Bob from his rotary installation, and for his help on
running this website. Bob and I emailed almost daily, and he did half of
the
incoming emails, which was great for me. He did that even though he had
moved on from his BD after the crash.
If you knew him, and/or his wife Linda, maybe sending her a note would be
nice:
Linda Nelson
505-256-3095
lknelson (at) comcast (dot) net
Also, he still has the crashed BD in his hangar. If any of you are in
Albuquerque, could you offer his widow help, perhaps in return of parts?
Sad, Holger
That's too young.
Brian Trubee*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Static System Check |
3/21/2010
Hello Fellow Listers, I had the need to conduct a regulatory required static
system test and inspection on my experimental amateur built airplane
recently and I'd like to share the process with you.
The need came about because, in the process of a qualified technician
performing the mandatory (for IFR flight) every two year's 14 CFR 91.411 and
91.413 tests and inspections (commonly called an "IFR cert"), he determined
that the VSI (Vertical Speed Indicator) had an excessive internal leak.** He
bypassed the offending instrument with some plumbing and successfully
completed the remainder of the tests and inspections required.
After he left I removed the VSI and took it to an instrument repair facility
who fixed it for $213. I reinstalled the instrument and reconnected the
plumbing, but was not good to go because of 91.411 which reads in part:
"91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and
inspections.
(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace
under IFR unless-
(2) Except for the use of system drain and alternate static pressure valves,
following any opening and closing of the static pressure system, that system
has been tested and inspected and found to comply with paragraph (a),
appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter; and....."
"(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted
by-
{several different qualification requirements listed including:}
(3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system
tests and inspections only)."##
Being a certificated A&P mechanic I turned to Appendix E, of part 43 which
reads in part:
"Appendix E to Part 43-Altimeter System Test and Inspection
Each person performing the altimeter system tests and inspections required
by 91.411 shall comply with the following:
(a) Static pressure system:
(2) Determine that leakage is within the tolerances established in 23.1325
or 25.1325, whichever is applicable."
So I then needed to go on to PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL,
UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES to find out how to
perform the test and what the leakage tolerances were.
Here is what 23.1325 says in part:
"23.1325 Static pressure system.
(b) If a static pressure system is necessary for the functioning of
instruments, systems, or devices, it must comply with the provisions of
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(2) A proof test must be conducted to demonstrate the integrity of the
static pressure system in the following manner:
(i) Unpressurized airplanes. Evacuate the static pressure system to a
pressure differential of approximately 1 inch of mercury or to a reading on
the altimeter, 1,000 feet above the aircraft elevation at the time of the
test. Without additional pumping for a period of 1 minute, the loss of
indicated altitude must not exceed 100 feet on the altimeter."
So how to evacuate the static pressure system? After plugging up the two
static ports I opened the system drain connection in my static system and
plumbed in this MixMizer syringe:
http://www.hopkinsmfg.com/10111.html
This device readily evacuated the system and the static system passed the
leak test. After closing up the system drain connection and making the
required log book entry I was good to go.
What did we learn from this exercise?
A) For some mandatory regulatory requirements there are some provisions of
14 CFR that do apply to our experimental amateur built aircraft even if at
first glance some of them (Part 43 and Part 23 for example) do not appear to
apply.
B) Even though anyone can work on, repair, modify, inspect, and maintain an
amateur built experimental aircraft there are certain items that require
action by specially qualified individuals. The annual condition inspection
is one item requiring performance by either the holder of the Repairman
Certificate for that specific aircraft or the holder of an A&P certificate.
Another is the requirement for either the holder of an Airframe certificate
or one of the other entities identified in 91.411 (b) in order to conduct a
regulatory acceptable static system check.
I welcome questions or comments.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
**PS: I had suspected that the instrument was faulty because on the last two
or three flights it showed 300 - 400 feet per minute rate of descent while
flying straight and level.
##PS: Note that being the builder and designated repairman for this specific
experimental amateur built airplane did not qualify me to perform the static
system test and inspection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Downloading Z- figures into TurboCad |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
What procedures do any of you use to download Z-figures from the Aerolectric Connection
website into TurboCad? I'm using TC v. 11 which won't open .pdf's.
Tried copying the file to the clipboard and pasting into TC but the image is not
scaleable and the text is unreadable.
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291188#291188
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Downloading Z- figures into TurboCad |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Disregard the question.
I found the Autocad .dxf and .dwg files that TurboCad can digest.
J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291191#291191
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Ok, Bob, you suggested that I monitor the battery over a few days. Here is the
summary of the Schumacher SEM-1562A voltages across my AGM battery(Odyssey PC625).
(The battery had been already (night prior) charged/maintain by the same
device.)
Day 1 - The unit started at 14.6V (yellow light on) and quickly ramped up to 15.2V.
About 1.5hr later, the float commenced (green light on). The Voltages ranged
(sinusoidally?) from 13.6 to 15.3V over about a 20 second period.
Day 2 - (24hrs later) The unit was still ranging thru 13.6 to 15.2V.
Day 3 - The unit ranged from 13.7 to 15.8V, but there was more loiter time nearer
the 13.7V end. 12 hrs later in the day (or maybe less) the unit had stabilized
at 13.7V
Day 4 - Values continue to be stable at 13.7V with no indication of any further
change. I then disconnected the Schumacher and terminated measurements.
The Schumacher started with a brief topping off voltage of 15.2V, continued with
a long float of 13.6 to 15.2V averaging to about 14.4V, and finally settled
on a constant 13.7V. The volatges seems high to me. The manual states max charge
of 14.6V, maintainance 13.3V, but I don't know if these are "averaged" values.
So, is this optimal or reasonable behavior for maintaining my battery? Clearly,
this new version of the SEM-1562A is operating quite differently from the
original version.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291207#291207
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <ainut(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Downloading Z- figures into TurboCad |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Meyers <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
Two pieces of information from Enersys about Odyssey batteries.
Although they try and push their chargers, they do list specs for
selecting a non Odyssey charger or a maintainer.
In all cases, they say to never use a unit that goes over 15v because
of the risk of popping the valve. They say to check the charger with
a volt meter for compliance.
For the 625 they list a 6A (.4C10) charger as a minimum if it is used
for deep cycling rather than just a float charger. I am not sure what
your intended use is. As a float unit only the Schumacher is sized
fine for the 625.
I have two non-odyssey chargers that roughly follow the curve Bob
posted for you but they are 12A and 25A respectively. They are both
smart enough to switch to a float charge quickly if the battery is
full or nearly so.
Bob Meyers
Building Sonex 982SX Web Site Index http://meyersfamily.org/Sonex982.html
On Mar 21, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Radioflyer wrote:
> >
>
> Ok, Bob, you suggested that I monitor the battery over a few days.
> Here is the summary of the Schumacher SEM-1562A voltages across my
> AGM battery(Odyssey PC625). (The battery had been already (night
> prior) charged/maintain by the same device.)
>
> Day 1 - The unit started at 14.6V (yellow light on) and quickly
> ramped up to 15.2V. About 1.5hr later, the float commenced (green
> light on). The Voltages ranged (sinusoidally?) from 13.6 to 15.3V
> over about a 20 second period.
>
> Day 2 - (24hrs later) The unit was still ranging thru 13.6 to 15.2V.
>
> Day 3 - The unit ranged from 13.7 to 15.8V, but there was more
> loiter time nearer the 13.7V end. 12 hrs later in the day (or maybe
> less) the unit had stabilized at 13.7V
>
> Day 4 - Values continue to be stable at 13.7V with no indication of
> any further change. I then disconnected the Schumacher and
> terminated measurements.
>
> The Schumacher started with a brief topping off voltage of 15.2V,
> continued with a long float of 13.6 to 15.2V averaging to about
> 14.4V, and finally settled on a constant 13.7V. The volatges seems
> high to me. The manual states max charge of 14.6V, maintainance
> 13.3V, but I don't know if these are "averaged" values. So, is this
> optimal or reasonable behavior for maintaining my battery? Clearly,
> this new version of the SEM-1562A is operating quite differently
> from the original version.
>
> --Jose
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291207#291207
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
At 09:09 PM 3/21/2010, you wrote:
>
>Ok, Bob, you suggested that I monitor the battery over a few days.
>Here is the summary of the Schumacher SEM-1562A voltages across my
>AGM battery(Odyssey PC625). (The battery had been already (night
>prior) charged/maintain by the same device.)
>
>Day 1 - The unit started at 14.6V (yellow light on) and quickly
>ramped up to 15.2V. About 1.5hr later, the float commenced (green
>light on). The Voltages ranged (sinusoidally?) from 13.6 to 15.3V
>over about a 20 second period.
>
>Day 2 - (24hrs later) The unit was still ranging thru 13.6 to 15.2V.
>
>Day 3 - The unit ranged from 13.7 to 15.8V, but there was more
>loiter time nearer the 13.7V end. 12 hrs later in the day (or maybe
>less) the unit had stabilized at 13.7V
>
>Day 4 - Values continue to be stable at 13.7V with no indication of
>any further change. I then disconnected the Schumacher and
>terminated measurements.
>
>The Schumacher started with a brief topping off voltage of 15.2V,
>continued with a long float of 13.6 to 15.2V averaging to about
>14.4V, and finally settled on a constant 13.7V. The volatges seems
>high to me. The manual states max charge of 14.6V, maintainance
>13.3V, but I don't know if these are "averaged" values. So, is this
>optimal or reasonable behavior for maintaining my battery? Clearly,
>this new version of the SEM-1562A is operating quite differently
>from the original version.
Thank you for taking the time to accomplish this study!
My data acquisition system is still packed up in moving
boxes but as soon as I can get some more pressing matters
addressed, I'll go pick up another 1562 and see what I
find. Clearly, the item you have behaves much like some
very old versions of electronically controlled charger-
maintainers. In fact, I think I'd like to buy the one
you have in hand and take it apart to compare with
others I have and one that I'll buy.
Let's make a deal.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
Wondering, if these products are coming out of China or some other mass
producing factory where the final calibration "station" to set the peak
charge and float voltages pots is poorly set-up or non-existent. I have
used the BatteryMinder model 12117; the small unit. I like it.
When I first operated it and monitored the various voltages as Jose did, I
noted also the peak and float voltages were too high. Both levels were
controlled by separate pots within the unit. I called BatteryMinder and
spoke to someone with product knowledge, related my finding, asked for
verification of my views on what the levels should be and he answered, yes,
both settings were too high and I was correct with my settings. He asked
that I send it in for recalibration and I told him the unit was apart and I
had located the control pots for each voltage level and would like to make
the adjustments myself. He verified that was Ok and to check back if I
could not bring the charging levels down to normal. The mini pots had
enough range. After several days of monitoring the maintainers activity on
a standard Concord type AC battery, it was verified that it was doing what
it was designed to do.
Conclusion.... many products of good designs like this one are leaving the
factories with thinly disguised Q/C
----- Original Message -----
From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote
now!
>
>
> Ok, Bob, you suggested that I monitor the battery over a few days. Here is
> the summary of the Schumacher SEM-1562A voltages across my AGM
> battery(Odyssey PC625). (The battery had been already (night prior)
> charged/maintain by the same device.)
>
> Day 1 - The unit started at 14.6V (yellow light on) and quickly ramped up
> to 15.2V. About 1.5hr later, the float commenced (green light on). The
> Voltages ranged (sinusoidally?) from 13.6 to 15.3V over about a 20 second
> period.
>
> Day 2 - (24hrs later) The unit was still ranging thru 13.6 to 15.2V.
>
> Day 3 - The unit ranged from 13.7 to 15.8V, but there was more loiter time
> nearer the 13.7V end. 12 hrs later in the day (or maybe less) the unit had
> stabilized at 13.7V
>
> Day 4 - Values continue to be stable at 13.7V with no indication of any
> further change. I then disconnected the Schumacher and terminated
> measurements.
>
> The Schumacher started with a brief topping off voltage of 15.2V,
> continued with a long float of 13.6 to 15.2V averaging to about 14.4V, and
> finally settled on a constant 13.7V. The volatges seems high to me. The
> manual states max charge of 14.6V, maintainance 13.3V, but I don't know if
> these are "averaged" values. So, is this optimal or reasonable behavior
> for maintaining my battery? Clearly, this new version of the SEM-1562A is
> operating quite differently from the original version.
>
> --Jose
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291207#291207
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
http://sites.google.com/site/xnnatvbp/gjoygvlu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franz" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Hi all,
I would like to ask your comments regarding a reoccurring problem that I am
having in my RV7. I have wired it according to Z11 with the additional
projection for internally regulated ND alternator as suggested by the
connection. I have had now three alternator failures in short order, each
time I have taken out the alternator and had it checked out at the shop,
twice they found a faulty diode and the third time the alternator checked
out ok, no fault found. I have exchanged the alternator contactor and have
checked all wires and fuses, they all check out ok.
I am wondering how I could check the system to see if I can find any
problems with it. Any suggestions are appreciated
Franz
RV7A
300h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
And I think the original version of the Schumacher SEM-1562A had adjustment trimpots
also. However, this new version of the same model is microprocessor controlled
and has no trimpots. The voltages must be controlled by firmware.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291286#291286
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
At 01:22 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>And I think the original version of the Schumacher SEM-1562A had
>adjustment trimpots also. However, this new version of the same
>model is microprocessor controlled and has no trimpots. The voltages
>must be controlled by firmware.
Have you had it open? Certainly if I were designing
one, it would indeed have a micro-controller with the
calibration established by a couple precision resistors
and the processor's 10-bit a/d. Given that its so
very easy to do, I'm mystified as to why anyone would
not do it.
But the voltages and behaviors you cited are waaayyy out
of whack.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
It's possible that rebuilder is putting crappy parts in the alternator,
and you got unlucky with which unit they gave you. Where are you buying
the alternators?
On this third alternator, did the system function okay once you returned
the unit to the airplane?
What is the indication of the failure? Do you have a low-voltage warning
light, or a voltmeter?
There are usually mutliple diodes in alternators. Often, only one of the
diodes fail, and this causes reduced output current, possibly only evident
when the system is seeing heavy loads - if the diode fails open, which is
common.
Is the mount and airflow (cowl) for this alternator essentially the same
as for other RV's? I wonder if it's getting adequate cooling? It would
be relatively cheap and easy to rig up some instrumentation so that you
could monitor the temperatures.
I see that you have 300 hours on the plane. How long ago did you start
having problems? Was anything else changed on the airplane?
Matt-
>
>
> Hi all,
> I would like to ask your comments regarding a reoccurring problem that I
> am
> having in my RV7. I have wired it according to Z11 with the additional
> projection for internally regulated ND alternator as suggested by the
> connection. I have had now three alternator failures in short order, each
> time I have taken out the alternator and had it checked out at the shop,
> twice they found a faulty diode and the third time the alternator checked
> out ok, no fault found. I have exchanged the alternator contactor and have
> checked all wires and fuses, they all check out ok.
> I am wondering how I could check the system to see if I can find any
> problems with it. Any suggestions are appreciated
>
> Franz
> RV7A
> 300h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
At 11:21 AM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
Wondering, if these products are coming out of China or some other
mass producing factory where the final calibration "station" to set
the peak charge and float voltages pots is poorly set-up or
non-existent. I have used the BatteryMinder model 12117; the small
unit. I like it.
Conclusion.... many products of good designs like this one are
leaving the factories with thinly disguised Q/C
Fooey. It's entirely possible. I guess I'll have
to start checking any new ones I buy. It wouldn't
take much to fabricate a battery maintainer module
to be powered by any orphaned wall-wart. Most
of the 12v unregulated devices put out enough
voltage at light loads to top-off an svla battery.
A simple circuit to drop from a 14.8 top-off to
13.2 maintenance when top-off current drops
under 100 ma wouldn't be very hard to do . . .
even as an discrete analog circuit. Don't
need any more projects right now. I'm still
building desks and cabinets!
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 01:00 PM 5/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>I would like to ask your comments regarding a reoccurring problem that I am
>having in my RV7. I have wired it according to Z11 with the additional
>projection for internally regulated ND alternator as suggested by the
>connection. I have had now three alternator failures in short order, each
>time I have taken out the alternator and had it checked out at the shop,
>twice they found a faulty diode and the third time the alternator checked
>out ok, no fault found. I have exchanged the alternator contactor and have
>checked all wires and fuses, they all check out ok.
>I am wondering how I could check the system to see if I can find any
>problems with it. Any suggestions are appreciated
Start by by-passing the OV protection system. Just
move the alternator b-lead wire to the other side
of the disconnect contactor so that the b-lead
is always hooked to the system.
If you're still in possession of the third, no-fault
found device, run it in that configuration for the
time being and see if things settle down.
How did you first become aware of the failure?
How did the failure manifest? Low voltage, over voltage?
Did you turn the alternator OFF while the engine
was running and the alternator was under load?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote now! |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Yes, I did open the unit immediately after realizing the voltages were higher than
expected. Since no trimpots, I closed it up to return to the store for a refund.
Then based on our discussions here, I decided to test it a little longer.
I probably should return it but if you (Bob N.) are interested, I could certainly
send it to you for further testing.
Bob N., I'll try contacting you off list to send you the unit.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291309#291309
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wire size / fuse size question |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Here's my situation. I have 2 small 75W bulbs in each wing (one landing, one taxi,
in each wing). 4 bulbs total. They draw 6.5A each. I used one 16ga wire
to each bulb thinking that would be more than enough for 6.5A, but didn't think
about the fuse.
Here's my plan. Connect one bulb from each wing to the same 15A fuse. So I'd
be protecting 16ga wire with a 15A fuse, but each wire would only be sourcing
6.5A
Here's my logic. I know 16ga wire should be fused at 12.5A. But it's not like
I'd ever be sourcing 20A. The only failure mode would be a short, which would
blow the fuse regardless of what size wire I'm using.
Does anyone see a flaw here?
Thanks.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291319#291319
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire size / fuse size question |
At 03:52 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Here's my situation. I have 2 small 75W bulbs in each wing (one
>landing, one taxi, in each wing). 4 bulbs total. They draw 6.5A
>each. I used one 16ga wire to each bulb thinking that would be more
>than enough for 6.5A, but didn't think about the fuse.
>
>Here's my plan. Connect one bulb from each wing to the same 15A
>fuse. So I'd be protecting 16ga wire with a 15A fuse, but each wire
>would only be sourcing 6.5A
>
>Here's my logic. I know 16ga wire should be fused at 12.5A. But
>it's not like I'd ever be sourcing 20A. The only failure mode would
>be a short, which would blow the fuse regardless of what size wire I'm using.
>
>Does anyone see a flaw here?
That works.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)neitel.net> |
Bob,
I too have a new version of the Schumacher. I have not tried the voltage checks,
but did notice that it took substantially longer for the new unit to top off
my PC 680. Compared to the older unit. The old unit would sometimes go into float
in a minute or less.
The new unit was charging for half an hour or longer. I did close the alternate
buss feed to check volts on the panel. If I remember correctly the panel voltmeter
was well in excess of 14 nearing 15 volts. That reading is less that accurate
as the graduations on my voltmeter are 9,12,15 etc. Bottom line is that
I too felt there was quite a change from the old model to the new one.
Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 160.4 hrs
Luana, IA.
On Mar 22, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 01:22 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> And I think the original version of the Schumacher SEM-1562A had adjustment
trimpots also. However, this new version of the same model is microprocessor controlled
and has no trimpots. The voltages must be controlled by firmware.
>
> Have you had it open? Certainly if I were designing
> one, it would indeed have a micro-controller with the
> calibration established by a couple precision resistors
> and the processor's 10-bit a/d. Given that its so
> very easy to do, I'm mystified as to why anyone would
> not do it.
>
> But the voltages and behaviors you cited are waaayyy out
> of whack.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
At 05:11 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I too have a new version of the Schumacher. I have not tried the
>voltage checks, but did notice that it took substantially longer for
>the new unit to top off my PC 680. Compared to the older unit. The
>old unit would sometimes go into float in a minute or less.
>The new unit was charging for half an hour or longer. I did close
>the alternate buss feed to check volts on the panel. If I remember
>correctly the panel voltmeter was well in excess of 14 nearing 15
>volts. That reading is less that accurate as the graduations on my
>voltmeter are 9,12,15 etc. Bottom line is that I too felt there was
>quite a change from the old model to the new one.
>
Thanks for that data point. Don't you have a whippy
little digital multimeter? If not, drop me your mailing
address. I've got a wad left over from the seminar door
prizes stash. I'll send you one.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)neitel.net> |
Thanks for the offer. I have two. I will try to get some data on my next airport
visit.
I will record some numbers and get back to you. Is there anything I should be aware
of,or a certain protocol, before proceeding?
Kevin
On Mar 22, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 05:11 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> Bob,
>> I too have a new version of the Schumacher. I have not tried the voltage checks,
but did notice that it took substantially longer for the new unit to top
off my PC 680. Compared to the older unit. The old unit would sometimes go into
float in a minute or less.
>> The new unit was charging for half an hour or longer. I did close the alternate
buss feed to check volts on the panel. If I remember correctly the panel voltmeter
was well in excess of 14 nearing 15 volts. That reading is less that
accurate as the graduations on my voltmeter are 9,12,15 etc. Bottom line is that
I too felt there was quite a change from the old model to the new one.
>>
>
> Thanks for that data point. Don't you have a whippy
> little digital multimeter? If not, drop me your mailing
> address. I've got a wad left over from the seminar door
> prizes stash. I'll send you one.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
Just one more data point. I bought my 1562A at Wal-Mart maybe 6 months ago
and for the past couple of months it's been attached to my 1980 Camaro in
the driveway which has a one year old battery. Currently shows 13.42 volts.
By the way, they are indeed made in China, per the label.
Tony Babb
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 Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote
now!
-->
At 05:11 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>-->
>
>Bob,
>I too have a new version of the Schumacher. I have not tried the
>voltage checks, but did notice that it took substantially longer for
>the new unit to top off my PC 680. Compared to the older unit. The
>old unit would sometimes go into float in a minute or less.
>The new unit was charging for half an hour or longer. I did close
>the alternate buss feed to check volts on the panel. If I remember
>correctly the panel voltmeter was well in excess of 14 nearing 15
>volts. That reading is less that accurate as the graduations on my
>voltmeter are 9,12,15 etc. Bottom line is that I too felt there was
>quite a change from the old model to the new one.
>
Thanks for that data point. Don't you have a whippy
little digital multimeter? If not, drop me your mailing
address. I've got a wad left over from the seminar door
prizes stash. I'll send you one.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
Bob,
I went to your site with the intentions of downloading your electrical
symbols library in .dwg AutoCAD format. When I "Clicked Here", it said I
didn't have permission to access that server.
Is your symbols library available to download and if so, how could I access
it?
I have TurboCad Deluxe 9.2 if that matters.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Looking for a used PC680 battery |
| From: | Jared Yates <junk(at)jaredyates.com> |
I'm still in the building stage, and I plan to use a PC680 battery in my
project. It seems wasteful for me to buy a new one just for the sake of
building my electrical system and battery support structure, since it will
be a couple of years before I'm ready to fly. By then I would like to start
my flight testing with a new battery, so it makes good sense to make use of
a retired one for such construction ground operations. Is there is anyone
out there who has proactively removed a PC680 and would like to sell it to
me? I know that some people have mentioned that they use them for lawn
mowers and such, but surely there is someone out there who has one sitting
around. If you are that someone, please send me an email with your
requested price and payment method.
Thanks!
Jared
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Symbols Library |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
Strange. I just downloaded it fine. On Bobs Aeroelectric webpage, I went to:
Downloadable Reference Materials > Page per System Drawings > ACAD Symbols Library
> Symbols 5.zip
Temporary server glitch maybe? That error message doesn't have anything to do with
your CAD program. It's a website/server thing, but I know all of Bob's CAD
stuff is definitely downloadable.
Regards,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291379#291379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Holger Selover-Stephan <holger-lists(at)shadowbrush.com> |
Thank you, Don. I forwarded your caring words to Bob's wife.
Holger
On 3/21/2010 5:34 AM, Sam Hoskins wrote:
> This from the BD-4 list. Bob made wiring harnesses for Tracy Crook's
> engine controllers. Was at http://roblinstores.com/cables/
> /This sad news came across the BD-4 bulletin board. Bob was someone I
> could always turn to for info when it was had to get a straight answer
> about
> both BD-4's and rotary engines. Always willing to provide info and
> help out
> another builder!! This is a great loss!!!
> Don/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a used PC680 battery |
I bought one brand new for the exact purpose that you intend, when I was building...and
replaced it with a brand new one for first flight. I have also since
gotten a second one from someone that is using a Concord instead....
I still have the old original one...
Shipping will be the bugger...where are you?
Zap me direct,
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jared Yates <junk(at)jaredyates.com>
>Sent: Mar 23, 2010 12:23 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a used PC680 battery
>
>I'm still in the building stage, and I plan to use a PC680 battery in my
>project. It seems wasteful for me to buy a new one just for the sake of
>building my electrical system and battery support structure, since it will
>be a couple of years before I'm ready to fly. By then I would like to start
>my flight testing with a new battery, so it makes good sense to make use of
>a retired one for such construction ground operations. Is there is anyone
>out there who has proactively removed a PC680 and would like to sell it to
>me? I know that some people have mentioned that they use them for lawn
>mowers and such, but surely there is someone out there who has one sitting
>around. If you are that someone, please send me an email with your
>requested price and payment method.
>
>Thanks!
>Jared
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher for battery maintenance, vote |
now!
At 07:30 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>Just one more data point. I bought my 1562A at Wal-Mart maybe 6 months ago
>and for the past couple of months it's been attached to my 1980 Camaro in
>the driveway which has a one year old battery. Currently shows 13.42 volts.
Interesting, thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Symbols Library |
Thanks, Mike. That worked. I was trying to go in thru the whats new area
and it wouldn't let me in.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of mmayfield
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:03 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Symbols Library
-->
Strange. I just downloaded it fine. On Bobs Aeroelectric webpage, I went to:
Downloadable Reference Materials > Page per System Drawings > ACAD Symbols
Library > Symbols 5.zip
Temporary server glitch maybe? That error message doesn't have anything to
do with your CAD program. It's a website/server thing, but I know all of
Bob's CAD stuff is definitely downloadable.
Regards,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291379#291379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Getting the numbers |
At 05:38 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
Thanks for the offer. I have two.
Good for you. Over the course of several seminars
my opening presentation was on DC power and the value
of knowing the numbers, I would query the class as
to how many folks did not possess at least one multi-meter
of reasonable accuracy (handy little analog
testers need not apply). Generally there were three
or four who would raise their hands.
I immediately handed out meters from Harbor Freight.
The cost was trivial and it helped me emphasize
very early in the class that having some grasp
on the "size of things" was pretty important to
successful implementation of recipes for success.
I will try to get some data on my next airport visit.
I will record some numbers and get back to you. Is there anything I
should be aware of,or a certain protocol, before proceeding?
Not a critical one . . . it's time consuming
to sit and watch the setup for the purpose
of plotting performance. Data points acquired are
pretty coarse. Just see what the "float" voltage
is after a couple of days. Then turn something on
to put drag a couple a.h. of energy out of the
battery. Hook the 1562 up and see if you can
catch a top-off voltage along with some sense
of time that it stays in the top-off mode.
Speaking of data acquisition systems. There are
dozens of new players in the data logging business.
Emacs!
This USB interface voltage logger can be reviewed
at:
http://www.microdaq.com/lascar/usb/el-usb-3.php
It has 0-30 volt input range, sample rates from
1 sec to 12 hours and a 1% overall accuracy.
I suspect it's resolution is much better than
1% and may be as great at 0.1% of full scale
(10 bits) so for more exacting work, one might
be able to characterize a given instrument for
better performance in analysis of the data.
At $75 its a pretty good value. Folks with a
curiosity about such things are encouraged
to investigate this market for themselves.
I've got several good tools for doing this task
but none that are so handy as this . . . I'll
probably decide that I just have to get one
pretty soon.
By the way, if any of you own one of those
West Mountain Radio battery analyzers
http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBA.htm
They can be pressed into service as a
useful data logger/plotter. This curve
was gathered with just such a device.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge.pdf
You set the thing up to "test" a battery
with say a 10 milliampere "load" and
set the end-of-test voltage very low. You
have to fool it into thinking that you're
testing a real 7 or perhaps 8-cell battery
to get the upper end of the voltage plot
where you need it. Then hook it across the
system being monitored. It will dutifully
gather voltage data for days if needs be
and produce nice plots too at no extra charge.
Of course, this ties up a PC for the
duration of the test. I keep a number of
junker 'putes around for just this kind
of task.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | AEC9005-101 kit availability? |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Am I hopelessly out of date in asking this question? I didn't see it on Bob's website.
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291442#291442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for a used PC680 battery |
At 09:08 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote:
>You can find battery dimensions on the internet. Make the box a
>quarter inch larger in both dimensions . . .
RG batteries do not benefit from being enclosed in
the classic battery box. The first batteries to
go aboard airplanes were somewhat 'infantile'. They
burp and gurgle. The liquid and gaseous emissions
were decidedly unfriendly to the insides of airplanes.
Hence, batteries were fitted with special caps. Battery
boxes were reasonably sealed and vented to the outside.
The recombinant gas battery is incapable of dumping
any liquids. Further, what ever out-gassing occurs
is low volume and quite dry. This means that airplanes
can now treat the battery as if it were a 17# chunk
of baggage. Secure it to a shallow tray with sufficient
strength to hold it down under say 10G of acceleration
and you're done.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Battery_Install_OBrien_1.jpg
The neat thing is that when major structure is a simple
tray, it's easy to change the size to accommodate future
retrofits.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AEC9005-101 kit availability? |
At 11:41 AM 3/23/2010, you wrote:
>
>Am I hopelessly out of date in asking this question? I didn't see it
>on Bob's website.
>
>Thanks,
>John
The "kit" is only the etched circuit board. The
artwork for the boards is published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005-301-1C_Fab.pcb
You can use this artwork to order sets of 6 boards
at a time from ExpressPCB.com
Software for this task can be downloaded directly
from ExpressPCB.
Alternatively, you can order single boards from us
at:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
Bill of materials, fabrication instructions and
installation data are at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
Look at your local computer parts/electrical supply store for a PC680
lookalike. Or search the internet for PC680 knockoffs. The ones I have
found are black versus orange, but have the same technical specs at
the PC680 and are the same size and shape. They run around $40 or
less. I'm not sure I would want it in a flying airplane, but they work
great for other purposes. I have one on an electric gate and its been
working for nearly ten years with a Battery Tender Junior charging it.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a used PC680 battery
> From: Jared Yates <junk(at)jaredyates.com>
>
> I'm still in the building stage, and I plan to use a PC680 battery
> in my
> project. It seems wasteful for me to buy a new one just for the
> sake of
> building my electrical system and battery support structure, since
> it will
> be a couple of years before I'm ready to fly. By then I would like
> to start
> my flight testing with a new battery, so it makes good sense to make
> use of
> a retired one for such construction ground operations. Is there is
> anyone
> out there who has proactively removed a PC680 and would like to sell
> it to
> me? I know that some people have mentioned that they use them for
> lawn
> mowers and such, but surely there is someone out there who has one
> sitting
> around. If you are that someone, please send me an email with your
> requested price and payment method.
>
> Thanks!
> Jared
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jef Vervoort" <jef.vervoortw(at)telenet.be> |
In september 2007, some messages promoted the use of A123 Systems batteries.
They should offer a substantial weight saving.
Anybody heard of recent developments?
Jef, 91031 wiring.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LINDA WALKER" <l.p(at)talk21.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical surges in aircraft power supplies. |
Bob et al.
I have been able to get my BMA Efis G4 Lite repaired.
The fault may have been caused by a surge in the power supply line.
Is there an accepted method to catch surges in our type of electrical
systems?
Any help much appreciated.
Patrick C Elliott, England.
Long-EZ, G-LGEZ.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)neitel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting the numbers |
Thanks Bob. I will report back.
Kevin
On Mar 23, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 05:38 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote:
>
> Thanks for the offer. I have two.
>
> Good for you. Over the course of several seminars
> my opening presentation was on DC power and the value
> of knowing the numbers, I would query the class as
> to how many folks did not possess at least one multi-meter
> of reasonable accuracy (handy little analog
> testers need not apply). Generally there were three
> or four who would raise their hands.
>
> I immediately handed out meters from Harbor Freight.
> The cost was trivial and it helped me emphasize
> very early in the class that having some grasp
> on the "size of things" was pretty important to
> successful implementation of recipes for success.
>
> I will try to get some data on my next airport visit.
> I will record some numbers and get back to you. Is there anything I
should be aware of,or a certain protocol, before proceeding?
>
> Not a critical one . . . it's time consuming
> to sit and watch the setup for the purpose
> of plotting performance. Data points acquired are
> pretty coarse. Just see what the "float" voltage
> is after a couple of days. Then turn something on
> to put drag a couple a.h. of energy out of the
> battery. Hook the 1562 up and see if you can
> catch a top-off voltage along with some sense
> of time that it stays in the top-off mode.
>
> Speaking of data acquisition systems. There are
> dozens of new players in the data logging business.
>
> <2769199.jpg>
>
> This USB interface voltage logger can be reviewed
> at:
>
> http://www.microdaq.com/lascar/usb/el-usb-3.php
>
> It has 0-30 volt input range, sample rates from
> 1 sec to 12 hours and a 1% overall accuracy.
> I suspect it's resolution is much better than
> 1% and may be as great at 0.1% of full scale
> (10 bits) so for more exacting work, one might
> be able to characterize a given instrument for
> better performance in analysis of the data.
>
> At $75 its a pretty good value. Folks with a
> curiosity about such things are encouraged
> to investigate this market for themselves.
> I've got several good tools for doing this task
> but none that are so handy as this . . . I'll
> probably decide that I just have to get one
> pretty soon.
>
> By the way, if any of you own one of those
> West Mountain Radio battery analyzers
>
> http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBA.htm
>
> They can be pressed into service as a
> useful data logger/plotter. This curve
> was gathered with just such a device.
>
>
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge.pdf
>
> You set the thing up to "test" a battery
> with say a 10 milliampere "load" and
> set the end-of-test voltage very low. You
> have to fool it into thinking that you're
> testing a real 7 or perhaps 8-cell battery
> to get the upper end of the voltage plot
> where you need it. Then hook it across the
> system being monitored. It will dutifully
> gather voltage data for days if needs be
> and produce nice plots too at no extra charge.
>
> Of course, this ties up a PC for the
> duration of the test. I keep a number of
> junker 'putes around for just this kind
> of task.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical surges in aircraft power supplies. |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I believe "surge" means having the input voltage(s) above the designed for
limits for some amount of time. From this, it would be important to know
the device's design limits. Then you could figure out the best strategy
for protecting the device.
That said, keep in mind there will be voltage excursions on all vehicles.
Designers of devices for use on normal aircraft should have this in mind.
The only kind of over-voltage event that you as a system designer should
have to worry about is that of a runaway alternator - regulator full-on.
If your airplane has an internally regulated alternator, it's a good idea
to have a disconnect relay, and an even better idea to use an over-voltage
detecting circuit to open the relay should the alternator misbehave badly.
Everything else should be take care of by the equipment maker.
If you have a piece of equipment that is not built to operate on a normal
aircraft environment and you choose to use it anyway, there are a variety
of strategies one could use to provide protection for that device.
However, it may be difficult to know what needs to be protected, and how,
unless you know details of how the equipment was designed. You might
guess that you need something like a TVS (transient voltage suppression)
diode on the power inputs, but that would strictly be a guess.
Does anyone know if Blue Mountain did DO160 style design and testing?
Matt-
>
> Bob et al.
> I have been able to get my BMA Efis G4 Lite repaired.
> The fault may have been caused by a surge in the power supply line.
> Is there an accepted method to catch surges in our type of electrical
> systems?
> Any help much appreciated.
> Patrick C Elliott, England.
> Long-EZ, G-LGEZ.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical surges in aircraft power supplies. |
At 05:16 AM 3/24/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob et al.
>I have been able to get my BMA Efis G4 Lite repaired.
>The fault may have been caused by a surge in the power supply line.
>Is there an accepted method to catch surges in our type of electrical
>systems?
>Any help much appreciated.
>Patrick C Elliott, England.
>Long-EZ, G-LGEZ.
"Our type of electrical system" is no different than
the one on automobiles. Designers of sophisticated
electronics for automobiles and airplanes have been
well aware of the characteristics of these DC power
systems for decades. Design rules for crafting accessories
compatible with such systems have also been well
established for decades.
Failure of any modern accessory (and BMA is certainly
modern) attributed to power "surges, glitches, spikes,
or gremlins" is a stronger suggestion of design deficiency
in that accessory than for the DC power system. See:
http://tinyurl.com/ybhvxal
Bottom line is that any device designed after about
1970 to go into airplanes has been immune to the
NORMAL operating characteristics of DC power systems
by design. If the repair technician makes any
assertion about your device having suffered a "glitch"
is essentially accusing the device manufacture of not
having done their homework.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a used PC680 battery |
At 10:01 AM 3/24/2010, you wrote:
>Jared,
>I'm not certain that the PC680 is hazardous shipping. If not, I can
>ship it Fedex for low cost. The price was intended to be a
>joke. If you want it, just pay shipping. Where are you located?
All RG batteries are considered spill proof
and can be shipped by services ordinarily limited
to non-hazardous materials.
Mark the outside of the box "Contains battery
that is spill proof per 49CFR173.159(d)"
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 04:20 AM 3/24/2010, you wrote:
>In september 2007, some messages promoted the use of A123 Systems
>batteries. They should offer a substantial weight saving.
>
>Anybody heard of recent developments?
The aviation battery manufacturing community is still
wrestling with li-ion battery technology for use as
starting batteries. I'm not aware of any wide-spread
usage. There are a few devices qualified to
the type certificate of some large air transport
category aircraft as standy-by power. I'm not
aware of anything even close to making onto a
single-engine TC aircraft or even jets.
Li-Ion technology energy densities are VERY high and
that "works-better-weighs-less" siren song is
seductive. But it's like trying to teach your engine
how to burn nitro-glycerine. Yeah, the energy is
there but keeping it from ever turning around to
bite you is no trivial task!
For now and the immediate future, SVLA is the king
of affordable and safe performance in batteries
for aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
On start up, my long dormant flap motor can't overcome the drag of the linear actuator.
The power supply gets pulled down to near zero volts, showing a couple
of amps.
When I pulled the motor free of the actuator, it starts reluctantly for a second
or so and then quickly spins up to full speed and torque. The actuator input
shaft is easily turned by my fingers.
Is this a capacitor problem? I haven't pulled the motor apart yet.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291588#291588
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Generic Ford Voltage Regulator |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Is this generic enough?
http://www.nationsautoelectric.com/regulators.html
F540 Regulator FD 1G SERIES
Just giving all you "OH NO! DON'T GET THAT ONE!" people a chance before I "invest"
$8.95. :)
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291589#291589
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
Where are you taking the power supply measurement reading "near zero
volts"? ..and by power supply, do you mean the battery,
battery+alternator, bench supply, or something else?
--Daniel
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:09 PM, jonlaury wrote:
>
> On start up, my long dormant flap motor can't overcome the drag of the linear
actuator. The power supply gets pulled down to near zero volts, showing a couple
of amps.
> When I pulled the motor free of the actuator, it starts reluctantly for a second
or so and then quickly spins up to full speed and torque. The actuator input
shaft is easily turned by my fingers.
> Is this a capacitor problem? I haven't pulled the motor apart yet.
>
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291588#291588
>
>
--
Daniel Hooper
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical surges in aircraft power |
supplies.
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Bob,
Thanks for posting the article about DO-160 testing. Just the right
amount of detail for considering what needs to be done to make a piece of
gear work properly in an airplane.
Regards,
Matt-
snip
>
> Failure of any modern accessory (and BMA is certainly
> modern) attributed to power "surges, glitches, spikes,
> or gremlins" is a stronger suggestion of design deficiency
> in that accessory than for the DC power system. See:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ybhvxal
>
snip
> having done their homework.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Circuit Breakers on your EFIS |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
Vertical Power Announces VP-X
The Electronic Circuit Breaker System that integrates with your EFIS.
Vertical Power, along with its EFIS partners, is formally announcing the VP-X at
Sun n Fun next month but we wanted to give you an early preview.
The VP-X uses proven electronic circuit breakers to simplify wiring and provide
advanced electrical system capabilities. Monitor the status of individual devices
and the entire electrical system right from your EFIS. Avionics, lights,
trim, and flaps can all be controlled using standard switches or the EFIS.
The VP-X works with Advanced Flight Systems, Grand Rapids Technologies HX, and
MGL Voyager/Odyssey MKII EFIS products.
For more information please see: http://www.verticalpower.com/VPX.html
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291615#291615
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Daniel,
My bench power supply has analog meters for volts and amps. When I hook it up to
the flap motor/linear actuator, the voltmeter almost pegs 0 volts.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291631#291631
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
John,
It sounds like your bench supply might have a lack of "oomph". Try
connecting it to a battery. Use a fuse in series with it to prevent
smoke, just in case you have a dead short across the motor. Good luck!
Daniel Hooper
On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:40 PM, "jonlaury" wrote:
> >
>
> Daniel,
> My bench power supply has analog meters for volts and amps. When I
> hook it up to the flap motor/linear actuator, the voltmeter almost
> pegs 0 volts.
>
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291631#291631
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electrical surges in aircraft power supplies. |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
The DO-160E category specifications we've designed to state 40 volts for 1 second
and 60 volts for 100ms, 10 to 32 volts normal operating range. This, along
with other design considerations, has proven to be quite reliable.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291640#291640
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical surges in aircraft power |
supplies.
At 05:27 PM 3/24/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for posting the article about DO-160 testing. Just the right
>amount of detail for considering what needs to be done to make a piece of
>gear work properly in an airplane.
It's a pretty old process. I have a copy of DO-138 dated sometime
in the 50's which is the predecessor to DO-160. I'm still trying
to find a copy of DO-108 with preceded DO-138. I found a journal
article dated 1964 that referenced DO-108. In any case,
the idea that electro-whizzies bolted to a general aviation
airplane should be qualified to thrive in their expected work
environment is not a new idea.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Generic Ford Voltage Regulator |
At 05:00 PM 3/24/2010, you wrote:
>
>Is this generic enough?
>
>http://www.nationsautoelectric.com/regulators.html
>F540 Regulator FD 1G SERIES
>
>Just giving all you "OH NO! DON'T GET THAT ONE!" people a chance
>before I "invest" $8.95.
Works good, lasts a long time. If you wanted to really
"get down" with the generic thingy, you could build this
one from Radio Shack parts
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternators/Internal_Regulator_Circa_1980.pdf
But the 'ford' part is a perfectly good regulator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Electronic Circuit Breakers on your EFIS |
Hi Marc
Let me ask a couple of questions, one about VP-X in particular, and its
integration with the EFIS from GRT: why does it only work with the HX
and
not with the Sport?
A second question, more general, about your product: which technical
arguments do you have to not consider your box as a BIG single point of
failure of the electrical system?
Regards
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of marcausman
> Sent: quinta-feira, 25 de Mar=E7o de 2010 0:41
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Circuit Breakers on your EFIS
>
>
>
> Vertical Power Announces VP-X
>
> The Electronic Circuit Breaker System that integrates with your EFIS.
>
> Vertical Power, along with its EFIS partners, is formally announcing
the
VP-X at
> Sun n Fun next month but we wanted to give you an early preview.
>
> The VP-X uses proven electronic circuit breakers to simplify wiring
and
provide
> advanced electrical system capabilities. Monitor the status of
individual
devices and
> the entire electrical system right from your EFIS. Avionics, lights,
trim,
and flaps can
> all be controlled using standard switches or the EFIS.
>
> The VP-X works with Advanced Flight Systems, Grand Rapids Technologies
HX,
> and MGL Voyager/Odyssey MKII EFIS products.
>
> For more information please see: http://www.verticalpower.com/VPX.html
>
> --------
> Marc Ausman
> http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical
system"
> RV-7 IO-390 Flying
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Metal Jacket (Tray) for PC680 |
| From: | "icrashrc" <icrashrc(at)aol.com> |
While everyone is thinking about batteries and mounting. I have a new Metal Jacket
(Tray) for Odyssey 680 Amp battery. Aircraft Spruce shows part #11-02234 and
sells it for $22.50 plus shipping. $10 plus actual shipping and it's yours.
Scott
icrashrc(at)aol.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291653#291653
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | An instrument question |
3/24/2010
Hello Charlie, Thanks for your kind words. I applaud your desire to learn.
You wrote:
1) ".......... some time down the road wish to have the aircraft IFR
certified....."
The FAA does not have a set process of having an aircraft IFR certified. The
tests and inspections required by 14CFR 91.413 are commonly referred to as a
"VFR cert".
The tests and inspections required by both 91.411 and 91.413 are commonly
referred to as an "IFR cert", but accomplishment and sign off of those tests
and inspections do not constitute any total approval of an experimental
amateur built aircraft for IFR flight.
The attached table will give you an overview of what is required for IFR
flight for an experimental amateur built aircraft.
2) "I must have installed instrumentation that is compliant to a TSO. Do I
understand that correctly?"
If we define instrumentation as a mechanical, electrical, or electronic
device installed in an aircraft that gives the pilot information regarding
the aircraft's internal status then the answer to your question is: No the
instrumentation does not have to be TSO'd.
But if you have devices installed that give information out externally to
the aircraft, or obtain information from sources external to the aircraft,
then the requirement for TSO'd hardware can become mandatory depending upon
what the pilot is doing with the aircraft. One needs to turn to the
regulations to determine which devices and which activities fall into the
TSO required category.
3) "Also, if correct, is this limited to flight instruments or are engine
management instruments (oil pressure, tach, etc) covered as well?"
I think that the answer to 2 above responds to this question.
4) "I am in the process of putting my panel together now and really don't
want to preclude IFR at some future time by putting a lot of cash into
instruments that would have to be replaced should I
wish to have an IFR airplane."
Good thinking. If, for example, you buy a crappy altimeter that can not pass
the 91.411 tests, or be adjusted or repaired to pass the tests sometime in
the future, then you will either have to replace it or limit your flying to
VFR.
5) "And if you don't mind, point me to the right place in the FAR maze so I
may keep it for future reference."
Unfortunately there is no one right place to look. I think that the little
static system test exercise recently posted (now available on Bob Nuckolls'
web site) showed us how interdependent the many different 14CFR provisions
can be. Hopefully the attached table will give the reader a good head start
on self education in this arena and this web site give us free almost
instant access to those regulations:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl
6) "Thanks again for your expert advice."
You are welcome. I hope that your questions and the responses helped to
educate others as well. I do not consider myself an expert in any area
(except perhaps in trying to avoid annoying my wife and after over 50 years
I don't seem to be doing so well in that arena either), but instead a
willing, and sharing, student.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
========================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Smith" <ctsmith(at)netsurfusa.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:30 PM
Subject: An instrument question
> OC,
>
> You're probably the ultimate guru of FAR's that I have contact with. May
> I ask you a couple questions?
>
> I understand from what you have written on the subject previously that, if
> I were so inclined, I am permitted to go to an auto parts store, purchase
> and install junk instrumentation in my homebuilt. But, should I at some
> time down the road wish to have the aircraft IFR certified, I must have
> installed instrumentation that is compliant to a TSO. Do I understand
> that correctly? Also, if correct, is this limited to flight instruments
> or are engine management instruments (oil pressure, tach, etc) covered as
> well? I am in the process of putting my panel together now and really
> don't want to preclude IFR at some future time by putting a lot of cash
> into instruments that would have to be replaced should I wish to have an
> IFR airplane. I understand that there are a whole host of other
> requirements (re. your static system recertification post) but for now I
> am just concerned with the panel.
>
> Thanks again for your expert advice. And if you don't mind, point me to
> the right place in the FAR maze so I may keep it for future reference.
>
>
> Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse |
Anyone else out there with S-Tec 30 and GPSS?
Any of you having issues with the internal fuse in the GPSS module?
Mine blew once during construction and was a real pain to ship back and have S-Tec
(whatever their name is now) solder in a new one. I attributed that to using
a power supply (even with a battery) to run my panel during build testing.
It has since blown again and I am trying to figure out a way to not have to
go through this PITA another time.
More importantly, what is causing this little critter to pop in the first place?
The rest of the panel works fine with no other avionics issues. I have gone back
to my engine monitor to look for any recorded voltage spikes....the highest
I have is 14.0 which should be within the normal operating range of the system
(?). I have spike catching diodes on my relays and have a process for powering
up and powering down stuff like this to prevent it from happening for other
reasons.
Your thoughts please,
Ralph Capen
RV6A N822AR @ N06 55hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Circuit Breakers on your EFIS |
| From: | "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com> |
We have a developer's kit and the EFIS vendor decides what systems to integrate
with the VP-X. So, let them know your interest to help them prioritize their
development resources.
The way to plan for single-point failures it to have backups. Your EFIS may have a backup EFIS or gauges as a backup, for example. The same is true for the electrical system. The VP-X is your primary power switching system, but you can install backup circuits for critical avionics (and quite simple to wire). It's very similar to how Bob shows an e-bus which provides backup power if the battery contactor fails. Our installation manual explains it in detail here: http://www.verticalpower.com/documents.html
Additionally, the VP-X has backup controls on the EFIS screen for all the electrical
devices (including trim and flaps) if a mechanical switch or wire connection
fails or position sensor goes haywire. Overall, you're replacing mechanical
components with solid-state components and significantly reducing the number
of connectors, modules, etc which we believe raises the overall reliability
of the electrical system.
There are numerous single points of failure in any aircraft design and with some
(like the VP-X, battery contactor, EFIS) you can mitigate those risks if a failure
occurs and some others (like the engine or the engine monitor) there are
no backups.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291667#291667
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse |
At 08:33 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
Anyone else out there with S-Tec 30 and GPSS?
Any of you having issues with the internal fuse in the GPSS module?
Mine blew once during construction and was a real pain to ship back
and have S-Tec (whatever their name is now) solder in a new one. I
attributed that to using a power supply (even with a battery) to run
my panel during build testing. It has since blown again and I am
trying to figure out a way to not have to go through this PITA another time.
More importantly, what is causing this little critter to pop in the
first place?
The rest of the panel works fine with no other avionics issues. I
have gone back to my engine monitor to look for any recorded voltage
spikes....the highest I have is 14.0 which should be within the
normal operating range of the system (?). I have spike catching
diodes on my relays and have a process for powering up and powering
down stuff like this to prevent it from happening for other reasons.
It's likely that the problem has nothing
to do with anything you are doing . . . or
not doing. The fact that some electro-whizzy
for airplanes includes and internal fuse is
itself reason to query the skills/design
goals of the manufacturer. I have on occasion
included fusible link type performance inside
a product . . . designed to prevent burning traces
on an ECB should some downstream failure put a
trace at risk. But real fuses (read fast acting
and not particularly robust) does give pause to
wonder why it's in there.
If indeed the fuse is nuisance tripping because
of a REAL transient event on your system, then
I'm wondering if the electronics downstream of
that fuse were tailored to live with transient
events known to exist on the system (I.e. DO-160
style qualification).
How much current does this electro-whizzy draw
in normal operations? Do you know what size the
fuse is?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
| From: | "George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
John -
Which power supply are you using, and what does the amp meter indicate when
the voltage is sagging toward the peg?
neal
Daniel,
My bench power supply has analog meters for volts and amps. When I hook it
up to the flap motor/linear actuator, the voltmeter almost pegs 0 volts.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Daniel, thanks for that. I'll check out the motor/actuator with a charged battery
today.
Neal, the power supply brand escapes me right now, but when the volt meter pegs,
the amp meter shows approx 2 amps. I'll report back with the PS brand tonight.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291677#291677
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Source for Schumacher 1562A |
Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I
looked at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none
of them are labled 1562.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse |
Good points Bob,
This is a TSO'd device - part of an autopilot whose wiring is protected by a 5
amp fuse. I'll be taking a magnifying glass out to look at the markings on the
unit to determine its ratings. I agree with your questioning of the potential
lack of DO160 compliance from a common sense perspective.
My initial research in to these types of fuses show that there are holders that
could be installed to make the fuse ultimately field-serviceable...albeit painfully
field serviceable. This would allow the retention of the fuse the manufacturer
deemed required for whatever their reasons.
I'll post the info on the ratings that I discover.
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>Sent: Mar 25, 2010 10:18 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
>
>
>At 08:33 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Anyone else out there with S-Tec 30 and GPSS?
>
>Any of you having issues with the internal fuse in the GPSS module?
>
>Mine blew once during construction and was a real pain to ship back
>and have S-Tec (whatever their name is now) solder in a new one. I
>attributed that to using a power supply (even with a battery) to run
>my panel during build testing. It has since blown again and I am
>trying to figure out a way to not have to go through this PITA another time.
>
>More importantly, what is causing this little critter to pop in the
>first place?
>
>The rest of the panel works fine with no other avionics issues. I
>have gone back to my engine monitor to look for any recorded voltage
>spikes....the highest I have is 14.0 which should be within the
>normal operating range of the system (?). I have spike catching
>diodes on my relays and have a process for powering up and powering
>down stuff like this to prevent it from happening for other reasons.
>
> It's likely that the problem has nothing
> to do with anything you are doing . . . or
> not doing. The fact that some electro-whizzy
> for airplanes includes and internal fuse is
> itself reason to query the skills/design
> goals of the manufacturer. I have on occasion
> included fusible link type performance inside
> a product . . . designed to prevent burning traces
> on an ECB should some downstream failure put a
> trace at risk. But real fuses (read fast acting
> and not particularly robust) does give pause to
> wonder why it's in there.
>
> If indeed the fuse is nuisance tripping because
> of a REAL transient event on your system, then
> I'm wondering if the electronics downstream of
> that fuse were tailored to live with transient
> events known to exist on the system (I.e. DO-160
> style qualification).
>
> How much current does this electro-whizzy draw
> in normal operations? Do you know what size the
> fuse is?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
At 10:36 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>
>Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I
>looked at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none
>of them are labled 1562.
I don't ALWAYS see them on the shelf at my various
visits to Walmart but they're available more often
than not.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
Amazon.com shows one for $17 and change.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
>
> Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I looked
> at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none of them are
> labled 1562.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
Amazon.com shows one for $17 and change.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
>
> Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I looked
> at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none of them are
> labled 1562.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
> At 10:36 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I
>> looked at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none
>> of them are labled 1562.
Here it is on WalMart's website...and if they don't have it in your
store, order it on the website and they deliver to your local store for
free...
www.walmart.com/ip/Schumacher-SpeedCharge-Battery-Maintainer-and-Charger/13005742
Harley...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Source for Schumacher 1562A |
Charlie -
My local Wal-Mart stocks them, but they're all the new style...
neal
-----Original Message-----
Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I
looked at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none
of them are labled 1562.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
Hi Charles,
Just bought mine earlier this week. I had to open the box and visually inspect
the unit to make sure it was a 1562A. The box itself is about 3" x 3" x 6" and
was in the automotive section.
Regards,
/\/elson
~~ Lately my memory seems to be like a steel trap .... without any spring. ~~
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Charles Brame wrote:
>
> Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I looked at
> WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none of them are
> labled 1562.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | On the subject of checking voltage..... |
I have been following the Schumaker thread with some interest. I bought
one of the units and placed my batteries on it to keep them happy prior to
install in the airplane.
It occurred to me that I ought to check the charging voltages. I plugged
the unit it, made a harness to parallel the batteries and connected it up.
It charged for about twenty minutes and then went into maintain mode.
Seemed to be working exactly as advertised.
I have a really cheap voltmeter from somewhere. I don't really think I
can trust its reading to be all that accurate. I also have an IM-18 VTVM
from Heathkit. I used to work as a repairman for them, about four decades
ago. Great instrument, but when I fired it up, it was not working. Maybe a
bad tube. I am not sure I could get it calibrated anymore. Anyone with any
experience with that unit?
If I wanted to buy a quality multi-tester, for the battery and other
diagnostic uses, what would you suggest? What sort of price range do you need
to spend to get a quality instrument?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Finishing
San Ramon, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | On the subject of checking voltage..... |
I have been following the Schumaker thread with some interest. I bought
one of the units and placed my batteries on it to keep them happy prior to
install in the airplane.
It occurred to me that I ought to check the charging voltages. I plugged
the unit it, made a harness to parallel the batteries and connected it up.
It charged for about twenty minutes and then went into maintain mode.
Seemed to be working exactly as advertised.
I have a really cheap voltmeter from somewhere. I don't really think I
can trust its reading to be all that accurate. I also have an IM-18 VTVM
from Heathkit. I used to work as a repairman for them, about four decades
ago. Great instrument, but when I fired it up, it was not working. Maybe a
bad tube. I am not sure I could get it calibrated anymore. Anyone with any
experience with that unit?
If I wanted to buy a quality multi-tester, for the battery and other
diagnostic uses, what would you suggest? What sort of price range do you need
to spend to get a quality instrument?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Finishing
San Ramon, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
Is this what you're looking for??
_http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=13005742&findingMethod
=rr_
(http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=13005742&findingMethod=rr)
Dick
In a message dated 3/25/2010 2:51:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 10:36 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>
>Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I
>looked at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none
>of them are labled 1562.
I don't ALWAYS see them on the shelf at my various
visits to Walmart but they're available more often
than not.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: On the subject of checking voltage..... |
Good Evening Michael
Buy a Fluke meter.
Something around sixty to seventy bucks should be a very good one, but I
haven't purchased one in at least five years. Hopefully, someone else will
have more recent information, but Fluke is the leader. If you are into
nostalgia, Get a Simpson 260!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Stearman N3977A
LL22
In a message dated 3/25/2010 4:37:12 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
MLWynn(at)aol.com writes:
I have been following the Schumaker thread with some interest. I bought
one of the units and placed my batteries on it to keep them happy prior to
install in the airplane.
It occurred to me that I ought to check the charging voltages. I plugged
the unit it, made a harness to parallel the batteries and connected it up.
It charged for about twenty minutes and then went into maintain mode.
Seemed to be working exactly as advertised.
I have a really cheap voltmeter from somewhere. I don't really think I
can trust its reading to be all that accurate. I also have an IM-18 VTVM
from Heathkit. I used to work as a repairman for them, about four decades
ago. Great instrument, but when I fired it up, it was not working. Maybe a
bad tube. I am not sure I could get it calibrated anymore. Anyone with any
experience with that unit?
If I wanted to buy a quality multi-tester, for the battery and other
diagnostic uses, what would you suggest? What sort of price range do you need
to spend to get a quality instrument?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Finishing
San Ramon, CA
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | TCW product availabilty |
Fellow builders,
Our new product, Integrated Back-up Battery System (IBBS) is
now available and in stock. This new product provides back-up power
for critical electronics in one simple and easy to install package.
IBBS combines a Ni-mh battery pack, charging and switching circuitry in
one convenient package for easy installation that weighs 1/2 of lead
acid battery solutions. IBBS has been designed to provide back-up
power to EFIS, Engine monitors, GPS and Auto-pilot systems. For those
going to Sun-n-Fun we will have a working demo of IBBS as well as all of
the other TCW products for you to see first hand.
All the details are available at: www.tcwtech.com
Thanks,
Bob Newman
RV-10 40176
TCW Technologies, LLC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: On the subject of checking voltage..... |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 3/25/2010 4:14 PM, MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
> If I wanted to buy a quality multi-tester, for the battery and other
> diagnostic uses, what would you suggest? What sort of price range do
> you need to spend to get a quality instrument?
For basic battery tests and other simple diagnostics, about $3. These
work fine for pretty much any type of diagnostic test we would need to
do on our aircraft. I have about 4 of these kicking around in various
places, and they are as accurate as the more expensive one I bought some
20 years ago.
<http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=98025>
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Grumman Yankee Driver N9870L - http://deej.net/yankee/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: On the subject of checking voltage..... |
You cant go wrong with a Fluke,- the 88 automotive model is a good bet bu
t they make dozens of good quality meters.=0ATim A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________
______________________=0AFrom: "MLWynn(at)aol.com" <MLWynn(at)aol.com>=0ATo: aero
electric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Thu, March 25, 2010 1:14:38 PM=0ASubjec
t: AeroElectric-List: On the subject of checking voltage.....=0A=0AI have b
een following the Schumaker thread with some interest.- I bought one of t
he units and placed my batteries on it to keep them happy prior to install
in the airplane.=0A=0AIt occurred to me that I ought to check the charging
voltages.- I plugged the unit it, made a harness to parallel the batterie
s and connected it up.- It charged for about twenty minutes and then went
into maintain mode.- Seemed to be working exactly as advertised.=0A=0AI
have a really cheap voltmeter from somewhere.- I don't really think I can
trust its reading to be all that accurate.- I also have an IM-18 VTVM fr
om Heathkit.- I used to work as a repairman for them, about four decades
ago.- Great instrument, but when I fired it up, it was not working.- Ma
ybe a bad tube.- I am not sure I could get it calibrated anymore.- Anyo
ne with any experience with that unit?=0A=0AIf I wanted to buy a quality mu
lti-tester,-for the battery and other diagnostic uses, what would you sug
gest?- What sort of price range do you need to spend to get a quality ins
trument?=0A=0ARegards,=0A=0AMichael Wynn=0ARV 8 Finishing=0ASan Ramon, CA
=======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How do I prevent starter engaged LED from failing? |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
I think I remember reading if an LED is used instead of a bulb for starter engagement
indication, that you best add a diode to prevent the LED from getting hurt
when power is removed from starter motor.
Where does the diode get placed, in series with the LED or in parallel? If answer
is in parallel where would the dropping resistor for LED get placed, between
the legs of the protection diode, or outside?
What would the specs be for a diode to protect my LED (reverse voltage rating and
wattage)?
Could I use a Perihelion Snap-jack?
Install will be on my Rotax 914 which has a 12 volt starter motor of approx. .6kW
and the LED is yellow and draws ~ 30mAs.
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291769#291769
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How do I prevent starter engaged LED from failing? |
At 11:30 PM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>I think I remember reading if an LED is used instead of a bulb for
>starter engagement indication, that you best add a diode to prevent
>the LED from getting hurt when power is removed from starter motor.
I've not explored the reverse bias energy signature
that would put an LED at risk . . . but like ALL
diodes, they do have limits. At some point, an increase
in reverse bias voltage applied to any semi-conductor
junction is marked by a threshold at which the
reverse bias "leakage" current rise sharply.
Watts = voltage x current.
The energy dissipated in the device can do only
one thing . . . heat things up. An EVERY device
has LIMITS beyond which the device is damaged.
>Where does the diode get placed, in series with the LED or in parallel?
Either would work . . . but parallel is preferred.
> If answer is in parallel where would the dropping resistor for LED
> get placed, between the legs of the protection diode, or outside?
Outside
>What would the specs be for a diode to protect my LED (reverse
>voltage rating and wattage)?
The smallest of all diodes would do fine. But
pick one that you can physically work with.
1N400x series is fine. If you want smaller,
1N4148 works too. But anything you can lay your
hands on would provide the necessary electrical
function.
>Could I use a Perihelion Snap-jack?
No, those are transient limiters that may rated
for a voltage higher than the LED can tolerate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
I'll suggest that if the power supply is only capable of
delivering a maximum of 2 Amps at zero volts then it is not nearly robust
enough to properly run a flap motor. Try a fully charged battery or a power
supply capable of supporting a 5 or 10 Amp load at 12 Volts and see if your
test results are any different. I suspect that with an adequate supply your
motor will run normally.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jonlaury
> Sent: Thursday=2C March 25=2C 2010 12:09 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Flap Motor lack of
Oomph
>
"jonlaury"
>
> Daniel=2C thanks for that. I'll check out the
motor/actuator with a charged battery
> today.
>
> Neal=2C the power supply brand escapes me right now=2C
but when the volt meter pegs=2C
> the amp meter shows approx 2 amps. I'll report back
with the PS brand tonight.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291677#291677
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ========================
==
> =======
The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
browse
Un/Subscription=2C
Chat=2C FAQ=2C
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> _-
> ========================
==
> =======
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://forums.matronics.com
> _-
> ========================
==
> =======
- List Contribution Web Site -
for your generous support!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> _-
> ========================
==
> =======
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
The Power Supply is an Astron RS-35M , 13.8v, 25 amps continuous @ 50%
duty cycle. American made in Irvine CA
Daniel was right. It's not a flap motor problem. The motor perked right
up when connected to my car battery.
Anyone have ideas re the power supply? There was an incident where the
positive and negative alligator clips contacted each other. But the 8
amp fuse of the PS didn't blow so I thought everything was OK.
J
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
Don't rule out the motor until you read the amperage draw with a meter.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Burnaby
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flap Motor lack of Oomph
The Power Supply is an Astron RS-35M , 13.8v, 25 amps continuous @ 50%
duty cycle. American made in Irvine CA
Daniel was right. It's not a flap motor problem. The motor perked right
up when connected to my car battery.
Anyone have ideas re the power supply? There was an incident where the
positive and negative alligator clips contacted each other. But the 8
amp fuse of the PS didn't blow so I thought everything was OK.
J
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse |
I called their tech support...their guy told me it is a 1/2A Slo-Blo surface mount
fuse.
We then talked about what could cause this thing to go.....which led to my education
on how these units interact with each other.
The 10VDC that this fuse protects is used to excite the heading system - in my
case a Century NSD 1000 HSI.
Back to checking my wiring for shorts...didn't find any last time - but I'll still
check...55hrs without a blip.
It is listed as DO 178b though.......
Any more thoughts?
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Mar 25, 2010 10:47 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
>
>
>Good points Bob,
>
>This is a TSO'd device - part of an autopilot whose wiring is protected by a 5
amp fuse. I'll be taking a magnifying glass out to look at the markings on the
unit to determine its ratings. I agree with your questioning of the potential
lack of DO160 compliance from a common sense perspective.
>
>My initial research in to these types of fuses show that there are holders that
could be installed to make the fuse ultimately field-serviceable...albeit painfully
field serviceable. This would allow the retention of the fuse the manufacturer
deemed required for whatever their reasons.
>
>I'll post the info on the ratings that I discover.
>
>Ralph
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>>Sent: Mar 25, 2010 10:18 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
>>
>>
>>At 08:33 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Anyone else out there with S-Tec 30 and GPSS?
>>
>>Any of you having issues with the internal fuse in the GPSS module?
>>
>>Mine blew once during construction and was a real pain to ship back
>>and have S-Tec (whatever their name is now) solder in a new one. I
>>attributed that to using a power supply (even with a battery) to run
>>my panel during build testing. It has since blown again and I am
>>trying to figure out a way to not have to go through this PITA another time.
>>
>>More importantly, what is causing this little critter to pop in the
>>first place?
>>
>>The rest of the panel works fine with no other avionics issues. I
>>have gone back to my engine monitor to look for any recorded voltage
>>spikes....the highest I have is 14.0 which should be within the
>>normal operating range of the system (?). I have spike catching
>>diodes on my relays and have a process for powering up and powering
>>down stuff like this to prevent it from happening for other reasons.
>>
>> It's likely that the problem has nothing
>> to do with anything you are doing . . . or
>> not doing. The fact that some electro-whizzy
>> for airplanes includes and internal fuse is
>> itself reason to query the skills/design
>> goals of the manufacturer. I have on occasion
>> included fusible link type performance inside
>> a product . . . designed to prevent burning traces
>> on an ECB should some downstream failure put a
>> trace at risk. But real fuses (read fast acting
>> and not particularly robust) does give pause to
>> wonder why it's in there.
>>
>> If indeed the fuse is nuisance tripping because
>> of a REAL transient event on your system, then
>> I'm wondering if the electronics downstream of
>> that fuse were tailored to live with transient
>> events known to exist on the system (I.e. DO-160
>> style qualification).
>>
>> How much current does this electro-whizzy draw
>> in normal operations? Do you know what size the
>> fuse is?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse |
I seem to recall that DO-178 covers software only.
DO-160 handles the electro-wizzies.
I could be wrong though.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
E. Capen
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
I called their tech support...their guy told me it is a 1/2A Slo-Blo
surface mount fuse.
We then talked about what could cause this thing to go.....which led to
my education on how these units interact with each other.
The 10VDC that this fuse protects is used to excite the heading system -
in my case a Century NSD 1000 HSI.
Back to checking my wiring for shorts...didn't find any last time - but
I'll still check...55hrs without a blip.
It is listed as DO 178b though.......
Any more thoughts?
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Mar 25, 2010 10:47 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
>
>
>Good points Bob,
>
>This is a TSO'd device - part of an autopilot whose wiring is protected
by a 5 amp fuse. I'll be taking a magnifying glass out to look at the
markings on the unit to determine its ratings. I agree with your
questioning of the potential lack of DO160 compliance from a common
sense perspective.
>
>My initial research in to these types of fuses show that there are
holders that could be installed to make the fuse ultimately
field-serviceable...albeit painfully field serviceable. This would
allow the retention of the fuse the manufacturer deemed required for
whatever their reasons.
>
>I'll post the info on the ratings that I discover.
>
>Ralph
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>>Sent: Mar 25, 2010 10:18 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
>>
>>
>>At 08:33 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Anyone else out there with S-Tec 30 and GPSS?
>>
>>Any of you having issues with the internal fuse in the GPSS module?
>>
>>Mine blew once during construction and was a real pain to ship back
>>and have S-Tec (whatever their name is now) solder in a new one. I
>>attributed that to using a power supply (even with a battery) to run
>>my panel during build testing. It has since blown again and I am
>>trying to figure out a way to not have to go through this PITA another
time.
>>
>>More importantly, what is causing this little critter to pop in the
>>first place?
>>
>>The rest of the panel works fine with no other avionics issues. I
>>have gone back to my engine monitor to look for any recorded voltage
>>spikes....the highest I have is 14.0 which should be within the
>>normal operating range of the system (?). I have spike catching
>>diodes on my relays and have a process for powering up and powering
>>down stuff like this to prevent it from happening for other reasons.
>>
>> It's likely that the problem has nothing
>> to do with anything you are doing . . . or
>> not doing. The fact that some electro-whizzy
>> for airplanes includes and internal fuse is
>> itself reason to query the skills/design
>> goals of the manufacturer. I have on occasion
>> included fusible link type performance inside
>> a product . . . designed to prevent burning traces
>> on an ECB should some downstream failure put a
>> trace at risk. But real fuses (read fast acting
>> and not particularly robust) does give pause to
>> wonder why it's in there.
>>
>> If indeed the fuse is nuisance tripping because
>> of a REAL transient event on your system, then
>> I'm wondering if the electronics downstream of
>> that fuse were tailored to live with transient
>> events known to exist on the system (I.e. DO-160
>> style qualification).
>>
>> How much current does this electro-whizzy draw
>> in normal operations? Do you know what size the
>> fuse is?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse |
Would explain according to Bob the existence of the fuse......
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce Gray <bgray(at)glasair.org>
>Sent: Mar 26, 2010 2:01 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
>
>
>I seem to recall that DO-178 covers software only.
>
>DO-160 handles the electro-wizzies.
>
>I could be wrong though.
>
>Bruce
>www.Glasair.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
>E. Capen
>Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:48 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
>
>
>
>I called their tech support...their guy told me it is a 1/2A Slo-Blo
>surface mount fuse.
>
>We then talked about what could cause this thing to go.....which led to
>my education on how these units interact with each other.
>
>The 10VDC that this fuse protects is used to excite the heading system -
>in my case a Century NSD 1000 HSI.
>
>Back to checking my wiring for shorts...didn't find any last time - but
>I'll still check...55hrs without a blip.
>
>It is listed as DO 178b though.......
>
>Any more thoughts?
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>>Sent: Mar 25, 2010 10:47 AM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
>>
>
>>
>>Good points Bob,
>>
>>This is a TSO'd device - part of an autopilot whose wiring is protected
>by a 5 amp fuse. I'll be taking a magnifying glass out to look at the
>markings on the unit to determine its ratings. I agree with your
>questioning of the potential lack of DO160 compliance from a common
>sense perspective.
>>
>>My initial research in to these types of fuses show that there are
>holders that could be installed to make the fuse ultimately
>field-serviceable...albeit painfully field serviceable. This would
>allow the retention of the fuse the manufacturer deemed required for
>whatever their reasons.
>>
>>I'll post the info on the ratings that I discover.
>>
>>Ralph
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>>>Sent: Mar 25, 2010 10:18 AM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse
>>>
>
>>>
>>>At 08:33 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Anyone else out there with S-Tec 30 and GPSS?
>>>
>>>Any of you having issues with the internal fuse in the GPSS module?
>>>
>>>Mine blew once during construction and was a real pain to ship back
>>>and have S-Tec (whatever their name is now) solder in a new one. I
>>>attributed that to using a power supply (even with a battery) to run
>>>my panel during build testing. It has since blown again and I am
>>>trying to figure out a way to not have to go through this PITA another
>time.
>>>
>>>More importantly, what is causing this little critter to pop in the
>>>first place?
>>>
>>>The rest of the panel works fine with no other avionics issues. I
>>>have gone back to my engine monitor to look for any recorded voltage
>>>spikes....the highest I have is 14.0 which should be within the
>>>normal operating range of the system (?). I have spike catching
>>>diodes on my relays and have a process for powering up and powering
>>>down stuff like this to prevent it from happening for other reasons.
>>>
>>> It's likely that the problem has nothing
>>> to do with anything you are doing . . . or
>>> not doing. The fact that some electro-whizzy
>>> for airplanes includes and internal fuse is
>>> itself reason to query the skills/design
>>> goals of the manufacturer. I have on occasion
>>> included fusible link type performance inside
>>> a product . . . designed to prevent burning traces
>>> on an ECB should some downstream failure put a
>>> trace at risk. But real fuses (read fast acting
>>> and not particularly robust) does give pause to
>>> wonder why it's in there.
>>>
>>> If indeed the fuse is nuisance tripping because
>>> of a REAL transient event on your system, then
>>> I'm wondering if the electronics downstream of
>>> that fuse were tailored to live with transient
>>> events known to exist on the system (I.e. DO-160
>>> style qualification).
>>>
>>> How much current does this electro-whizzy draw
>>> in normal operations? Do you know what size the
>>> fuse is?
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Thanks Bruce. I'll try that today.
Talked to Astron and relayed the problem. The guy directed me to the circuit board
in the unit to replace one of the resistors with a higher value one.
It's all kind of wierd, because this thing has worked flawlessly in the past on
this same motor. The last time I used it, the outputs contacted, but the fuse
didn't blow and the unit still worked fine.
The literature on their website says that the unit is protected from this kind
of event.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=291842#291842
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny <dan42101(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Jhp 520 PTT cable |
Does anyone know where I could get a remote PTT switch that works properly
for this unit? I read in the archives that it does not take a PTT that grou
nds to talk.
-
I am uncertain about the note to "connect the PTT line to one of the other
lines".
Thanks.
- DjD=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Update on non TSO'd altitude encoders |
3/27/2010
Mr. Baker, I do not have any new info on this subject. The FAA has not
issued any
statement regarding TSO equipment or installation either specifically
for encoders or for any other equipment on the aircraft. The question
has been asked many times to many FAA offices. Their response to date
has been the same - no response at all beyond "we'll get back to you".
I assure you that if we ever do get a response in writing that we can
publish, we will do so at once. It's a question that needs answering,
and we will continue to pursue an answer. Unfortunately, to date we
have not had any success in this endeavor.
Stay tuned! When we know something we'll get the word out pronto.
Joe Norris
EAA 113615 Lifetime
Homebuilders Community Manager
EAA-The Spirit of Aviation
Phone: 888.322.4636 Extension 6806
Fax: 920.426.4873
===========================================================
2/18/2010
Hello Mr. Norris, From time to time the subject of using a non TSO'd
altitude encoder in amateur built experimental aircraft comes up on the
Matronics aeroelectric list. Copied below is one of those postings. No
favorable response on this subject has ever been received from FAA
Headquarters.
Many more postings on this subject can be found by searching for "non TSO'd
altitude encoders" at this web site:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/ws_script.cgi
The last thing that I read from EAA to resolve this situation was a
suggestion that the builder just purchase and install a TSO'd altitude
encoder (in addition to the non TSO'd altitude encoder incorporated into the
EFIS) in order to meet the FAA requirements.
Do you have any additional information to add on this subject at this time?
Thank you,
Owen C. Baker
EAA 0073580
=============================================================
#32094
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: encoder approval
Date: Aug 10, 2006
Responding to a posting from Skip Simpson:
8/10/2006
Hello Skip, The issue on the use of non TSO'd altitude encoders is currently
under review (again) at FAA headquarters. I have been involved in this issue
for some time, but have refrained from posting any information on this
unresolved issue because of the potentially huge adverse impact upon our
amateur built community. I wanted to avoid much controversial and
distracting communications pending the, hopefully favorable, eventual ruling
by FAA on this subject. Here in a fairly brief summary form is the
situation:
1) FAR 91.217 Reads as follows: "Data correspondence between automatically
reported pressure altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference.
No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment
associated with a radar beacon transponder-
(a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC;
(b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to
transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter
normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to
29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum
operating altitude of the aircraft; or
(c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the
standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively."
2) It would appear that any aircraft, standard type certificated or
experimentally certificated, whether flying IFR or VFR, and replying with a
mode C transponder altitude read out to ATC, either must comply with 91.217
(b) or be using a TSO-C88 approved altitude encoder.
3) Some companies providing altitude encoders to the amateur built
experimental aircraft community, some of which are incorporated into EFIS,
have been providing non TSO'd altitude encoders. It is not always made clear
by the manufacturing companies whether the altitude encoders within their
EFIS are TSO'd or not.
4) Some of these non TSO'd altitude encoders have better performance than
the TSO calls for both in terms of altitude granularity output and in output
format (serial instead of gray code).
5) There are many of these non TSO'd encoders in aircraft that are currently
flying and many in aircraft under construction.
6) A general presumption in the community was made (at least by those that
thought about it) that if an altimeter - altitude encoder - transponder
installation passed the FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F tests which are
required by FAR 91.411 and 91.413 every two years, that FAR 91.217 (b) was
being complied with.
7) A ruling from FAA headquarters in response to a letter from me said "not
so" to such compliance interpretation in the following fashion:
"Your letter posed the following questions:
1. If an amateur built experimental aircraft has an installed TSO'd ATC
transponder as required by Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
section 91.215, but a non-TSO'd altitude encoder and the installation has
passed the test and inspection requirements of 14 CFR sections 91.411 and
91.413 within the preceding 24 calendar months, does the installation meet
the requirements of 14 CFR section 91.217(b), and therefore make that
installation acceptable for IFR operations?
2. If the answer to question one is No, can you please tell me
why?
The answer to question one is "No." The testing required to show the
transmitted altitude data corresponds within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) is more rigorous than the requirements referenced in 14
CFR sections 91.411, 91.413, and 14 CFR, part 43 appendices E and F. The
tests required by 14 CFR part 43 appendix E(c) measure the automatic
pressure altitude at a sufficient number of test points to ensure the
altitude reporting equipment performs its intended function.
Title 14 CFR section 91.217 paragraphs (b) and (c), state that pressure
altitude reporting equipment must be tested and calibrated to transmit
altitude data correspondence within stated specifications; or, the
altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards in TSO-C10B and TSO-C88,
respectively.
Should the owner/operator elect to exhibit compliance with tests and
calibration provided in 14 CFR section 91.217(b), a test method would need
to be developed that
ensures the transmitted data corresponds within 125 feet of the indicated
altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft
on a 95 percent probability basis. This testing also needs to ensure the
performance characteristics of the equipment are not impacted when
subjected to environmental conditions (voltage fluctuations temperature,
vibration, etc.) which may be encountered in airborne operations.
Completed tests and calibration results should be maintained in the
aircraft records.
Thank you for your interest in aviation safety."
8) You can see the tremendous impact that enforcement of such a position
would have on the companies making and selling non TSO'd encoders or EFIS
containing non TSO'd encoders, the airplanes under construction planning to
incorporate those EFIS, and all of those airplanes currently flying with non
TSO'd altitude encoders.
9) I did not accept the FAA's position in 7) above as the final word and am
working through a cooperating local FAA FSDO employee to both educate FAA
headquarters and to get them to adopt a more reasonable position on the use
of non TSO'd altitude encoders.
10) I would encouage our community to not react in an adverse manner to the
FAA's current position and to continue to work the issue on a cooperative
basis. I will post additional information as it becomes available and
attempt to answer any questions that you may have.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
===================================================
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
Is the Rocky Mountain encoder approved for certificated aircraft, the
factory says that "it conforms to c88a", is that enough, or is there more
needed.
Any opinions on the unit. Thanks, Skip Simpson>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse |
At 01:01 PM 3/26/2010, you wrote:
>
>I seem to recall that DO-178 covers software only.
>
>DO-160 handles the electro-wizzies.
>
>I could be wrong though.
You are correct.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jhp 520 PTT cable |
At 09:43 AM 3/27/2010, you wrote:
>Does anyone know where I could get a remote PTT switch that works
>properly for this unit? I read in the archives that it does not take
>a PTT that grounds to talk.
>
>I am uncertain about the note to "connect the PTT line to one of the
>other lines".
Where do you see this 'note'?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: S-Tec 30 GPSS internal fuse |
At 12:48 PM 3/26/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>I called their tech support...their guy told me it is a 1/2A Slo-Blo
>surface mount fuse.
>
>We then talked about what could cause this thing to go.....which led
>to my education on how these units interact with each other.
>
>The 10VDC that this fuse protects is used to excite the heading
>system - in my case a Century NSD 1000 HSI.
>
>Back to checking my wiring for shorts...didn't find any last time -
>but I'll still check...55hrs without a blip.
Aha! It did not occur to me that the fuse could be
protecting the GPSS innards as a power source
as opposed to a load.
It makes sense that if you burden the internal
power supply with both internal and external
duties, it might be well to protect that output.
What you might consider is a temporary 10vdc power
supply with an LED indicator that annunciates
an overload. This could be wired around the GPSS.
You could do this with "jelly bean" parts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: On the subject of checking voltage..... |
OK, today there just is no excuse for one not having a working DVM
(digital volt meter) that you can trust. Sears have several models,
they work well. can be ordered on-line. Watch for one of their tool
sales, they usually have one of the models marked down to about half
price, that $10-$15 bucks. Now you will also need a good battery for
it. They have some with auto shut off and also have one with a
tempature probe.
Harbor Frieght also has their cheap DVM as low as $3 at times - how
accurate I don't know but it's probably more than close enought for
what were working with, note uses more batteries, does not have auto shut off.
I guess you all can figure out how I know that.
jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
| From: | Jared Yates <junk(at)jaredyates.com> |
I noticed that the picture on the walmart site linked below shows the "new"
style without the 6v-12v switch. Did anyone ever resolve whether the
problem that started this discussion was an isolated anomaly or a universal
feature of the new version of the charger?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:59 PM, wrote:
> Is this what you're looking for??
>
>
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=13005742&findingMethod=rr
>
> Dick
>
> In a message dated 3/25/2010 2:51:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 10:36 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I
> >looked at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none
> >of them are labled 1562.
>
> I don't ALWAYS see them on the shelf at my various
> visits to Walmart but they're available more often
> than not.
>
> Bob . . ========================= Use utilities Day
> ================================================ - MATRONICS
> WEB FORUMS ================================================ -
> List Contribution Web Site sp;
> ==================================================
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
Sounds like you may have a lab type bench power supply, many of these
also have a current limit setting control. May be a smaller knob on
one of the larger knobs or separate, and turn like a volume
control. It could be set to limit the amount of current the power
supply would supply for testing/design applications.
jerb
At 08:05 AM 3/26/2010, you wrote:
>The Power Supply is an Astron RS-35M , 13.8v, 25 amps continuous @
>50% duty cycle. American made in Irvine CA
>
>Daniel was right. It's not a flap motor problem. The motor perked
>right up when connected to my car battery.
>
>Anyone have ideas re the power supply? There was an incident where
>the positive and negative alligator clips contacted each other. But
>the 8 amp fuse of the PS didn't blow so I thought everything was OK.
>
>J
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
I sent the Schumacher I was mis-trusting to Bob N. for further evaluation. He probably
has not yet received it. However, I look forward to his corroborating
my high/non-optimal voltages. So, we shall see.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292088#292088
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fisher Paul A." <FisherPaulA(at)johndeere.com> |
| Subject: | Voltage measurements for Schumacher 1562A |
I realize the issue is the new model versus the old version, but I did take
some measurements that I wanted to report. I have three of the 1562A's -
all of which appear to be the "old version" with the 6V-12V switch on the f
ront panel. All of them were purchase from Wal-Mart on two different dates
. The last two were purchased in August or September of 2009.
SWC0907 SWC0701 SWC0907
Holding voltage 13.33V 13.32V 13.30V
Charging voltage 14.39V 14.54V 14.30V
The "SWC" numbers were stamped into the bottom of the case - I have no idea
if these are relevant or not, but I included it in case it made sense to s
omeone. The first charger is connected to a tractor (standard automotive t
ype battery), the second and third are in airplanes with RG batteries.
Test procedure: After the chargers had been on for over 24 hours, I took r
eadings of the holding voltages. Then I turned lights on for 2-3 minutes t
o activate the charging. After the voltages stabilized (3-5 minutes), the
voltages were recorded again.
I'm not sure if this helps anyone or not, but I at least wanted to report w
hat I found...
Paul A. Fisher
Q-200, N17PF
RV-7A, N18PF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)neitel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage measurements for Schumacher 1562A |
I too checked out the Schumacher 1562A, new version.
I have a PC680 in my plane. I flew for 2.6 hours last Sunday and did not
put the charger/maintainer on.
Today when I got the airport I first checked the voltage of the battery.
12.83 VDC. All readings were taken at the battery terminals. Next I
fired up the 1562A. Initial voltage was 14.2, then very quickly up to
14.9. After about a minute the voltage stabilized at 14.88 VDC.
Half hour later 14.86 to 14.87 VDC.
Hour one 14.83 to 14.84 VDC.
Hour two. Finally reached float at 13.4 to 13.5 VDC.
Hour three 13.45 VDC.
Test concluded. It appears to my untrained eye that the unit is
functioning properly.
Bob, please let me know if my assumptions are correct or incorrect.
Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 160 hrs
Luana, IA.
On Mar 28, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Fisher Paul A. wrote:
> I realize the issue is the new model versus the old version, but I did
take some measurements that I wanted to report. I have three of the
1562A=92s ' all of which appear to be the =93old version=94 with the
6V-12V switch on the front panel. All of them were purchase from
Wal-Mart on two different dates. The last two were purchased in August
or September of 2009.
>
> SWC0907 SWC0701 SWC0907
> Holding voltage 13.33V 13.32V 13.30V
> Charging voltage 14.39V 14.54V 14.30V
>
> The =93SWC=94 numbers were stamped into the bottom of the case ' I
have no idea if these are relevant or not, but I included it in case it
made sense to someone. The first charger is connected to a tractor
(standard automotive type battery), the second and third are in
airplanes with RG batteries.
>
> Test procedure: After the chargers had been on for over 24 hours, I
took readings of the holding voltages. Then I turned lights on for 2-3
minutes to activate the charging. After the voltages stabilized (3-5
minutes), the voltages were recorded again.
>
> I=92m not sure if this helps anyone or not, but I at least wanted to
report what I found=85
>
> Paul A. Fisher
> Q-200, N17PF
> RV-7A, N18PF
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jhp 520 PTT cable |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
As it happens, Japan Radio Corp sold this product to Rexon Tech.
It is now known as the RHP-520. You can find the users manual on the
web and download it as I did.
In a brief scan, I saw nothing about the PTT jack or any detail about
headset operation. The headset adapter cable I have does not split out
a ptt jack
The RHP nee RHP is a great little radio IMHO!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292139#292139
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage measurements for Schumacher 1562A |
At 05:34 PM 3/28/2010, you wrote:
>I too checked out the Schumacher 1562A, new version.
>I have a PC680 in my plane. I flew for 2.6 hours last Sunday and did
>not put the charger/maintainer on.
>Today when I got the airport I first checked the voltage of the
>battery. 12.83 VDC. All readings were taken at the battery
>terminals. Next I fired up the 1562A. Initial voltage was 14.2, then
>very quickly up to 14.9. After about a minute the voltage
>stabilized at 14.88 VDC.
>Half hour later 14.86 to 14.87 VDC.
>Hour one 14.83 to 14.84 VDC.
>Hour two. Finally reached float at 13.4 to 13.5 VDC.
>Hour three 13.45 VDC.
>Test concluded. It appears to my untrained eye that the unit is
>functioning properly.
>Bob, please let me know if my assumptions are correct or incorrect.
I think you're correct.
Keep in mind that the art and science of battery
maintaining goes to very long term storage of
batteries where the goal is to supply an EXTERNAL
source of energy that offsets internal leakage
that will ultimately discharge the battery if
left unattended.
In the case of an SLVA battery, this self-discharge
current is quite low. So the routine application of
a maintainer between flights during the flying season
is probably of no great benefit.
Keep in mind too that the devices we're discussing
are also capable of recharging a battery. While not
robust, none of the charger maintainers would be
hard pressed to get a 10% battery back to 100% in
24 to 36 hours.
Any time a battery is recharged, terminal voltage
of the battery right after removal of charge
current will be much higher than the ULTIMATE
OPEN CIRCUIT voltage of just under 13.0 volts
at room temperature. In may take many hours for
this so called "surface charge" to bleed off
such that a maintainer can settle into the
task of long term storage duties.
I think the critical review of a charger/
maintainer is to see that it does conduct a
reasonable charge-top off cycle that doesn't
go much above 15 volts nor less than 14 volts.
The TIME it spends in the top-off mode will
be a function of how deeply discharged the
battery was when the charger/maintainer was
connected and exactly where in the 14-15 volt
range it decides to operate.
But at some time consistent with recharging
duties, it does drop out of the charge/top-off
mode. The system voltage may not drop to the
ultimate maintenance level for many hours. So
once your charger says "I'm done", come back
a day later to see what the maintenance voltage
is. It should be 13.0 to 13.5 volts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Schumacher SC-600A |
Bob,
I have a Schumacher SC-600A. It is a switchable 6/12 volt automatic charger
/ maintainer with 3 selectable charging rates of 2, 4, or 6 amp output, with
a microprocessor control. They recommend using the 2 amp for trickle charge
or charging small batteries such as lawn tractor or motorcycle. The 4 amp
is for medium charge of automotive batteries, and the 6 amp for fast charge
of automotive / light truck batteries.
In your years of experience with charge rates of batteries, do you think the
higher rate of 6 amps would even damage a small garden tractor battery?
When I look at automotive alternators with 50 amp outputs I wonder what are
the limits that will cause damage or shortening of useful life of a battery,
provided you don't overcharge?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Source for Schumacher 1562A |
Jared,
>From what I gathered, the purchaser received a bad dog. The internal
switch is designed for lazy American convenience, not necessarily to be
a failure. Personally they can remove the whole 6 volt thing for me.
Last 6 volt anything I had was a 52' International truck. And positive
ground at that.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jared
Yates
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source for Schumacher 1562A
I noticed that the picture on the walmart site linked below shows the
"new"
style without the 6v-12v switch. Did anyone ever resolve whether the
problem that started this discussion was an isolated anomaly or a
universal feature of the new version of the charger?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:59 PM, wrote:
> Is this what you're looking for??
>
>
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=13005742&findingM
> ethod=rr
>
> Dick
>
> In a message dated 3/25/2010 2:51:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 10:36 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
> >--> >
> >
> >Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I
> >looked at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none
> >of them are labled 1562.
>
> I don't ALWAYS see them on the shelf at my various
> visits to Walmart but they're available more often
> than not.
>
> Bob . . ========================= Use utilities Day
> ================================================ -
MATRONICS
> WEB FORUMS ===============================================
-
> List Contribution Web Site sp;
> ==================================================
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap Motor lack of Oomph |
Jerb,
I'll look into that but it has powered the same motor in the past
without a problem.
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i get mine on e bay
bob noffs
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
> I noticed that the picture on the walmart site linked below shows the "new"
> style without the 6v-12v switch. Did anyone ever resolve whether the
> problem that started this discussion was an isolated anomaly or a universal
> feature of the new version of the charger?
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:59 PM, wrote:
>
>> Is this what you're looking for??
>>
>>
>> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=13005742&findingMethod=rr
>>
>> Dick
>>
>> In a message dated 3/25/2010 2:51:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
>>
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>>
>> At 10:36 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>> chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
>> >
>> >Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers? I
>> >looked at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none
>> >of them are labled 1562.
>>
>> I don't ALWAYS see them on the shelf at my various
>> visits to Walmart but they're available more often
>> than not.
>>
>> Bob . . Use utilities Day ======================= -
>> MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======================= - List Contribution
>> Web Site sp;
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <r.r.hall(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
I just bought one off Amazon for less than $20.
Rodney Hall
---- bob noffs wrote:
>i get mine on e bay=C2- bob noffs
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
I noticed that the picture on the walmart site linked below shows the "new"
style without the 6v-12v switch. =C2-Did anyone ever resolve whether the
problem that started this discussion was an isolated=C2-anomaly or a uni
versal feature of the new version of the charger?=C2-
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:59 PM, wrote:
Is this what you're looking for??=C2-http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ
ct.do?product_id=13005742&findingMethod=rr=C2-Dick=C2-In a message
dated 3/25/2010 2:51:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob@aeroelectr
III"
At 10:36 AM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>
>Where are you guys finding the Shumacher 1562 battery chargers?=C2- I
>looked at WalMart and they carry Shumacher battery chargers, but none
>of them are labled 1562.
=C2-=C2- I don't ALWAYS see them on the shelf at my various
=C2-=C2- visits to Walmart but they're available more often
=C2-=C2- than not.
=C2-=C2- Bob=C2- . . Use utilities Day ==========
============= =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-
=C2-=C2- - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS =============
========== =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-=C2- - L
ist Contribution Web Site sp; =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2
- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2-
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | testing for inoperative wig wag? |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)urscorp.com |
My landing lights no longer wig-wag and I would like to trouble shoot.
My
system is per one of the options described on the Aeroelectric Connecti
on
website (?), and uses a single three-position switch for the landing li
ghts
(off-wigwag-on), a bridge rectifier, and the flasher unit, all wired pe
r
instructions. Everything is fine for both the off and on positions, but
nothing comes on or flashes at all in the wigwag position, and my ammet
er
indicates no current is flowing. I pulled the three-position switch and
tested it with a multimeter - seems to function fine. That would seem
to
leave either the flasher or the bridge rectifier as potential culprits.
Could just buy both and probably be done, but Im sure there must be a w
ay
to trouble shoot these to confirm which has the problem before I order
them. Suggestions?
thanks
Erich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | ANL current limiter mount |
Has anyone come up with a mount for ANL current limiters that don't look
like they belong on a tractor? The standard ones in use are either
bulky, ugly and unprotected or the ones the boom box crowd uses are made
of plastic, and don't belong forward of an aircraft firewall, in my
opinion. I have two alternators that I need to protect and could gang
the ANLs together, or maybe it's best to use inline protection as close
to alternator as possible. What has anyone come up with?
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hand" <chris_hand(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: testing for inoperative wig wag? |
Erich - I have the Aeroelectric type setup using B&C's SSF-1 flasher.
When I was researching and planning my wiring and lighting setup I was
told the flasher unit has a limited life and needs replaced periodically
so installed mine to allow for quick, easy replacement when it
eventually fails. If power is getting to the flasher and the wig-wag is
not working, I'd replace that first.
I believe the B&C SSF-1 unit can be found in local or on-line auto parts
store as TRIDON EL13 A-2 flasher (ALT/FLASHER/150W/Ch +12V). Those are
the part markings I put on my electrical system drawings and if I
remember correctly, I got those off the flasher unit before I mounted it
and confirmed via some on-line research at the time.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Erich_Weaver(at)urscorp.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:44 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: testing for inoperative wig wag?
My landing lights no longer wig-wag and I would like to trouble shoot.
My system is per one of the options described on the Aeroelectric
Connection website (?), and uses a single three-position switch for the
landing lights (off-wigwag-on), a bridge rectifier, and the flasher
unit, all wired per instructions. Everything is fine for both the off
and on positions, but nothing comes on or flashes at all in the wigwag
position, and my ammeter indicates no current is flowing. I pulled the
three-position switch and tested it with a multimeter - seems to
function fine. That would seem to leave either the flasher or the bridge
rectifier as potential culprits. Could just buy both and probably be
done, but Im sure there must be a way to trouble shoot these to confirm
which has the problem before I order them. Suggestions?
thanks
Erich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Downed EAA Plane |
An interesting thing about jamb-nuts; if we are thinking of the same thing
here. We call them 'half-nuts'; usually people place the full sized nut
under the half or jamb nut- I used to as well. However, the correct way is
to put the thin nut first - see
http://www.boltscience.com/pages/twonuts.htm
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 13 March 2010 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Downed EAA Plane
Jon followed up later with:
Hi all,
I have confirmed the cause of my power failure last weekend. Long story
short - it was builder error. When you install a locknut on a bolt, you
MUST ensure that there is at least a thread or two coming all the way
thru the nut. If not, it will eventually vibrate free.
I have changed my mounting method and now have nutplates inside this "box".
Please; learn from other's mistakes cause you don't have enough time to
make them all yourself!!
I would like to follow up with the idea that
on a TC aircraft, there are NO plain nuts or
combinations of plain nuts and lockwashers used.
Non-locking, threaded fasteners are often supplied
on accessories from the outside world . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Kilovac_EV200_contactor.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-2.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Toggle_Switch_with_Mold-Captured_T
erminals.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Flap_Switch.jpg
Every time the system integrator picks up such
devices, there's supposed to be an evaluation of
risk due to "loose hardware". If the risks are
deemed great enough, non-locking fasteners will
be replaced with locking devices -or- doped with
Loc-tite on final assembly.
The tree-visible-threads rule has much more to do
with strength of the assembled fastener (indicates
that the screw is long enough) than with anti-
loosening. The same rule applies to all threaded
fasteners including the locking style nuts and
nutplates.
Where locking threads are not possible or practical,
consider still longer screws with a jamb-nut installed
on top of the structural nut. Further, a thread locker
that can be easily disassembled can go a long way
toward insuring joint integrity. Super-glue works
nice. It's thin and wicks into an already assembled
set of threads.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schumacher SC-600A |
At 08:40 AM 3/29/2010, you wrote:
Bob,
I have a Schumacher SC-600A. It is a switchable 6/12 volt automatic charger/
maintainer with 3 selectable charging rates of 2, 4, or 6 amp output, with
a microprocessor control. They recommend using the 2 amp for trickle charge
or charging small batteries such as lawn tractor or motorcycle. The 4 amp
is for medium charge of automotive batteries, and the 6 amp for fast charge
of automotive / light truck batteries.
Yeah, I've got one of those too . . . or maybe it's the 2500. Got
it at Walmart . . .
In your years of experience with charge rates of batteries, do you think the
higher rate of 6 amps would even damage a small garden tractor battery?
When I look at automotive alternators with 50 amp outputs I wonder what are
the limits that will cause damage or shortening of useful life of a battery,
provided you don't overcharge?
Very astute observations! There's a common faulty assumption
that if one connects a monster charger to a 2 a.h. battery that
the beastly machine will smoke the little battery. The ratings
on any charging system come with two values. Set point voltages
and maximum available recharge current. Batteries come with
two values, state of charge and internal resistance. The battery's
ability to accept recharge energy is what sets how much and how
fast it will accept energy from the charging source.
As a rule, smaller, completely discharged batteries placed across
a rigid bus will initially draw large values of current but it quickly
falls to values that are commensurate with the battery's physics
and relatively independent of charging system's characteristics.
Let's recall that battery performance is a function of chemistry
mass which set capacity and surface area of exposed chemistry
which sets internal impedance. The greatest performing batteries
(Enersys and competing products) have lots of thin plates that
are a finely tuned compromise for optimum mass/area ratio. These
batteries are also exemplary in their ability to accept charge.
In fact, the Genesis series batteries I helped STC onto TC aircraft
with B&C have no published limits for rate of recharge.
At the other end of spectrum, smaller batteries with fewer,
thicker plates may appear to be accepting a charge when their
recharge current drops off rapidly while in fact, chemistry
on the surface of the plates is what has become recharged and
chemistry deeper in the chemical cell-mass (isolated by internal
impedance features) are coming along more slowly. If you leave
the itty-bitty battery connected to the monster bus long
enough, it will eventually get recharged.
Damage? During the initial stages of a rushed recharge,
energy is being dissipated internally to the battery in its
relatively poor connection between and internal to individual
chemical cell sites. This warms the battery up and is not
good for battery longevity. Hence, the poorer the construction,
the more care in recharging is necessary for maximum service
life. As a rule, tiny 'back up' batteries in airplanes
are not well construction (i.e. like an Enersys). These
batteries do benefit from careful maintenance and generally
don't have good service lives. This is why ALL of my suggested
two-battery systems feature identical batteries with engine
cranking abilities. They require a minimum of maintenance
and smoothly integrate into a "new battery every year"
rotation protocol.
Most of this discussion about battery chargers is
academic for the manner in which we use batteries. In
the auto/aeromotive worlds we depend on batteries to
start engines. After that, the well design charging
system replaces a few percent of expended battery energy
and supports all vehicle loads for the remainder of
the operating cycle. We don't routinely deeply discharge
our batteries.
It's only the deeply discharged battery that will
benefit from recharge protocols finely tuned to
it's physics. The smaller/cheaper the battery, the more
it benefits from fine tuning. So unless your airplane's
alternator runs too slow to support ship's loads while taxiing
miles to the hangar with all the electro-whizzies
turned on, then there's little or no benefit for
connecting any kind of charger until the next flight.
Even the smallest chargers (.8A Battery Tender) will
recharge the largest of our batteries if given
sufficient time. Further the time they spend in
top-off mode isn't real critical either . . . it
just doesn't want to be sustained over many weeks
or months while an airplane is being stored or waiting
for flying weather to improve.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANL current limiter mount |
At 08:31 PM 3/29/2010, you wrote:
>Has anyone come up with a mount for ANL current limiters that don't
>look like they belong on a tractor? The standard ones in use are
>either bulky, ugly and unprotected or the ones the boom box crowd
>uses are made of plastic, and don't belong forward of an aircraft
>firewall, in my opinion. I have two alternators that I need to
>protect and could gang the ANLs together, or maybe it's best to use
>inline protection as close to alternator as possible. What has
>anyone come up with?
>Chris Hukill
Consider building your own current limiter mounting
blocks from phenolic, delrin, etc. Use more compact
automotive limiters like
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/ABI_fuses.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/BF2.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/all_mega.JPG
Use 1/4-28 steel hardware to assemble. Yeah
I know, it's not brass. But we're more interested
in getting a ring terminal on a wire held in
intimate contact with the tab of a current limiter.
Use steel and torque it to spec.
Counter-bore the back side of the block an pot
the hex-head of the bolt into the block with
J-B weld. Put a washer against the block on the
other side and a nut on top that torqued to
spec. Then goes another washer, the limiter,
the ring terminal, a third washer, and a LOCK nut.
Works good, lasts a long time.
I've got the delrin already cut to manufacture a
few dozens of these smaller holders but those
projects are on the back burner for awhile. Today
I've got my laundry room wall opened up to repair
and modify some plumbing to accommodate a gas dryer
and a new water softener installation.
I'm up to my shins in sheet rock debris right
now. After that, I've got some cabinets to build.
The list goes on . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Downed EAA Plane |
Regardless of your ego, it's always good to read 43.13 part 1 & 2 when
building an airplane. It's written at a 9th grade level so little things
like that should not get by. They make a big deal on exposed threads for
studs, bolts etc. How many of you know the formula for how deep a stud
needs to be screwed in? It's so simple, if you can't see 2 threads, get
a longer bolt.
In areas where I can't frequently inspect potential loose nuts, I always
use Loctite and if I'm feeling particularly nervous I give the thread
and nut a thin coat of epoxy. There's lots of other neat stuff in the
43.13 like max number of washers, 3 and never use a jam nut more than
once - toss it.
It's your ass in the plane, so do it right.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay
Hyde
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:01 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Downed EAA Plane
An interesting thing about jamb-nuts; if we are thinking of the same
thing
here. We call them 'half-nuts'; usually people place the full sized nut
under the half or jamb nut- I used to as well. However, the correct way
is
to put the thin nut first - see
http://www.boltscience.com/pages/twonuts.htm
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 13 March 2010 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Downed EAA Plane
Jon followed up later with:
Hi all,
I have confirmed the cause of my power failure last weekend. Long story
short - it was builder error. When you install a locknut on a bolt, you
MUST ensure that there is at least a thread or two coming all the way
thru the nut. If not, it will eventually vibrate free.
I have changed my mounting method and now have nutplates inside this
"box".
Please; learn from other's mistakes cause you don't have enough time to
make them all yourself!!
I would like to follow up with the idea that
on a TC aircraft, there are NO plain nuts or
combinations of plain nuts and lockwashers used.
Non-locking, threaded fasteners are often supplied
on accessories from the outside world . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Kilovac_EV200_contactor.
jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-2.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Toggle_Switch_with_Mold-Captur
ed_T
erminals.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Flap_Switch.jpg
Every time the system integrator picks up such
devices, there's supposed to be an evaluation of
risk due to "loose hardware". If the risks are
deemed great enough, non-locking fasteners will
be replaced with locking devices -or- doped with
Loc-tite on final assembly.
The tree-visible-threads rule has much more to do
with strength of the assembled fastener (indicates
that the screw is long enough) than with anti-
loosening. The same rule applies to all threaded
fasteners including the locking style nuts and
nutplates.
Where locking threads are not possible or practical,
consider still longer screws with a jamb-nut installed
on top of the structural nut. Further, a thread locker
that can be easily disassembled can go a long way
toward insuring joint integrity. Super-glue works
nice. It's thin and wicks into an already assembled
set of threads.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ANL current limiter mount |
Chris,
We'll you could buy a different color, but it is what it is. The boom
box crowd already has the bling version, so you won't get better than
that unless you go to SEMA in Las Vegas and get a custom cover. You
could also get the bling version and have the cover air brushed. Perhaps
that's what I'll do.
The other option is to put the ANL box inside the firewall. My car has a
5 pack of them up high behind the passenger's side of the dashboard. My
car has a 110 amp alternator and I've never had to change them for any
reason.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Hukill
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:32 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ANL current limiter mount
Has anyone come up with a mount for ANL current limiters that don't look
like they belong on a tractor? The standard ones in use are either
bulky, ugly and unprotected or the ones the boom box crowd uses are made
of plastic, and don't belong forward of an aircraft firewall, in my
opinion. I have two alternators that I need to protect and could gang
the ANLs together, or maybe it's best to use inline protection as close
to alternator as possible. What has anyone come up with?
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
I've got the delrin already cut to manufacture a
few dozens of these smaller holders but those
projects are on the back burner for awhile. Today
I've got my laundry room wall opened up to repair
and modify some plumbing to accommodate a gas dryer
and a new water softener installation.
I'm up to my shins in sheet rock debris right
now. After that, I've got some cabinets to build.
The list goes on . . .
Bob, I have often wondered how a retired person ever had the time to work!
:>)
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Downed EAA Plane |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Glenn,
Before you insult old ghosts, maybe you should read the 14 page
(if I recall correctly) NTSB report on John-Johns accident.
His flying endeavors were marked, in my opinion, by always trying
hard to do the right thing. I don't think he was cavalier or ego-driven
at all, just unlucky. He may not have had the aptitude for instrument
flight, but he tried hard, and attended the best IFR flight school in the
country at the time
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&akey=1
It was his sister-in-law's fault!
I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of the Kennedy dynasty, tho
I did admire Jack and Bobby!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292377#292377
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Downed EAA Plane |
You're joking right? His head was bigger than the airplane. That was his
MO. He was all about driving that thing out into the dark on his own. As
you may remember he turned down the offer of the CFI going along with
him.
What he did was let one small mistake build up into a giant one -
especially with family on board. Get-there-itis got him. If he had flown
by the book and did what he learned at the best IFR schools at first
entry into IMC or simply darkness he would have turned right around and
gone back inland.
He is now the butt of every CFI example of what happens to a pilot when
orientation is lost. Sure one can be unlucky, but I don't buy that in
his case.
I suppose we'll never really know.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rampil
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:22 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Downed EAA Plane
Glenn,
Before you insult old ghosts, maybe you should read the 14 page
(if I recall correctly) NTSB report on John-Johns accident.
His flying endeavors were marked, in my opinion, by always trying
hard to do the right thing. I don't think he was cavalier or ego-driven
at all, just unlucky. He may not have had the aptitude for instrument
flight, but he tried hard, and attended the best IFR flight school in
the
country at the time
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&a
key=1
It was his sister-in-law's fault!
I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of the Kennedy dynasty, tho
I did admire Jack and Bobby!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292377#292377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Downed EAA Plane |
You must be joking. I've read the report and analysis of the report
several times. Lot's to learn there but I never got enough info to know
that his "head was bigger than the airplanes" or "that was his MO".
He screwed up and I've caught myself with a dismissive smile while
describing the incident to others. I'll try harder to check myself in
the future.
There but for the grace of whoever, goes I. Thinking I'll never be
subject to a simliar set of circumstances takes a pretty big head.
I agree, we'll never know,
Bill Watson
longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>
> You're joking right? His head was bigger than the airplane. That was his
> MO. He was all about driving that thing out into the dark on his own. As
> you may remember he turned down the offer of the CFI going along with
> him.
>
> What he did was let one small mistake build up into a giant one -
> especially with family on board. Get-there-itis got him. If he had flown
> by the book and did what he learned at the best IFR schools at first
> entry into IMC or simply darkness he would have turned right around and
> gone back inland.
>
> He is now the butt of every CFI example of what happens to a pilot when
> orientation is lost. Sure one can be unlucky, but I don't buy that in
> his case.
>
> I suppose we'll never really know.
>
> Glenn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> rampil
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:22 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Downed EAA Plane
>
>
> Glenn,
>
> Before you insult old ghosts, maybe you should read the 14 page
> (if I recall correctly) NTSB report on John-Johns accident.
> His flying endeavors were marked, in my opinion, by always trying
> hard to do the right thing. I don't think he was cavalier or ego-driven
> at all, just unlucky. He may not have had the aptitude for instrument
> flight, but he tried hard, and attended the best IFR flight school in
> the
> country at the time
>
> http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&a
> key=1
>
> It was his sister-in-law's fault!
>
>
> I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of the Kennedy dynasty, tho
> I did admire Jack and Bobby!
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292377#292377
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Downed EAA Plane |
I'm no engineer, & don't even plan to stay in *any* motel at S&F, but it
will take more than a web site to convince me those instructions are
correct. If I'm following their instructions correctly, the preload on
the bolt will only be 25-50% of design (could easily wind up being even
less) & the only spot with 100% of the preload will be the threads
between the nuts.
The deal on that bridge will need to be a lot better to get my
attention. :-)
Charlie
On 3/30/2010 7:01 AM, Jay Hyde wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jay Hyde"
>
> An interesting thing about jamb-nuts; if we are thinking of the same thing
> here. We call them 'half-nuts'; usually people place the full sized nut
> under the half or jamb nut- I used to as well. However, the correct way is
> to put the thin nut first - see
> http://www.boltscience.com/pages/twonuts.htm
>
> Jay
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: 13 March 2010 11:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Downed EAA Plane
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> Jon followed up later with:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have confirmed the cause of my power failure last weekend. Long story
> short - it was builder error. When you install a locknut on a bolt, you
> MUST ensure that there is at least a thread or two coming all the way
> thru the nut. If not, it will eventually vibrate free.
>
>
>
> I have changed my mounting method and now have nutplates inside this "box".
>
> Please; learn from other's mistakes cause you don't have enough time to
> make them all yourself!!
>
> I would like to follow up with the idea that
> on a TC aircraft, there are NO plain nuts or
> combinations of plain nuts and lockwashers used.
> Non-locking, threaded fasteners are often supplied
> on accessories from the outside world . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Kilovac_EV200_contactor.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-2.jpg
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Toggle_Switch_with_Mold-Captured_T
> erminals.jpg
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Flap_Switch.jpg
>
> Every time the system integrator picks up such
> devices, there's supposed to be an evaluation of
> risk due to "loose hardware". If the risks are
> deemed great enough, non-locking fasteners will
> be replaced with locking devices -or- doped with
> Loc-tite on final assembly.
>
> The tree-visible-threads rule has much more to do
> with strength of the assembled fastener (indicates
> that the screw is long enough) than with anti-
> loosening. The same rule applies to all threaded
> fasteners including the locking style nuts and
> nutplates.
>
> Where locking threads are not possible or practical,
> consider still longer screws with a jamb-nut installed
> on top of the structural nut. Further, a thread locker
> that can be easily disassembled can go a long way
> toward insuring joint integrity. Super-glue works
> nice. It's thin and wicks into an already assembled
> set of threads.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Downed EAA Plane |
At 03:16 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
I'm no engineer, & don't even plan to stay in *any* motel at S&F, but
it will take more than a web site to convince me those instructions
are correct. If I'm following their instructions correctly, the
preload on the bolt will only be 25-50% of design (could easily wind
up being even less) & the only spot with 100% of the preload will be
the threads between the nuts.
I read the article with interest and a sense
of mystery. Slicing and dicing distribution of
total loads between two nuts, one of which
ISN'T INTENDED TO BE STRUCTURAL gives one pause
to ponder.
Consider the host of anti-loosening technologies
including toothed lock washers, winged lock washers
keyed to a shaft and bent up to capture flats of the
installed nut, distorted diameters designed to
multiply friction between nut and bolt, locking
goos and gunks, plastic or fiber inserts on the
nuts or even the bolts, cotter keys through drilled
or castellated nuts, and finally the lowly hunk
of safety wire.
The laws of physics including a study of basic machines,
coefficients of friction and sliding forces tending
to move down an inclined plane will show that no
threaded fastener torqued to design values will rotate
on its mate unless for some reason tension on the
bolt is relaxed or strong but transient forces
vibrations) tend to overcome the breaking coefficient
of friction in the threads is overcome.
None of the cited prophylactics against inadvertent
loosening of a threaded couple take any part
whatsoever in the structural task assigned to
the threaded fasteners. Hence I find it curious
that one takes the time to put up such an explanation
about some seemingly critical function of jam nuts
on the structural integrity of the joint.
I've never seen a jamb nut installed anywhere
but on top of the nut it is intended to restrain.
Further, I'll bet that installation torque values
are a tiny fraction of that assigned to the
structural nut. This is because the friction forces normal
to the structural nut are being opposed by addition
of the jam nut. Depending on how much slop there
is in the threads, total release of tension on the
could result in total loss of "jamb" between the
two nuts.
As a class of anti-rotation device, I think the
jamb nut is the least capable of them all. I think
I'd consider all the alternatives before stacking
a jamb nut on top of a joint with any responsibility
for keeping the airplane and its accessories whole.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Downed EAA Plane |
Boy oh boy,
You know, aside from the whole celebrity mirage our country seems to have either
fallen in love with, or to resent, you can't lose sight of the fact these
are just people. So now we have jousted with the ghosts of celebrity in John
Jr's instance and one projected his belief's about him on to him, probably because
of jealousy, plain and simple. I had a best friend in college who actually
went on to have business dealings personally with JFK, Jr. He told me when
I asked that JFK, Jr. was a really nice person as was Caroline. He told me their
mom did a great job raising them after their dad was murdered. So, put your
People Magazine away and realize a pilot, who was a great guy from my insider
info, succumbed to the same errors many pilots have and learn from the facts.
Enough said.
Bob Sultzbach
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2010, at 1:22, "rampil" wrote:
Glenn,
Before you insult old ghosts, maybe you should read the 14 page
(if I recall correctly) NTSB report on John-Johns accident.
His flying endeavors were marked, in my opinion, by always trying
hard to do the right thing. I don't think he was cavalier or ego-driven
at all, just unlucky. He may not have had the aptitude for instrument
flight, but he tried hard, and attended the best IFR flight school in the
country at the time
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&akey=1
It was his sister-in-law's fault!
I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of the Kennedy dynasty, tho
I did admire Jack and Bobby!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292377#292377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Downed EAA Plane |
Bob,
You are correct. The application of a jam nut for locking is only
applicable when one cannot wrench on the other end of the bolt. And
never in a critical application. An example that comes to mind is a
big relay where the bolt is molded into the plastic.
Its interesting that some tend to focus on how many threads are
showing instead of "is the thing torqued with a locking feature nut".
Mechanical locking nuts are favored (some call Pinch nuts). The
castellated nut does not have my favor since the holes seldom meet my
needs. Safe enough if torqued properly. The nylon nuts (called
elastic stop nuts) are applicable for non critical places with no
heat. Otherwise loctite in cool environs is also good and comes in
several degrees of anti rotation sticky ness.
Paul
=========
At 02:15 PM 3/30/2010, Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>As a class of anti-rotation device, I think the
> jamb nut is the least capable of them all. I think
> I'd consider all the alternatives before stacking
> a jamb nut on top of a joint with any responsibility
> for keeping the airplane and its accessories whole.
>
> Bob .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: testing for inoperative wig wag? |
Check to make sure you have a good ground connection. It happened to me when I
did some wire shortening, new connectors, and forgot I had the ground disconnected.
Ron Burnett
RV-6A Subaru powered, forever finishing
---- Erich_Weaver(at)urscorp.com wrote:
============
My landing lights no longer wig-wag and I would like to trouble shoot. My
system is per one of the options described on the Aeroelectric Connection
website (?), and uses a single three-position switch for the landing lights
(off-wigwag-on), a bridge rectifier, and the flasher unit, all wired per
instructions. Everything is fine for both the off and on positions, but
nothing comes on or flashes at all in the wigwag position, and my ammeter
indicates no current is flowing. I pulled the three-position switch and
tested it with a multimeter - seems to function fine. That would seem to
leave either the flasher or the bridge rectifier as potential culprits.
Could just buy both and probably be done, but Im sure there must be a way
to trouble shoot these to confirm which has the problem before I order
them. Suggestions?
thanks
Erich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
I'm really not entirely sure what any of this has to do with an electrical
system in an airplane and I've no doubt this is of tremendous to those of
you discussing it, but would you all mind getting a chat room or another
venue where you can whack away at each other without boring the holy crap
out of the rest of us.
Cheers,
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: JFK Jr and all |
right on
In a message dated 3/30/2010 8:50:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com writes:
I'm really not entirely sure what any of this has to do with an electrical
system in an airplane and I've no doubt this is of tremendous to those of
you discussing it, but would you all mind getting a chat room or another
venue where you can whack away at each other without boring the holy crap out
of the rest of us.
Cheers,
Rick Girard
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: JFK Jr and all |
My feelings precisely. The record needed to be set straight. Now, shall we get
back to electro whizzies as Bob N would say.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2010, at 9:52, RGent1224(at)aol.com wrote:
right on
In a message dated 3/30/2010 8:50:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com
writes:
I'm really not entirely sure what any of this has to do with an electrical system
in an airplane and I've no doubt this is of tremendous to those of you discussing
it, but would you all mind getting a chat room or another venue where you
can whack away at each other without boring the holy crap out of the rest of
us.
Cheers,
Rick Girard
===================================
List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
===================================
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Delete key. Delete key. Delete key.
Let people say what they want. We don't have to read it all, any more than
we have to watch everything on TV or listen to everything on the radio or
read the entire newspaper. Someone posted a link to the accident report,
which changed my mind about what I thought I knew about JFK Jr's accident.
Listen selectively, please. Don't censor. This thread too will pass.
Terry
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: JFK Jr and all
I'm really not entirely sure what any of this has to do with an electrical
system in an airplane and I've no doubt this is of tremendous to those of
you discussing it, but would you all mind getting a chat room or another
venue where you can whack away at each other without boring the holy crap
out of the rest of us.
Cheers,
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: JFK Jr and all |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, you can use the delete key, I do all the time. The problem is that the
subject title never gets changed to reflect the content so you have a few
people engaged in the beginnings of a flame war while Bob continues to
discuss real issues under the same heading.
It isn't censorship to ask people to maintain decorum and use the forum for
it's declared intent IMHO.
Rick Girard
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
> Delete key. Delete key. Delete key.
>
>
> Let people say what they want. We don=92t have to read it all, any more t
han
> we have to watch everything on TV or listen to everything on the radio or
> read the entire newspaper. Someone posted a link to the accident report,
> which changed my mind about what I thought I knew about JFK Jr=92s accide
nt.
>
> Listen selectively, please. Don=92t censor. This thread too will pass.
>
>
> Terry
>
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Girard
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:28 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: JFK Jr and all
>
>
> I'm really not entirely sure what any of this has to do with an electrica
l
> system in an airplane and I've no doubt this is of tremendous to those of
> you discussing it, but would you all mind getting a chat room or another
> venue where you can whack away at each other without boring the holy crap
> out of the rest of us.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rick Girard
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Downed EAA Plane |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
> The laws of physics including a study of basic machines, coefficients of friction
and sliding forces tending to move down an inclined plane will show that
no threaded fastener torqued to design values will rotate on its mate unless for
some reason tension on the bolt is relaxed or strong but transient forces vibrations)
tend to overcome the breaking coefficient of friction in the threads
is overcome.
I agree. The only advantage of using a jam nut that I see is that if the load
on the bolt is relaxed, the two nuts will still be tight against each other.
On non-aviation projects, I have used two nuts with a lock washer between them
and never had them come loose.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292491#292491
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Threaded fastener security |
>At 07:22 AM 3/31/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>B: The laws of physics including a study of basic machines,
>coefficients of friction and sliding forces tending to move down an
>inclined plane will show that no threaded fastener torqued to design
>values will rotate on its mate unless for some reason tension on the
>bolt is relaxed or strong but transient forces vibrations) tend to
>overcome the breaking coefficient of friction in the threads is overcome.
>
>J: I agree. The only advantage of using a jam nut that I see is
>that if the load on the bolt is relaxed, the two nuts will still be
>tight against each other.
Right. As Paul mentioned yesterday:
P: You are correct. The application of a jam nut for locking is only
applicable when one cannot wrench on the other end of the bolt. And
never in a critical application. An example that comes to mind is a
big relay where the bolt is molded into the plastic.
The jam nut makes sense when installed tension on the bolt
is intended by design to be much less than the strength of
the bolt. In this case the role of the threaded fastener
is more like that of a rivet. Very good in sheer, and moderately
useful in tension. The two nuts become something of a
"second head" of the same bolt.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Connector options for easy wing removal |
Hello all,
I would like to utilize some type connector/plug inside the fuselage at the
wing root locations for all of the electric goodies in the wings. This
would allow me to complete all wiring in the fuselage and would also
facilitate wing removal and install later. Below is my list of equipment
and other found in the wings:
--strobe/position lights
--landing/taxi lights
--aileron AP servo
--heated pitot
--NAV antenna coax
--AFS AOA tubing
Any suggestions on the best way to handle the above would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Wade Roe
RV-7 in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connector options for easy wing removal |
I used a molex connector for the electrical stuff and the AOA kit came with barbed
fittings on AN4 caps - I got an extra set of the barbed AN4 caps for the wing-root
disconnects. my Pitot/static lines are AN4 fittings too.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Wade Roe <wroe1(at)dbtech.net>
>Sent: Mar 31, 2010 11:13 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Connector options for easy wing removal
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>I would like to utilize some type connector/plug inside the fuselage at the
>wing root locations for all of the electric goodies in the wings. This
>would allow me to complete all wiring in the fuselage and would also
>facilitate wing removal and install later. Below is my list of equipment
>and other found in the wings:
>
> --strobe/position lights
> --landing/taxi lights
> --aileron AP servo
> --heated pitot
> --NAV antenna coax
> --AFS AOA tubing
>
>Any suggestions on the best way to handle the above would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Wade Roe
>RV-7 in progress
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Routing Fuselage Wiring (RV-7) |
I need suggestions as to the best location and method to route the wiring
from the rear fuselage up to the panel/subpanel area in my RV-7 project. I
have the following equipment wiring that needs to be handled:
--AFS magnetometer wires,
--AP Pitch Servo,
--ELT panel switch,
--strobe power supply leads,
--electric elevator trim,
--GPS antenna coax,
--marker beacon antenna coax.
Are most builders routing their rear fuselage wiring in the center elevator
push-tube channel? If so, should one use corrugated plastic conduit or
simply bundles and snap bushings?
Any suggestions/photos would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Wade Roe
RV-7 in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: JFK Jr and all |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Sometimes even a flame war can enlighten someone.
If someone learned something useful about flying from the
NTSB report I posted, then I am satisfied I did some good.
It might even be more useful than the 300th request for Bob's
blessing a particular brand of nut or wire ;-)
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292530#292530
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connector options for easy wing removal |
Wade,
First of all, once you understand and experience installing your wings ONCE,
you will understand that they will never come off again...
Second, adding connectors is to be avoided, period. There is no reason to
cut a perfectly good wire, or 10.
Third, many, many builders, including myself, have routed the wiring after
the wings were installed allowing for a clean installation with no chance
for static or shorts. I personally installed the wiring in the wings
leaving about 15' of wire at the wing roots. After installing the wings I
routed each wire through the fuse to where it terminated. Took me about 2
hours to connect both wing wiring.
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Connector options for easy wing removal
>
> Hello all,
>
> I would like to utilize some type connector/plug inside the fuselage at
> the
> wing root locations for all of the electric goodies in the wings. This
> would allow me to complete all wiring in the fuselage and would also
> facilitate wing removal and install later. Below is my list of equipment
> and other found in the wings:
>
> --strobe/position lights
> --landing/taxi lights
> --aileron AP servo
> --heated pitot
> --NAV antenna coax
> --AFS AOA tubing
>
> Any suggestions on the best way to handle the above would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Wade Roe
> RV-7 in progress
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Connector options for easy wing removal |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Wade
"I would like to utilize some type connector/plug inside
the fuselage at the wing root
Any suggestions on the best way
to handle the above would be appreciated."
I made a custom
pneumatic and electrical connector. Pneumatic is a mutilated Winter
connector (gliders), I purchased from Cumulous soaring, and the electrical
is my favorite connectorsI use for electric models, either Anderson
power pole or Sermos connectors, www.mcmaster sells them underI think
modular connectors. Here are some more details whatI am using on my
Europa monowheel:
http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=31838
I am using a very thin bungee also purchased from www.mcmaster.com to teather the
connector whereI want it. There are a few styles of contacts for the
same housing. For the pitot heat, even though contact is rated for
more than enough current, you need to make sure that contacts are clean
and have enough tension to get that rating, with models that draw over 20
ampsI always parallel a set of contacts and have never had a problem
(if i get a bad connection besides motor quitting i lose control) if it
were I plumbing pitot heat i would parallel two contacts for each
connection.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Routing Fuselage Wiring (RV-7) |
Wade,
Go to the Aviation Trailer department of Northern Tool, Harbor Freight, Tractor
Supply, etc. and check out he weatherproof connectors for trailer lighting.
They are polarized in a manor to prevent improper connection. They are sturdy.
They come in a number of sizes with different wire counts. Color coded wires.
Heavy wire. And they work great. Check them out. I use them for the wing
electrical connections in my Europa which has removable wings.
As for the tail wiring, I really can't help there as you are dealing with a metal
aircraft and my Europa is composite. Hopefully another RVer will come up with
a suitable solution.
Check six,
Bob Borger
On Wednesday, March 31, 2010, at 11:03AM, "Wade Roe" wrote:
>
>I need suggestions as to the best location and method to route the wiring
>from the rear fuselage up to the panel/subpanel area in my RV-7 project. I
>have the following equipment wiring that needs to be handled:
>
> --AFS magnetometer wires,
> --AP Pitch Servo,
> --ELT panel switch,
> --strobe power supply leads,
> --electric elevator trim,
> --GPS antenna coax,
> --marker beacon antenna coax.
>
>Are most builders routing their rear fuselage wiring in the center elevator
>push-tube channel? If so, should one use corrugated plastic conduit or
>simply bundles and snap bushings?
>
>Any suggestions/photos would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Wade Roe
>RV-7 in progress
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for Schumacher 1562A |
At 20:58 3/27/2010, you wrote:
>I noticed that the picture on the walmart site linked below shows
>the "new" style without the 6v-12v switch. Did anyone ever resolve
>whether the problem that started this discussion was an isolated
>anomaly or a universal feature of the new version of the charger?
From SlickDeals.net today...
<http://slickdeals.net//?nojs=1>Schumacher SEM-1562A 1.5 Amp Speed
Charge Maintainer And Battery Charger $16
<http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1949332>
comment
<http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1949332>Comments (42)
| <http://slickdeals.net/forums/sendmessage.php?do=sendtofriend&t=1949332>
comment
<http://slickdeals.net/forums/sendmessage.php?do=sendtofriend&t=1949332>Share
This |
<http://slickdeals.net//permadeal/32434/schumacher-sem-1562a-1.5-amp-speed-charge-maintainer-and-battery-charger-16>
comment
<http://slickdeals.net//permadeal/32434/schumacher-sem-1562a-1.5-amp-speed-charge-maintainer-and-battery-charger-16>Permalink
comment
<http://slickdeals.net//?pno=32434&lno=1&afsrc=1>
[]
Walmart has the Schumacher SEM-1562A 1.5 Amp Speed Charge Maintainer
and Battery Charger for $15.54. Free site-to-store shipping,
otherwise it's $1.97 to ship to home. Thanks beetz12
Note, if the above Walmart link takes you to the home page, search
for item # 13005742
Amazon also carries it for this price, but are currently out of
stock. Free shipping with Amazon Prime or if you spend $25 or more.
Use Slick Fillers to find other eligible items to help reach $25.
Next lowest on Google Products from a reputable store besides the
above 2 store is $33 shipped.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Routing Fuselage Wiring (RV-7) |
I ran two conduits before floor was fastened down. Wish I had run 4. Of
course I am all electric with batteries in tail because of Subaru on the
firewall. I put transponder antenna and couple of wires to auto pitch trim
"controller" down center channel. Not a whole lot of room there.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/6d2l3cSHrqN-7gWAtQc7bg?authkey=Gv1sRgCI
Ds8NT6v7LYwgE&feat=directlink
Allen Fulmer
RV7 finish wiring FWF
N808AF reserved
Alexander City, AL
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wade Roe
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:04 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Routing Fuselage Wiring (RV-7)
I need suggestions as to the best location and method to route the wiring
from the rear fuselage up to the panel/subpanel area in my RV-7 project. I
have the following equipment wiring that needs to be handled:
--AFS magnetometer wires,
--AP Pitch Servo,
--ELT panel switch,
--strobe power supply leads,
--electric elevator trim,
--GPS antenna coax,
--marker beacon antenna coax.
Are most builders routing their rear fuselage wiring in the center elevator
push-tube channel? If so, should one use corrugated plastic conduit or
simply bundles and snap bushings?
Any suggestions/photos would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Wade Roe
RV-7 in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Roe" <wroe1(at)dbtech.net> |
| Subject: | Routing Fuselage Wiring (RV-7) continued |
Can I run the magnetometer wires with the AP servo and strobe power supply
leads w/o causing any issues?
I need suggestions as to the best location and method to route the wiring
from the rear fuselage up to the panel/subpanel area in my RV-7 project. I
have the following equipment wiring that needs to be handled:
--AFS magnetometer wires,
--AP Pitch Servo,
--ELT panel switch,
--strobe power supply leads,
--electric elevator trim,
--GPS antenna coax,
--marker beacon antenna coax.
Are most builders routing their rear fuselage wiring in the center elevator
push-tube channel? If so, should one use corrugated plastic conduit or
simply bundles and snap bushings?
Any suggestions/photos would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Wade Roe
RV-7 in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 08:28 AM 3/31/2010, you wrote:
>Agree. These guys are like govt. bureaucrats, trying to tell
>everybody what to do.
>
>Delete, delete, delete
Gently, gently my friends. There CAN be value in the study
of any airplane accident. Folks who have spent much time here
on the list will recall a number of what I like to call
dark-n-stormy night stories. We analyzed most narratives
in detail searching for meaningful data.
A thread runs through virtually every story we've
considered. It goes to fundamental human weaknesses
that set boundaries on the capabilities of our machines,
our skill-sets and levels of risk for accepting a
task that may prove too demanding.
A very good friend of mine and cabin full of passengers
did not survive their bad-day-in-the-cockpit. I found
value in understanding this non-electrical event.
The narrative is published on my website.
The critical study of cause and effect has nothing to
do with any perceptions we might have about the
cultural status of participants or victims. Fortunately
most narratives we've studied are from the surviving
pilot who tells us, "Gee, I'm sure not going to
THAT again!" Authors of these stories have already
been targets of harsh, self-judgement. On occasion,
there's no first-hand narrative and we're left with
sifting through the observable bits and pieces left over.
I'll suggest there's value in pondering the possible
causes and effects for loss of what must have been a
well fitted Piper Malibu in relatively non-violent
weather common to the area where the accident occurred.
The outcome was worse than anyone would wish for whether
persons involved were celebrities or ordinary Joe Propwash
pilot and his beer drinking buddies. If this event had
happily ended in a "Never Again" story, would it's value be
altered by knowing the cultural status of the author?
This isn't about judging folks who suffered the consequences
of frail machines and/or bodies. It's about YOU and ME
reducing risk for sharing their experiences.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Threaded fastener security |
FWIW, one application where the recommended locking mechanism is a
locknut is on the rocker arm studs on WW conversion Corvair motors. I am
not aware of any failures in this application.
Just another data point for consideration.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> At 07:22 AM 3/31/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> B: The laws of physics including a study of basic machines,
>> coefficients of friction and sliding forces tending to move down an
>> inclined plane will show that no threaded fastener torqued to design
>> values will rotate on its mate unless for some reason tension on the
>> bolt is relaxed or strong but transient forces vibrations) tend to
>> overcome the breaking coefficient of friction in the threads is overcome.
>>
>> J: I agree. The only advantage of using a jam nut that I see is that
>> if the load on the bolt is relaxed, the two nuts will still be tight
>> against each other.
>
> Right. As Paul mentioned yesterday:
>
> P: You are correct. The application of a jam nut for locking is only
> applicable when one cannot wrench on the other end of the bolt. And
> never in a critical application. An example that comes to mind is a big
> relay where the bolt is molded into the plastic.
>
> The jam nut makes sense when installed tension on the bolt
> is intended by design to be much less than the strength of
> the bolt. In this case the role of the threaded fastener
> is more like that of a rivet. Very good in sheer, and moderately
> useful in tension. The two nuts become something of a
> "second head" of the same bolt.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Routing Fuselage Wiring (RV-7) continued |
At 03:17 PM 3/31/2010, you wrote:
>
>Can I run the magnetometer wires with the AP servo and strobe power supply
>leads w/o causing any issues?
yes, assuming the folks who designed the system
using a magnetometer knows their business.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Timing question for brushed motor |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
I have a long can speed 400 electric motorwith a folding
propellorthat is being used to aid cooling in the radiator duct of
my 914 Rotax powered Europa.Maximum about 70 watts in forward
direction and 35 watts in reverse (to hinder cooling). It is a brushed
motor controlled by a pulse width modulatedspeed controller.
It
will most likely see forward direction 75% of the time when used.
ThinkI could get away with5 degree advance (forward) and not
kill brushes and armature too quickly when running in reverse (5 degrees
retarded)?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timing question for brushed motor |
At 09:36 PM 3/31/2010, you wrote:
>I have a long can speed 400 electric motor with a folding propellor
>that is being used to aid cooling in the radiator duct of my 914
>Rotax powered Europa. Maximum about 70 watts in forward direction
>and 35 watts in reverse (to hinder cooling). It is a brushed motor
>controlled by a pulse width modulated speed controller.
>It will most likely see forward direction 75% of the time when used.
>Think I could get away with 5 degree advance (forward) and not kill
>brushes and armature too quickly when running in reverse (5 degrees retarded)?
Are you certain that the brush clocking has been
optimized for one direction over another? As I recall
my days at Electro-Mech, I don't think that brush
clocking was much of an issue for motors below a half
h.p. or so . . . I think brush life in small motors
has more to do with simple wear out-as opposed to
electrical efficiency. This is because they tend to
run small motors very fast to improve on h.p. to
weight ratio.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Timing question for brushed motor |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Bob
Thx. for the reply.
"Are you certain that the
brush clocking has been optimized for one direction over another?"
Timing on a brushed motor is every bit as important as timing on a
internal combustion engine. A small displacement high performance 2
stroke, even though it has a small displacement is making a lot of HP for
its size and timing is critical. Same goes for small high RPM electric
motors. There is an ideal timing settingdepending on what you are
looking for. Best efficency will net less heat build up and longer life
with less arcing, but does not make best amount of power. Often with
electric models motors are pushed to get best power to weight.A
neutral timed motor, meaning that current draw unloaded with not so much
voltage as to over speed is the same forward as reverse direction will
yield a motor that works equally bad in both directions. That said it
works OK but makes not best HP at high RPM. Advancing does good things for
RPM and HP with just a tad more current draw. Now for retarded timing, it
is bad all around. It draws more current, arcs and spits and does not make
much HP or RPMs. I never fooled with measuring or failing motors at
reduced power settings and only 5 degrees retarded. A motor like this I
may push in a model well over 125 watts for short times, and
advancing will bring out more power. depending on motor, prop and duration
and voltage and I may go as high as 15 plus degrees advanced.
I
do want a pitch speed of 80MPH plus so in a climb can keep things cooler
and that has the motor cranking some RPMs. Keeping watts to 75 max and
probably only using that sparingly with lesser throttle most of the time,
I am hoping for a reasonable motor life, this would be with motor going in
the forward direction. After soaringandstarting motor in air,
or starting a cold motor, by reversing direction of motor it will
constipate air in radiator duct and quicken warm up. In additionI
think reverse can be used in flight to decrease some cooling drag and keep
temps whereI want them, kinda like a cowl flap.I was hoping
someone had a better feel thanI for running a motorwith
5 degrees retarded timing for long periods.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Connector options for easy wing removal |
HI Wade-
My plan for wing wiring connectors to facilitate wing removal is to lay the
groundwork for the connectors without actually installing them. This
includes running all the wires through an accessible area near the root,
putting a service loop in the bundle, and labelling all the wires twice
with the labels about a foot apart. This way there will be no electrical
or mx issues with the connectors. Should I ever have to remove the wings,
I can just cut the wire bundle between the two bunches of labels and
install a connector prior to reinstallation of the wings. Likewise the
pitot line.
FWIW-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE:Routing Fuselage Wiring (RV-7) |
Hi Wade-
I'm building an -8 and am not intimate with the details of a -7, but I
would suggest that although the odds of a properly secured wiring bundle
somehow fouling the elevator controls might be small, they are zero if they
are routed elsewhere. What I have done is to install corrugated conduit
under the floorboards (and elsewhere). I have left a length of sturdy
string in each conduit that is something over twice the length of the
conduit, and the string has a toggle at each end made of dowel that is long
enough to keep the end of the string from disappearing into the conduit. I
use the string as a fish tape, and once I am sure I won't be adding more
wires to the bundle, I can remove the string. I suspect I'll leave it in
there permanently, though, as much for 'polar bear repellant' as anything
else.
Getting the string into the conduit is easy. Put an inch and a half or two
inches of dowel on the end of the string and use a blow gun. Just be sure
to hang on to the loose end of the string, as this technique works waaaayy
better than I'd ever have expected... ;-)
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timing question for brushed motor |
At 01:06 AM 4/1/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>Thx. for the reply.
>"Are you certain that the brush clocking has been optimized for one
>direction over another?"
>Timing on a brushed motor is every bit as important as timing on a
>internal combustion engine. A small displacement high performance 2
>stroke, even though it has a small displacement is making a lot of
>HP for its size and timing is critical.
But was your motor received from the factory
optimized for one direction? And if so, at what
load? When we build PM motors as catalog items,
it is assumed that an end user may run it either
direction. Hence the brush clocking is centered
on the net field for zero-torque.
> Same goes for small high RPM electric motors. There is an ideal
> timing setting depending on what you are looking for. Best
> efficency will net less heat build up and longer life with less
> arcing, but does not make best amount of power. Often with electric
> models motors are pushed to get best power to weight. A neutral
> timed motor, meaning that current draw unloaded with not so much
> voltage as to over speed is the same forward as reverse direction
> will yield a motor that works equally bad in both directions.
The reason for seeking an optimized brush
position is because the magnetic flux generated
in armature reacts with the fixed field flux
and distorts or "twists" the net field for
ideal commutation. This distortion is a function
of ampere-turns of flux generating power
at the operating point of interest. Change
the torque setting and the optimum point shifts.
This is why large motors have compensating
field windings in series with the brushes
that tend to stabilize the rotation of net
flux as the armature current increases.
But since compensating windings are physically
offset in fixed rotation from the main
field windings, compensation can be accomplished
only for one direction. Our 3 hp air conditioner
motors were fitted with compensation windings
as were our 10 hp hydraulic pump motors.
> That said it works OK but makes not best HP at high RPM. Advancing
> does good things for RPM and HP with just a tad more current draw.
> Now for retarded timing, it is bad all around. It draws more
> current, arcs and spits and does not make much HP or RPMs. I never
> fooled with measuring or failing motors at reduced power settings
> and only 5 degrees retarded. A motor like this I may push in a
> model well over 125 watts for short times, and advancing will
> bring out more power. depending on motor, prop and duration and
> voltage and I may go as high as 15 plus degrees advanced.
I'm not sure the motors you've been working with
were optimized so much for efficiency as for
hp/weight ratio. There's a bucket full of trade-offs
when designing motors. When optimizing costs
and gross performance in small motors for models
I suspect other features like commutation
efficiency suffers . . .
To determine if your cooling fan application
would benefit from fine tuning of brush position
would take some bench study on a dynamometer
and precision instrumentation.
You would want to get torque and rpm targets
for the two modes of operation . . . but since
you're PWM controlling for speed, you may
have operating points scattered all over the
place.
The short answer to you original question
is, "Yes, there are things you can do to research
and perhaps optimize performance of the motor
at some point in constellation of operating
points. But without the benefit of dynamic
compensation, you'll have to select the one
place where all is "right with the world"
and let the rest of the conditions fall where
they may.
This could very well turn into a pretty detailed
science project. What's the design goal and what's
the expected benefit for achieving it. And how do
you gage the return on investment for doing the
science?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
My setup is based on Z13/8 and I've got an SD-8 which is wired per the
diagram back to the battery side of the contactor. That post has limited
threads available for the 2 thread safety margin I require. I would like
to determine if the SD8 output can be re-positioned.
Is there any issue with connecting the output from the SD8 to the
battery buss post instead of running it back to the battery side of the
solenoid which is exactly where the battery buss is coming from? Per the
diagram the output passes through a 10 amp shunt.
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Successful supersonic general aviation - LSA |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
I guess this qualifies as an LSA. Great job by my friend Jeff.
http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/fastluscombe.html>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: JFK Jr and all |
Because of this era of PC you might hurt someone's feelings and infringe on
their 1st amendment rights
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In a message dated 4/1/2010 11:42:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com writes:
What is wrong with having the manners to take non forum discussions off
list or to another more appropriate group, or better yet, communicate
directly with your adversary and leave the aeroelectric forum for it's intended
purpose?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>What is wrong with having the manners to take non forum discussions
>off list or to another more appropriate group, or better yet,
>communicate directly with your adversary and leave the aeroelectric
>forum for it's intended purpose?
The intended purpose of this List is to share enlightenment
on minimizing risk and cost of ownership for the pleasure
of climbing into an airplane with an intention of going
faster than mere ground-bound mortals while grinning ear-to-ear.
Risk is reduced by failure tolerant design and understanding.
BOTH are work products of study and good critical thinking.
Since the ultimate failure of our best intentions bends
metal and breaks people, I'll suggest that studious analysis
of cause and effect of any accident is an exercise in
critical thinking. I will continue participate in
this activity and encourage all interested members to
join in.
But folks intent upon making the discussion about personalities,
cultural status, or trading insults are invited to take
the activity elsewhere.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Sink Point |
At 10:05 AM 4/1/2010, you wrote:
>
>My setup is based on Z13/8 and I've got an SD-8 which is wired per the
>diagram back to the battery side of the contactor. That post has limited
>threads available for the 2 thread safety margin I require. I would like
>to determine if the SD8 output can be re-positioned.
>
>Is there any issue with connecting the output from the SD8 to the
>battery buss post instead of running it back to the battery side of the
>solenoid which is exactly where the battery buss is coming from? Per the
>diagram the output passes through a 10 amp shunt.
Certainly wires can be moved around in terms of which
ends connect to where . . . as long as the pathways
of copper are still contiguous.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny <dan42101(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jhp 520 PTT cable |
Thanks,
I borrowed a David Clark c 10-15 PTT switch.- I moved the wires in the on
e jack I could get open every way I could think of.- No help.
-
I wonder if I could cut the wire to the internal mike on the radio, and jus
t use it with the headset only and no remote PTT.
- DjD
--- On Sun, 3/28/10, rampil wrote:
From: rampil <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Jhp 520 PTT cable
Date: Sunday, March 28, 2010, 6:05 PM
As it happens, Japan Radio Corp sold this product to Rexon Tech.
It is now known as the RHP-520. You can find the users manual on the
web and download it as I did.
In a brief scan, I saw nothing about the PTT jack or any detail about
headset operation.- The headset adapter cable I have does not split out
a ptt jack
The RHP nee RHP- is a great little radio IMHO!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292139#292139
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Successful supersonic general aviation - LSA |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Not likely, but a GREAT tale !!
Jay Bannister
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jhp 520 PTT cable |
At 02:08 PM 4/1/2010, you wrote:
>Thanks,
>I borrowed a David Clark c 10-15 PTT switch. I moved the wires in
>the one jack I could get open every way I could think of. No help.
>
>I wonder if I could cut the wire to the internal mike on the radio,
>and just use it with the headset only and no remote PTT.
I'm not sure the JHP-500 series radios will accept
external PTT. My cord only carries mic audio from
the headset to the radio. I use the hand-held's
built in PTT to transmit. If one can track down
a service manual with a schematic of the radio,
we could easily figure out what it takes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a question
regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most of
the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on the
inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the mounting
brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard? Sketches
or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
instruments are pretty standard.
Thanks for your input,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fusible links vs fuses |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Gents,
I've just about finished the wiring on my plane (a Jodel D150), but
I've lost sight of why I should have a fusible link between the master
switch and the main bus. My electrical system is based on Z-11.
Now, given that the other side of the master switch has the 5A alt.
field breaker on, I can deduce that this fusible link is to protect
the other part of the wiring. So, perhaps it's because it's a longish
run of cable to the master switch. However, even if that's the case,
would a 5A fuse suffice, when presumably that's the maximum current
that can flow along that cable?
I've been ploughing through the Aeroelectric Connection again, to
brush up, and I've read the bits about fusible links. If it's a case
of never-going-to-happen worst-case-scenario short protection, then I
guess it makes sense... but would a fuse do instead?
I'm playing catch up, as I've not worked on the plane for a couple of
years, so please forgive this dumb question (and my subsequent
ones!)...
Thanks in anticipation,
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
I used screws and nuts.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
& JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
question
regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
of
the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
the
inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
mounting
brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
Sketches
or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
instruments are pretty standard.
Thanks for your input,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
James,
The fuseable link is to protect the wire between the bus and the breaker. The
breaker is there as part of the overvoltage protection circuit. If you get an
overvoltage event, you want the resetable breaker to trip, not the proposed fuse
to blow, hence the sturdier fuseable link.
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292811#292811
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jhp 520 PTT cable |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)GMAIL.COM> |
Hi Bob,
If you do run across a copy of the JHP/RHP service manual, I'd
be interested in having a copy even though I am not much of an SMT
jock.
I am not sure what Dan (DjD) is trying to do with cutting an
internal mike wire, but the internal mike is out of circuit when external
mike is plugged in as is standard. Just the PTT function stays in the box
Thanks,
Ira
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292815#292815
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio mounting |
On 4/2/2010 11:43 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "ROGER& JEAN CURTIS"
>
> I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a question
> regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
>
> Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most of
> the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on the
> inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the mounting
> brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard? Sketches
> or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
>
> The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
> instruments are pretty standard.
>
> Thanks for your input,
>
> Roger
>
>
>
Radio Rax looks like a beautiful system but it is way over priced in my
opinion. I have looked for a small aluminum extrusion in a "T" slot
arraignment that would work but no luck. I'll just make angle brackets
like everyone else I guess and carefully drill the holes. I don't
believe there is a standard dimension for the tray holes.
Tim Andres
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio mounting |
At 01:43 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a question
>regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
>
>Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most of
>the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on the
>inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the mounting
>brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard? Sketches
>or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
>
>The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
>instruments are pretty standard.
WAaaayyyy back when, I used to write and illustrate field
installation kits for all the factory offered avionics at
Cessna. Except for the autopilot control heads, the radio
mounting rails in the Cessnas were 6-3/8" inches apart.
The Lear LTRA6 (1958), King KY-90 and Narco VT-1 I have on the
shelf will fit those widths. Don't know who picked that
number but thankfully, everyone adopted it. I note that the
Icom IC-A210 tray is listed at 6-5/16" so it appears that
the "standard" still holds.
I don't recall the factory rails being pre-drilled for mounting
holes. The rails had forward facing webs that would
accept a clip-nut. It was pretty much a drill-to-match
for what ever accessory you were installing. I think all
our 300 and 500 series radios had the same face height
within the series but if you're mixing/matching radios,
the heights will be all over the place.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
I have a friend who bought a Garmin GPS, come to find out it ended up
being a little wider than the normal stack size. Surprise, surprise
as they say. On his RV it is major surgery to increase the width of
the stack so he has a nice GPS in his closet.
jerb
At 01:46 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>
>I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
>width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
>material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
>about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
>fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
>your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
>The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
>I used screws and nuts.
>
>Bruce
>www.Glasair.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
>& JEAN CURTIS
>Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
>
>
>
>I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
>question
>regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
>
>Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
>of
>the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
>the
>inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
>mounting
>brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
>Sketches
>or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
>
>The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
>instruments are pretty standard.
>
>Thanks for your input,
>
>Roger
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio mounting |
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Unfortunately the classic 6.25 width has changed considerably over the
years.
Even worse than that, it varies even among boxes from the same
manufacturer. The Garmin 430W and 530W list the width of the rack for a "six and
a
quarter" unit as 6.320 inches in their very detailed installation manual.
I used RadioRax mounting rails for my last couple of installations. The
RadioRax company strongly recommends that the support units be placed
precisely 6.300 inches apart. I did it just that way last year using the very
nice
RadioRax spacer unit, but the 430W would not fit. I had to remove the
RadioRax rails and mill off another twenty thousands of an inch to get the rack
installed correctly. I recently redid a Bonanza panel and used RadioRax
rails to support the radios. Before I made the installation, I carefully
measured the sleeves for the equipment being installed. The brand new 430W I
installed actually measured 6.332 inches so that is how far apart I placed
the rails. The new 327 transponder which is also made by Garmin measured at
least thirty thousandth less and a very old King KX 155 which was to be
reinstalled measured wider than the new 430W.
If you make a good strong and rigid support rail at only a 6.250 width,
many modern and ancient radios will not fit.
I highly recommend the use of RadioRax rails , but do add an appropriate
shim to the installation tool when installing the rails.
6.250 will NOT be wide enough for many common radio sleeves.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Brookeridge Air Park
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 4/2/2010 3:48:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
bgray(at)glasair.org writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
I used screws and nuts.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
& JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
question
regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
of
the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
the
inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
mounting
brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
Sketches
or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
instruments are pretty standard.
Thanks for your input,
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
>I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a question
>regarding radio mounting.
Thanks for your responses, guys, It is as I thought, but I
figured I would see if anyone had any "magic" to make the job go easier and
neater.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
| From: | "N38CW" <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net> |
rckol wrote:
> James,
>
> The fuseable link is to protect the wire between the bus and the breaker. The
breaker is there as part of the overvoltage protection circuit. If you get
an overvoltage event, you want the resetable breaker to trip, not the proposed
fuse to blow, hence the sturdier fuseable link.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you mean overcurrent instead of overvoltage?
--------
Bill Settle
RV-8 Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292838#292838
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
OK, I had all my radios in their respective racks stacked on to of each
other to get the final measurements before I cut the hole for my stack.
I taped all the racks together so that the radio bezels were even. Most
of the racks required a different setback to even the face of the
radios. I then just mounted the taped racks, slid the radios in, every
thing matched. The Garmin racks have dimples on the bottom to give
proper spacing between radios.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Unfortunately the classic 6.25 width has changed considerably over the
years.
Even worse than that, it varies even among boxes from the same
manufacturer. The Garmin 430W and 530W list the width of the rack for a
"six and a quarter" unit as 6.320 inches in their very detailed
installation manual.
I used RadioRax mounting rails for my last couple of installations. The
RadioRax company strongly recommends that the support units be placed
precisely 6.300 inches apart. I did it just that way last year using the
very nice RadioRax spacer unit, but the 430W would not fit. I had to
remove the RadioRax rails and mill off another twenty thousands of an
inch to get the rack installed correctly. I recently redid a Bonanza
panel and used RadioRax rails to support the radios. Before I made the
installation, I carefully measured the sleeves for the equipment being
installed. The brand new 430W I installed actually measured 6.332 inches
so that is how far apart I placed the rails. The new 327 transponder
which is also made by Garmin measured at least thirty thousandth less
and a very old King KX 155 which was to be reinstalled measured wider
than the new 430W.
If you make a good strong and rigid support rail at only a 6.250 width,
many modern and ancient radios will not fit.
I highly recommend the use of RadioRax rails , but do add an appropriate
shim to the installation tool when installing the rails.
6.250 will NOT be wide enough for many common radio sleeves.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Brookeridge Air Park
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 4/2/2010 3:48:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
bgray(at)glasair.org writes:
I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
I used screws and nuts.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
& JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
question
regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
of
the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
the
inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
mounting
brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
Sketches
or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
instruments are pretty standard.
Thanks for your ================================================= Use
utilities Day ===============================================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ===============================================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
==================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
James,
The 5 amp breaker in the line controlling the regulator is for overvoltage protection,
assuming you are using a B&C or PlanePower regulator for an externally
regulated alternator or are using a PlanePower internally regulated alternator
with built in OV protection (or an OVM-14 module).
Your overcurrent protection would be in the form of a big breaker or fuse (40+
amps) on the B lead (output) of the alternator.
Regards
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292852#292852
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
As a follow up: the 5 amp breaker protects against overvoltage as part of the crowbar
circuit. If overvoltage is detected by the regulator, the breaker is shorted
to ground, trips and interrupts the regulator control circuit.
So the breaker is tripping due too much current running through it, but for the
purpose of interrupting an overvoltage event.
This all assumes you have implemented this type of protection in your system.
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292854#292854
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
At 10:14 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>
>James,
>
>The 5 amp breaker in the line controlling the regulator is for
>overvoltage protection, assuming you are using a B&C or PlanePower
>regulator for an externally regulated alternator or are using a
>PlanePower internally regulated alternator with built in OV
>protection (or an OVM-14 module).
>
>Your overcurrent protection would be in the form of a big breaker or
>fuse (40+ amps) on the B lead (output) of the alternator.
Very close except that alternators don't require over-current
protection like their older cousins, the generator.
Alternators are magnetically limited in their ability
to deliver current . . . so as the load on an alternator
goes up, there comes a time about 10-20% over nameplate
rating where the critter wont deliver any more and the
output sags.
Maximum output from the alternator happens when the
machine is cold. On rare occasions (cold morning,
jump start dead battery, battery is relatively
new and will accept lots of recharge current)
one can get a nuisance trip of the 60A breaker
in an airplane fitted with a 60A alternator.
This is because total ship's electrical loads
plus battery recharge current will be what ever
the alternator will deliver . . . which may be
greater than the 60A breaker rating on the
panel.
This happened to me once . . . the second of
only two times I've had a breaker open in flight.
This is why we select b-lead protection well above the
name-plate rating for the alternator so that the
breaker doesn't nuisance trip. It's also why I
call the 60A breaker on most Cessnas and Pipers
the "breaker designed to nuisance trip".
In any case, the b-lead breaker is to protect
the rest of the system if you get shorted diodes
in the alternator (very rare). The fusible link
in most cares serves the same purpose.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio mounting |
At 05:51 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon Bruce,
>
>Unfortunately the classic 6.25 width has changed considerably over the years.
>
>Even worse than that, it varies even among boxes from the same
>manufacturer. The Garmin 430W and 530W list the width of the rack
>for a "six and a quarter" unit as 6.320 inches in their very
>detailed installation manual.
>
>I used RadioRax mounting rails for my last couple of installations.
>The RadioRax company strongly recommends that the support units be
>placed precisely 6.300 inches apart. I did it just that way last
>year using the very nice RadioRax spacer unit, but the 430W would
>not fit. I had to remove the RadioRax rails and mill off another
>twenty thousands of an inch to get the rack installed correctly. I
>recently redid a Bonanza panel and used RadioRax rails to support
>the radios. Before I made the installation, I carefully measured the
>sleeves for the equipment being installed. The brand new 430W I
>installed actually measured 6.332 inches so that is how far apart I
>placed the rails. The new 327 transponder which is also made by
>Garmin measured at least thirty thousandth less and a very old King
>KX 155 which was to be reinstalled measured wider than the new 430W.
>
>If you make a good strong and rigid support rail at only a 6.250
>width, many modern and ancient radios will not fit.
>
>I highly recommend the use of RadioRax rails , but do add an
>appropriate shim to the installation tool when installing the rails.
>
>6.250 will NOT be wide enough for many common radio sleeves.
Not sure it ever was. 6-5/16 is the legacy radio
width with probably plus or minus 1/32 (typical
aircraft sheet metal tolerances). The trays
are sheet metal and will tolerate being pulled
to the mounting rails by the attach hardware.
I just checked the Garmin manuals I have an
they all called out 6.32" outside dimension
on the tray and 6.25 for the chassis width
that slips into the tray.
I think folks will find that anyone who's been
the aircraft radio business very long has
discovered that their retrofit market will
greatest when they can mount in legacy openings
which were 6.38" wide for as far back as I can
recall.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio mounting |
I was under the impression the 6.25" width was a standard for general
aviation small plane avionics.
What has happened here, by what I read here you now have to start
cutting up instrument panels to install new product. Bad deal - if
we buy it, we are endorsing it. Maybe making builders more aware
might influence what happening in selection of products. If their
going to increase the mounting width requirement, it should be across
the board, everyone do the same. Can you visualize the hatchet and
butcher jobs being done on the existing GA aircraft fleet to
accommodate these companies product just because they do not want to
conform. Well I guess the way things are going it will not matter in
the next couple years.
jerb
At 03:51 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon Bruce,
>
>Unfortunately the classic 6.25 width has changed considerably over the years.
>
>Even worse than that, it varies even among boxes from the same
>manufacturer. The Garmin 430W and 530W list the width of the rack
>for a "six and a quarter" unit as 6.320 inches in their very
>detailed installation manual.
>
>I used RadioRax mounting rails for my last couple of installations.
>The RadioRax company strongly recommends that the support units be
>placed precisely 6.300 inches apart. I did it just that way last
>year using the very nice RadioRax spacer unit, but the 430W would
>not fit. I had to remove the RadioRax rails and mill off another
>twenty thousands of an inch to get the rack installed correctly. I
>recently redid a Bonanza panel and used RadioRax rails to support
>the radios. Before I made the installation, I carefully measured the
>sleeves for the equipment being installed. The brand new 430W I
>installed actually measured 6.332 inches so that is how far apart I
>placed the rails. The new 327 transponder which is also made by
>Garmin measured at least thirty thousandth less and a very old King
>KX 155 which was to be reinstalled measured wider than the new 430W.
>
>If you make a good strong and rigid support rail at only a 6.250
>width, many modern and ancient radios will not fit.
>
>I highly recommend the use of RadioRax rails , but do add an
>appropriate shim to the installation tool when installing the rails.
>
>6.250 will NOT be wide enough for many common radio sleeves.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Downers Grove, IL
>Brookeridge Air Park
>Stearman N3977A
>
>In a message dated 4/2/2010 3:48:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>bgray(at)glasair.org writes:
>
>I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
>width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
>material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
>about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
>fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
>your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
>The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
>I used screws and nuts.
>
>Bruce
>www.Glasair.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
>& JEAN CURTIS
>Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
>
>
>
>I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
>question
>regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
>
>Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
>of
>the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
>the
>inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
>mounting
>brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
>Sketches
>or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
>
>The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
>instruments are pretty standard.
>
>Thanks for your =================================================
>Use utilities Day
>================================================ -
>MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
>================================================ - List
>Contribution Web Site
>sp; ==================================================
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio mounting |
At 12:20 AM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
>I was under the impression the 6.25" width was a standard for
>general aviation small plane avionics.
>What has happened here, by what I read here you now have to start
>cutting up instrument panels to install new product. Bad deal - if
>we buy it, we are endorsing it. Maybe making builders more aware
>might influence what happening in selection of products.
I think I've identified a potential source of confusion.
Check out these excerpts from various radion installation
manuals . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Panel_Layout/
The 6.25" width seems to apply if your tray is totally
behind the panel and only the radio chassis is expected
to be a slip fit in the panel opening. However, if
your tray is flush to the front surface of the
panel, then the opening needs to be larger.
At Cessna, the trays were flush mounted between
rails with clip-nuts on the rails. So a nominally
6.31" tray + two clip nut thicknesses came to
the 6.38" dimension I recalled from my kit writing
days.
I think the radio widths are more 'standard' than
the anecdotal data points in this thread suggests.
Check the installation manuals with particular
attention to how the tray mounts.
Bottom line is that the WIDTH for aircraft radios
and their trays has been pretty standard for
many moons.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio mounting |
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
Yours is a good point that the width required is quite a bit different if
you wish to be able to extract the sleeve through the panel. If all you want
to be able to come out that way is the radio unit itself, 6.250 will hide
the mounting rack. If the units are mounted such that the rack can be
inserted and removed from the cockpit side of the panel, the hole in the panel
will need to be as wide as the support struts are apart and those edges may
be visible after the radios are installed.
I think we should define what we mean by "pretty standard". I recently did
some very careful measurements and found variances as great as sixty
thousandths of an inch. Looking in the current install manuals from Garmin for
new boxes, I see they have NOT settled on a standard that will apply to all
of their products. I have found no boxes that were narrower than 6.25 but a
lot of both old and new boxes that are well wider than 6.35. Your 6.375 is
certainly a conservative number, but it may require washers or other
spacers to prevent bending the case more than one would like to do when the
narrower offerings are installed.
The main point that I think should be made is that it is important to
measure the actual boxes being used and engineer the supports based on those
measurements. It would be a good idea to allow space for bigger boxes if a
change is ever to be made.
I have used the RadioRax system in the last three panels I have built. One
nice feature is that for certificated airplanes, no back of the rack
support of the radio is needed when they are installed in accordance with the
RadioRax STC. As I said earlier, if you make them 6.375 inches apart and fail
to add spacers, it will deform the smaller offerings. In addition, support
may be needed on the hidden end of the rack.
As Always, It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Brookeridge Air Park
Downers Grove, IL 60516
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 4/3/2010 9:40:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 12:20 AM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
>I was under the impression the 6.25" width was a standard for
>general aviation small plane avionics.
>What has happened here, by what I read here you now have to start
>cutting up instrument panels to install new product. Bad deal - if
>we buy it, we are endorsing it. Maybe making builders more aware
>might influence what happening in selection of products.
I think I've identified a potential source of confusion.
Check out these excerpts from various radion installation
manuals . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Panel_Layout/
The 6.25" width seems to apply if your tray is totally
behind the panel and only the radio chassis is expected
to be a slip fit in the panel opening. However, if
your tray is flush to the front surface of the
panel, then the opening needs to be larger.
At Cessna, the trays were flush mounted between
rails with clip-nuts on the rails. So a nominally
6.31" tray + two clip nut thicknesses came to
the 6.38" dimension I recalled from my kit writing
days.
I think the radio widths are more 'standard' than
the anecdotal data points in this thread suggests.
Check the installation manuals with particular
attention to how the tray mounts.
Bottom line is that the WIDTH for aircraft radios
and their trays has been pretty standard for
many moons.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Pix worth a thousand :-) This is a 430W tray and a SL40 Tray from Garmin.
Definitely not the same size but I think I remember the SL40 is slightly
smaller than the 430 as I had to add shims and the 430w tray was 6.25. 6.38
would have been a little better as mine is snub. Note that Garmin didn't
design the SL40 and SL30, those came with the Apollo acquisition as I
remember which probably accounts for the difference in tray sizes.
Bill S
7a just weeks away :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
-->
At 12:20 AM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
>I was under the impression the 6.25" width was a standard for general
>aviation small plane avionics.
>What has happened here, by what I read here you now have to start
>cutting up instrument panels to install new product. Bad deal - if we
>buy it, we are endorsing it. Maybe making builders more aware might
>influence what happening in selection of products.
I think I've identified a potential source of confusion.
Check out these excerpts from various radion installation
manuals . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Panel_Layout/
The 6.25" width seems to apply if your tray is totally
behind the panel and only the radio chassis is expected
to be a slip fit in the panel opening. However, if
your tray is flush to the front surface of the
panel, then the opening needs to be larger.
At Cessna, the trays were flush mounted between
rails with clip-nuts on the rails. So a nominally
6.31" tray + two clip nut thicknesses came to
the 6.38" dimension I recalled from my kit writing
days.
I think the radio widths are more 'standard' than
the anecdotal data points in this thread suggests.
Check the installation manuals with particular
attention to how the tray mounts.
Bottom line is that the WIDTH for aircraft radios
and their trays has been pretty standard for
many moons.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Thanks for that rck.
So the fusible link is just intended to be a worst-case-scenario,
probably-won't-ever-blow fuse. Makes sense as it reduces joints.
What Bob wrote about the alternator is interesting, and makes me think
of another question, which I'll post separately.
James
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:55 PM, rckol wrote:
>
> James,
>
> The fuseable link is to protect the wire between the bus and the breaker. The
breaker is there as part of the overvoltage protection circuit. If you get an
overvoltage event, you want the resetable breaker to trip, not the proposed fuse
to blow, hence the sturdier fuseable link.
>
> --------
> rck
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292811#292811
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator protection ANL-40 rating |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Bob,
Interesting what you said about the B-lead protection.
I had thought that my (planned) ANL-40 is going to protect the B-lead
wire from the battery. It's interesting to read about this
over-current scenario that could end up blowing the ANL-40 in a
"normal" situation, i.e. something designed to protect has introduced
a new failure mode.
However, I read on the B&C Specialty web site that the ANL-40 can
handle 80% more current than its rated capacity on a continuous basis.
It sounds as though this is going to stand anything extra the
alternator can put out. Is this assertion correct?
Thanks in anticipation,
James
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>
> At 10:14 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> James,
>>
>> The 5 amp breaker in the line controlling the regulator is for overvoltage
>> protection, assuming you are using a B&C or PlanePower regulator for an
>> externally regulated alternator or are using a PlanePower internally
>> regulated alternator with built in OV protection (or an OVM-14 module).
>>
>> Your overcurrent protection would be in the form of a big breaker or fuse
>> (40+ amps) on the B lead (output) of the alternator.
>
> Very close except that alternators don't require over-current
> protection like their older cousins, the generator.
>
> Alternators are magnetically limited in their ability
> to deliver current . . . so as the load on an alternator
> goes up, there comes a time about 10-20% over nameplate
> rating where the critter wont deliver any more and the
> output sags.
>
> Maximum output from the alternator happens when the
> machine is cold. On rare occasions (cold morning,
> jump start dead battery, battery is relatively
> new and will accept lots of recharge current)
> one can get a nuisance trip of the 60A breaker
> in an airplane fitted with a 60A alternator.
> This is because total ship's electrical loads
> plus battery recharge current will be what ever
> the alternator will deliver . . . which may be
> greater than the 60A breaker rating on the
> panel.
>
> This happened to me once . . . the second of
> only two times I've had a breaker open in flight.
> This is why we select b-lead protection well above the
> name-plate rating for the alternator so that the
> breaker doesn't nuisance trip. It's also why I
> call the 60A breaker on most Cessnas and Pipers
> the "breaker designed to nuisance trip".
>
> In any case, the b-lead breaker is to protect
> the rest of the system if you get shorted diodes
> in the alternator (very rare). The fusible link
> in most cares serves the same purpose.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator protection ANL-40 rating |
At 07:55 AM 4/4/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Interesting what you said about the B-lead protection.
>
>I had thought that my (planned) ANL-40 is going to protect the B-lead
>wire from the battery. It's interesting to read about this
>over-current scenario that could end up blowing the ANL-40 in a
>"normal" situation, i.e. something designed to protect has introduced
>a new failure mode.
>
>However, I read on the B&C Specialty web site that the ANL-40 can
>handle 80% more current than its rated capacity on a continuous basis.
> It sounds as though this is going to stand anything extra the
>alternator can put out. Is this assertion correct?
Correct. One COULD use a fuse or breaker in the b-lead.
They just need to be sized such that the alternator would
NEVER open the breaker even when temporarily "overloaded".
ANL limiters use the same schematic symbol as a fuse
because they ARE a very robust, one-time, melting element
protector, i.e. "fuse". But the differences in response
time for the ANL limiter and the ATC fuse are huge. Circuit
breakers fall in between.
A fundamental of power distribution system architecture
is to install over-current protection devices (1) to
prevent a wire from becoming overheated to the point
of becoming hazardous and (2) isolate the faulted branch
of the system without propagating the failure to other
branches.
This means that as you move from the load to the
source of power, the circuit protective devices must
become increasingly robust as you move toward the
source. This idea is common to all reliable, failure
tolerant power distribution systems. For example:
A fuse inside a toaster is much less robust (faster
acting) than the breaker in a home's power distribution
box. The breaker in the box is much less robust than
the protection for a transformer on the pole which
powers multiple houses. As one moves upstream toward
the power source, the relative robustness of each
protective device must be sized to allow operation
of any single protective device in the system without
tripping any protection upstream. This prevents a
short in a toaster from turning out lights in the
whole neighborhood.
A design goal for the crowbar ov protection system
is to place the responding circuit breaker in reach
of the pilot. IF your airplane is fitted with legacy
panel mounted bus-bars and acres-of-breakers, then
integration of the crowbar-ov protection system is
no big deal. If you're using remotely mounted fuse
blocks, then there's got to be a piece of wire that
runs from the bus (fuse block feed terminal) to the
circuit breaker on the panel. Legacy design practice
and common sense tells us to protect that wire with
some device that is more robust than the breaker,
hence the fusible link . . . which is a little
brother to an ANL limiter.
Compare the operating characteristics of the
ATC plastic fuse with ANL limiters . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ATC_Specs.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
and a typical miniature aircraft circuit breaker.
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Breakers/Eaton/Eaton_4200.pdf
Under mild overload (2x rating) a fuse will be expected
to operate in about 50-100 mS, the breaker in 1-2 seconds
and an ANL never.
These differences in robustness suggest their proper
position in a power distribution system where they might
be in series with each other. Getting them out of
order can produce some unhappy results in a system that
is not failure tolerant.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
At 07:31 AM 4/4/2010, you wrote:
>
>Thanks for that rck.
>
>So the fusible link is just intended to be a worst-case-scenario,
>probably-won't-ever-blow fuse.
Correct.
> Makes sense as it reduces joints.
That was the goal. Automobiles have
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fuselink/fuselink.html
There's a lot of discussion on the whys and wherefors
for fusible links in the FAQ
http://www.aeroelectric.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List/AeroElectric-List_FAQ.pdf
Do a search on "fusible" to get a good review
of their development, application and incorporation
into AEC Z-figures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Gents,
I forgot to ask when on the subject of ANL-40s, if there is a slightly
less "industrial" way of mounting an ANL-40. The holder I have for it
looks as though it's from an electricl sub-station, and weighs about
50lbs (a slight exaggeration perhaps).
Is it poor practice to mount the ANL-40 in some other way, perhaps
in-line to the B-lead close to the starter contactor?
Thanks in anticipation,
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
| From: | "rckol" <rckol(at)kaehlers.com> |
Bob,
Am I correct in thinking that in the rare "shorted alternator diode" scenario,
the alternator is providing a low resistance path to ground and the power source
that the big breaker or fuse is interrupting is in fact the battery?
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292940#292940
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Bob,
The FAQ is an awesome body of knowledge! I started reading it from
top to bottom... about 20 pages in I noticed it's 310 pages! After
that, Control-F became my friend!
I can't remember how I stumbled across your Aeroelectric Connection
book, and this list, but I'm extremely glad I did. It's funny how we
spend all this time and money building our planes, knowing every part
and rationalising every decision... until we get to the electrics...
then we just do exactly what Cessna and Piper have done forever,
because "it must be fine".
It's great to have done an electrical system the AC way: to plan
properly, to question it all in the same way, and learn about why
something is or isn't appropriate. It's also good to be able to
answer people's questions ("why don't you have breakers?" or "why
can't you change your fuses in flight?", etc) from a position of
knowing that, even if something turns out not to be perfect, at least
it was thought about in the first place.
James
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>
> At 07:31 AM 4/4/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that rck.
>>
>> So the fusible link is just intended to be a worst-case-scenario,
>> probably-won't-ever-blow fuse.
>
> Correct.
>
>> Makes sense as it reduces joints.
>
> That was the goal. Automobiles have
>
> See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fuselink/fuselink.html
>
> There's a lot of discussion on the whys and wherefors
> for fusible links in the FAQ
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List/AeroElectric-List_FAQ.pdf
>
> Do a search on "fusible" to get a good review
> of their development, application and incorporation
> into AEC Z-figures.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
>Am I correct in thinking that in the rare "shorted alternator diode"
>scenario, the alternator is providing a low resistance path to
>ground and the power source that the big breaker or fuse is
>interrupting is in fact the battery?
Absolutely. Compared to the alternator, the battery
is the single most "dangerous" in terms of energy
dumped during a fault . . . a new 35 a.h. RG battery
can source over 2000 amps when presented with a short.
So yes, the b-lead protection is not going to be
tripped by the alternator but the battery when
some (very rare) failure in the alternator presents
the short.
I've seen alternator stator leads burn before the
ANL in the b-lead burned. So it may be that most
alternators are pretty well "self limiting" in
terms of effects on the rest of the system during
and right after a fault. But without extensive
testing/analysis, I wouldn't want to bet on it.
I forgot to ask when on the subject of ANL-40s, if there is a slightly
less "industrial" way of mounting an ANL-40. The holder I have for it
looks as though it's from an electricl sub-station, and weighs about
50lbs (a slight exaggeration perhaps).
They are pretty beastly . . . consider the miniature
automotive equivalents to the ANL. Or, if you're
doing b-lead protection on a 40A alternator, how about
a 60A maxi-fuse. The ANL is not the be-all-end-all
solution to the design goal.
You can build your own holder for a mini-anl out
of phenolic, delrin or other robust insulator material.
This was discussed a few days ago here on the List.
Is it poor practice to mount the ANL-40 in some other way, perhaps
in-line to the B-lead close to the starter contactor?
The goal is to place circuit protection as close
as possible to the SOURCE of the energy likely to
open the fuse. Note in all the Z-figures (at least
I think I got it done on all of them) the wire on
the battery side of the b-lead protection is marked
with a (*). That symbol on the drawing suggests
"make this wire as short as practical".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
At 09:33 AM 4/4/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>The FAQ is an awesome body of knowledge! I started reading it from
>top to bottom... about 20 pages in I noticed it's 310 pages! After
>that, Control-F became my friend!
Yeah, a reader on the List compiled that document some
years ago . . . it needs updating and editing. But
as you've discovered, the "find function" is very useful
for sifting all the sand.
>I can't remember how I stumbled across your Aeroelectric Connection
>book, and this list, but I'm extremely glad I did. It's funny how we
>spend all this time and money building our planes, knowing every part
>and rationalising every decision... until we get to the electrics...
>then we just do exactly what Cessna and Piper have done forever,
>because "it must be fine".
And that's not wrong . . . but it does carve your airplane's
electrical system into "legacy stone". Probably 90% of all
OBAM aircraft are wired like Uncle's Walter, Duane, and
Bill have been doing it for 60+ years and it works as
advertised.
>It's great to have done an electrical system the AC way: to plan
>properly, to question it all in the same way, and learn about why
>something is or isn't appropriate. It's also good to be able to
>answer people's questions ("why don't you have breakers?" or "why
>can't you change your fuses in flight?", etc) from a position of
>knowing that, even if something turns out not to be perfect, at least
>it was thought about in the first place.
Exactly! It would not yank my chain in the least if EVERYBODY
wired their airplanes like a C-150 if I thought they understood
how all the parts worked and made their decision from
informed choice based not upon tradition or authoritative
suggestion but from understanding.
Thank you for the kind words. I'm pleased that you
find the work informative and useful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jae Chang <jc-matronics_aeroelectric(at)jline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio mounting |
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_E3nI7J8M6Iw/S51_ptBMY7I/AAAAAAAAAsI/GKgzSIQV4jk/s800/IMG_0180.JPG
I discovered this very same thing between an GTX-327, SL-30, and
GMA-240. I was surprised when the Al strips I was using to mock things
up bent wide. It turns out the transponder and audio panel are about the
same width. The SL-30 was narrower. Go figure. I ended up adding some
thin washers (AN960-6L, i think) washers as shims for the SL-30.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_E3nI7J8M6Iw/S7FQD00QWnI/AAAAAAAAA00/5M3r8fpRx3E/s800/IMG_0195.JPG
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_E3nI7J8M6Iw/S6uYQIP_1LI/AAAAAAAAAzM/4wXobq_U904/s800/IMG_0192.JPG
The above are some pictures of how I mounted my 3 items. All this is
completely new to me, so I have no idea if this is right or wrong. Also,
in my setup, to get the flush fit I wanted, the racks extend into my
panel cutout a bit. The install manuals have plenty of warnings about
making sure the connectors get seated properly.
Jae
RV-10
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
> Pix worth a thousand :-) This is a 430W tray and a SL40 Tray from Garmin.
> Definitely not the same size but I think I remember the SL40 is slightly
> smaller than the 430 as I had to add shims and the 430w tray was 6.25. 6.38
> would have been a little better as mine is snub. Note that Garmin didn't
> design the SL40 and SL30, those came with the Apollo acquisition as I
> remember which probably accounts for the difference in tray sizes.
>
> Bill S
> 7a just weeks away :-)
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | External vr runaway "B" alternator protection |
(Please don't make this into a discussion of what an idiot I am for
believing there might be such a thing as a runaway alternator, or that I should
just use a particular product and don't worry about it.)
I had ass-u-me-d that the runaway alternator problem was limited to the
internally regulated alternators, because the B (Ford) style external voltage
regulators/alternator controls would shut off the alternator field voltage
(and shut down the alternator output) if the power to the vr/acu was cut
off (either manually such as with a Cessna split master switch/pulling the
breaker on the vr/acu power wire, or through an automatic system that would
sense high voltage and shut off power to the vr/acu).
I have just read that that some of the vr/acu's are set up that the
voltage feed wire (from the split master for example) is only necessary for the
initial energization of the alternator field, and from there the field
energy is derived from the voltage (sensing) wire. Then, a diode regulates how
much voltage goes from the sensing wire to the field wire.
The issue presented is if the diode inside the vr fails, and shorts out,
there will be full voltage from the sensing wire applied to the Field, even
if all power to the vr/acu is disconnected.
Question: is the above correct, at least in some cases? is there an
issue in an external type B regulator that a failure "inside the box" can
result in a runaway alternator, and that simply pulling off power to the vr will
not de-energize the alternator? what happens if I simply pull the 60 amp B
lead breaker while the alternator is running away? should I have a
pullable breaker between the vr and the Field terminal on the alternator, that
can be manually switched off? is this the best way to assume control in the
unlikely event of a failure to short in the vr switching diode?
Thank you, Skip Simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: External vr runaway "B" alternator protection |
>I had ass-u-me-d that the runaway alternator problem was limited to
>the internally regulated alternators, because the B (Ford) style
>external voltage regulators/alternator controls would shut off the
>alternator field voltage (and shut down the alternator output) if
>the power to the vr/acu was cut off (either manually such as with a
>Cessna split master switch/pulling the breaker on the vr/acu power
>wire, or through an automatic system that would sense high voltage
>and shut off power to the vr/acu).
While there ARE certain architecture conventions for
alternator control, both internally and externally regulated
alternators have a single transistor in series with the field
that controls field excitation based on a pulse width modulated
signal from the regulators voltage regulation intelligence
whether a very sophisticated IC like . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A.pdf
or a hand-full of jelly beans like . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternators/Internal_Regulator_Circa_1980.pdf
There are a number of failure modes that will
either (1) cause the field control transistor to
be turned on hard or (2) short he the transistor
with the same result. The alternator is fully
fielded from the b-lead and voltage takes off
for the moon.
>
>I have just read that that some of the vr/acu's are set up that the
>voltage feed wire (from the split master for example) is only
>necessary for the initial energization of the alternator field, and
>from there the field energy is derived from the voltage (sensing)
>wire. Then, a diode regulates how much voltage goes from the
>sensing wire to the field wire.
If the writer of what you read has studied a credible
schematic for the purpose of conducting a failure mode
effects analysis on "some of vr/acu's" then perhaps
the statement is correct.
My problem with integrating automotive hardware into
airplanes is not what I KNOW about them but what I
DO NOT KNOW about them. Folks have suggested that
I was discouraging their use based on some personal
perceptions of un-reliability. Not so. I was only
saying that I cannot recommend them because (1)
I don't have access to the data needed for traditional
FMEA studies and (2) what I do know is that they're
difficult to integrate into legacy aircraft power
systems where (a) the pilot has positive, any time,
any conditions, ON-OFF control of the alternator
at no risk to any part of the system and (b) the
system is fitted with over-voltage protection that
is totally independent of alternator's regulator
regulator whether internal or external.
Bottom line about what you read is . . . who
knows? "Some" devices may indeed function as you've
hypothesized . . . but until we can see a detailed
schematic . . . we just don't know. It's probable
that the writer of the words you read doesn't know
either.
>
>The issue presented is if the diode inside the vr fails, and shorts
>out, there will be full voltage from the sensing wire applied to the
>Field, even if all power to the vr/acu is disconnected.
>
>Question: is the above correct, at least in some cases? is there
>an issue in an external type B regulator that a failure "inside the
>box" can result in a runaway alternator, and that simply pulling off
>power to the vr will not de-energize the alternator? what happens if
>I simply pull the 60 amp B lead breaker while the alternator is
>running away? should I have a pullable breaker between the vr and
>the Field terminal on the alternator, that can be manually switched
>off? is this the best way to assume control in the unlikely event
>of a failure to short in the vr switching diode?
Don't know what is being referred to as a
"VR switching diode". Folks who have successfully
integrated modern alternators into aircraft
have accomplished the design goals I outlined
above. Figure Z-24 in the 'Connection is another
approach for achieving those goals as well.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z24-Interim.pdf
But if anyone has data to support the assertions
March 15, 2010 - April 05, 2010
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jk