AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jo
June 07, 2010 - June 27, 2010
and radio becomes a radiator. Further, the
most efficient frequency of radiation becomes
a function of length and proximity to other
conductors in the airplane. Depending on a
host of variables, the "problem" can manifest
over a narrow range of frequencies. Finally,
it may be a strong source of potentially interfering
energy where the interference can even manifest
in the transceiver itself!
Your particular "rogue antenna" seems to have been
particularly efficient in the band where transmission
was degraded. In this case, the low level audio
stages of your modulator were probably saturated and
prevented from passing the small microphone signal
to the right places in the radio.
I can tell you that the majority of antenna feed line
problems have root cause in poorly installed or
damaged connectors. Further, EITHER connector
being damaged can produce mind-boggling behaviors
in ship's systems.
I'm pleased that you found the problem and have
shared your findings with us.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
<< remember that Steve Wittman and his wife were killed
because of not following the Poly Fiber process. >>
True, but the way Steve didn't follow the process was material. According
to the NTSB Steve treated the Poly Fiber fabric as if it were cotton. He
used dope instead of Poly Fiber glue and the fabric detached in front of his
aileron with subsequent loss of control. Simply not putting the specified
amount of UV blocker on the bottom sides should not affect the fabric's
adhesion or airflow performance, particularly if you punch test it at
regular intervals. Of course, a lawyer or insurance company might think
otherwise.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Mike,
I had originally intended to do what you suggest and just PolySpray
the top. I had the same conversation with them! They were quite
insistent about the need to PolySpray all of the aeroplane. Your
experiences directly contradict what they said, i.e. that the UV
damage will occur all over the plane and not just on top.
James
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Mike Welch wrote:
> James,
>
> In addition to the information you just shared regarding PolySpray, I
> thought I'd throw my two cents in......
>
> Back when I had my Cessna, which spent all of it's life outside, I noticed
> that the top-side of the surfaces oxidized a fair amount. The wings' upper
> surfaces, fuselage, etc, really needed those polishes and wax jobs.
> The bottom surfaces didn't!!!! They were as shiny as the day they got
> painted. A wash and asimple coat of wax to clean any smog residue and they
> were "goodto go"!
> The tops required plenty of polish and elbow grease!! I was able to
> eventually get a pretty decent shine on the top, but itwas real evident
> that it oxidizes"significantly" more than the bottom surfaces (the paint
> job was about 7 years old, the underside has ZERO oxidation).
>
> So!! With this personal experience on my own Cessna, I made the decision
> to only spray the Poly Spray silver paint on the upper surfaces of the
> airplane I'm building. The sun does NOT shine on the bottom, so I did't
> wantto waste the paint.
> I know what the Poly Fiber manual says. It wants you to spray the entire
> plane!! I talked to Dondi Miller (@ Aircraft Tech Support...a leading
> seller of the P.F. products), and she said as far as she knew, you have to
> spray the entire plane. But, since I get to make the decision on my own
> plane....I chose not to. Others opinions may differ. I'm ok with that.
>
> What this may have to do with your post is; if a guy were planning to
> install his antennas inside his Poly Fabric covered plane, he might
> seriously consider NOT spraying the Poly Spray silver coats on the bottom
> surfaces.
> The Poly Fiber manual suggests that in order to get the best UV
> protection, you need to spray the silver coatings thick enough that
> virtually zero light shines through. Plus, according to the manual, a
> certified aircraft HAS to be fully covered!!
> I can see where such a semi-solid layer of aluminum flakes could affect
> some radio waves. I chose to not do the bottom surfaces. (They got their
> share of sealer/paint, etc)
>
> Just my thoughts on the matter....
>
> Mike Welch
> Kolb MkIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Emag/pmag wiring question |
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
I am in the process of wiring my starter switch. I am planning on installing an
Emag/Pmag ignition system and was wondering if I need to jumper the starter
switch R to GND for the Emags.
TIA
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300416#300416
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
This makes me wonder, does UV energy bounce off of the ground? I got the
impression from somewhere that the fabric degrades in a matter of months
when it is exposed without protection, so it may be that a little bit of
exposure makes a big difference. Is this discussion about a fuselage made
of wood? It seems like a steel tube fuselage would cause much more RF
concern than the Poly-Spray.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:01 PM, James Kilford wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I had originally intended to do what you suggest and just PolySpray
> the top. I had the same conversation with them! They were quite
> insistent about the need to PolySpray all of the aeroplane. Your
> experiences directly contradict what they said, i.e. that the UV
> damage will occur all over the plane and not just on top.
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Mike Welch
> wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > In addition to the information you just shared regarding PolySpray, I
> > thought I'd throw my two cents in......
> >
> > Back when I had my Cessna, which spent all of it's life outside, I
> noticed
> > that the top-side of the surfaces oxidized a fair amount. The wings'
> upper
> > surfaces, fuselage, etc, really needed those polishes and wax jobs.
> > The bottom surfaces didn't!!!! They were as shiny as the day they
> got
> > painted. A wash and a simple coat of wax to clean any smog residue and
> they
> > were "good to go"!
> > The tops required plenty of polish and elbow grease!! I was able to
> > eventually get a pretty decent shine on the top, but it was real evident
> > that it oxidizes "significantly" more than the bottom surfaces (the paint
> > job was about 7 years old, the underside has ZERO oxidation).
> >
> > So!! With this personal experience on my own Cessna, I made the
> decision
> > to only spray the Poly Spray silver paint on the upper surfaces of the
> > airplane I'm building. The sun does NOT shine on the bottom, so I did't
> > want to waste the paint.
> > I know what the Poly Fiber manual says. It wants you to spray the
> entire
> > plane!! I talked to Dondi Miller (@ Aircraft Tech Support...a leading
> > seller of the P.F. products), and she said as far as she knew, you have
> to
> > spray the entire plane. But, since I get to make the decision on my own
> > plane....I chose not to. Others opinions may differ. I'm ok with that.
> >
> > What this may have to do with your post is; if a guy were planning to
> > install his antennas inside his Poly Fabric covered plane, he might
> > seriously consider NOT spraying the Poly Spray silver coats on the bottom
> > surfaces.
> > The Poly Fiber manual suggests that in order to get the best UV
> > protection, you need to spray the silver coatings thick enough that
> > virtually zero light shines through. Plus, according to the manual, a
> > certified aircraft HAS to be fully covered!!
> > I can see where such a semi-solid layer of aluminum flakes could affect
> > some radio waves. I chose to not do the bottom surfaces. (They got
> their
> > share of sealer/paint, etc)
> >
> > Just my thoughts on the matter....
> >
> > Mike Welch
> > Kolb MkIII
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
> Mike=2C
> Your experiences directly contradict what they said=2C i.e. that the UV
> damage will occur all over the plane and not just on top.
>
> James
Everyone=2C
My apologies to the aeroelectric list=2C since the topic has strayed from
the effective blockage of radio waves from Poly Spray=2C to a wing's intre
grity from sunlight blockage from P.S.
James=2C
My "experience" comes from from seeing countless thousands of things rot
in the sun and rain. An item NOT left in the sun and the rain seems to las
t a long=2C long=2C long time....compared to the same kind of item left in
the elements!
Whether it's a car=2C a board=2C a sheet of sheetrock=2C just about anyth
ing lasts longer stored inside. My fabric covered plane will NOT ever sit
openly in the sun=2C at least not as long as I own it. I've seen too many
airplanes just rot away=2C sitting on a ramp. Not mine. It will have a co
ver=2C or be in a hangar...period.
Since the primary purpose of the Poly Spray is to block the sun's rays=2C
I don't personally see much need for something to be thoroughly "protected
" that will never see direct sunlight. That's just me=2C I guess. It's li
ke getting travel insurance=2C and never going anywhere.
Simple experiment: take two pieces of fabric=2C any fabric. Set one out
side to see lots of sunshine and rain. Keep the other one indoors in a dry
place. Let them sit there for a few years=2C say 4-5. That ought to do
it. Look at the outside one. Tug on it. Look at the inside one. That
's my "experience".
Yes=2C I'm aware of the Miller's position. They weren't as adamant last
year=2C but whatever.
Considering their liabilty=2C how could they say anything else??
Another experiment: find someone who is in bad need of a suntan. Get a
nice=2C hot sunny day. Have this pale skinned chap sit underneath a nice s
hade tree all day. How much sunburn did he get? Probably not a lot=2C I
guess.
I'm not trying to be argumentative=2C just use what I believe to be my ow
n personal judgement regarding sun protection.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Mike Welch
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inb
ox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:O
N:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
>This makes me wonder=2C does UV energy bounce off of the ground? Jared
Aeroelectric list=2C
Again=2C my apologies. This will be MY last reply to this subject. Any
further discussion with me will need to be off-list. I realize the subject
matter has strayed from the aeroelectric lists intent.
Jared=2C
Yes=2C UV light does bounce off the ground!! Of course!
Have you ever painted a house? The gutters=2C trim=2C posts=2C etc=2C in
direct sunlight need to be repainted about every 7-10 years. Did you ever
check out the underside of the eaves? Darn near new!! In fact=2C they us
ually only just get a coat of smoggy residue on them. A simple wash=2C and
they usually look as good as the day after they were painted. Did they re
ceive some of that bounced UV rays wear and tear? Sure!! How much? I'm n
ot too sure=2C but I'd guess about a twentieth (or a hundredth!) of the wea
r and tear the parts in the sun got.
If the outside paint lasts 10 years in direct sunlight=2C I'd be willing
to bet we won't be alive when the underside paint wears out.
This is my experience. Others opinions may vary=2C and I'm okay with tha
t.
In answer to your other question=2C the wings and tailfeathers are A/C al
uminum=2C the fuselage is chromoly tubing. Plenty of Poly Tak to hold thin
gs together!!!
Mike Welch
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with H
otmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=
PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Mike, I hope you haven't misunderstood me -- I meant that your
experience of the Cessna's wings top and bottom are what's most
interesting to me, as they are a direct experience gained over several
years of polishing! I found it a bit surprising at the time, that
PolyFiber said that the plane would receive UV damage all over without
the PolySpray, but figured "hey, they're the experts", and did the PS
all over. Had we had this discussion before, perhaps I wouldn't have
done the PS underneath!
James
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Mike Welch wrote:
> James,
>
> My "experience" comes from from seeing countless thousands of things rot
> in the sun and rain. An item NOT left in the sun and the rain seems to last
> a long, long, long time....compared to the same kind of item left in the
> elements!
> Whether it's a car, a board, a sheet of sheetrock, just about anything
> lasts longer stored inside. My fabric covered plane will NOT ever sit
> openly in the sun, at least not as long as I own it. I've seen too many
> airplanes just rot away, sitting on a ramp. Not mine. It will have a
> cover, or be in a hangar...period.
>
> Since the primary purpose of the Poly Spray is to block the sun's rays, I
> don't personally see much need for something to be thoroughly"protected"
> that will never seedirect sunlight. That's just me, I guess. It's like
> getting travel insurance, and never going anywhere.
>
> Simple experiment: take two pieces of fabric, any fabric. Set one
> outside to see lots of sunshine and rain. Keep the other one indoors in a
> dry place. Let them sit there for a few years, say 4-5. That ought to do
> it. Look at the outside one. Tug on it. Look at the inside one.
> That's my "experience".
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the Miller's position. They weren't as adamant last
> year, but whatever.
> Considering their liabilty, how could they say anything else??
>
> Another experiment: find someone who is in bad need of a suntan. Get a
> nice, hot sunny day. Have this pale skinned chap sit underneath a nice
> shade tree all day. How much sunburn did he get? Probably not a lot, I
> guess.
>
> I'm not trying to be argumentative, just use what I believe to be my own
> personal judgement regarding sun protection.
>
> Thanks for sharing your opinion.
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
> ________________________________
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> Learn more.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Emag/pmag wiring question |
Grounding the right mag for starting is not necessary with E/Pmags.
neal
=====================
I am in the process of wiring my starter switch. I am planning on
installing an Emag/Pmag ignition system and was wondering if I need to
jumper the starter switch R to GND for the Emags.
TIA
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: High Definition MotorSports camera for your aircraft |
Is that the same camera as this $278 one with free shipping?
_http://www.cycleprotectionproducts.com/msr200-hd-motorsports-camera-p-1101.
html?zenid=d4943b94dc524ba7f7dbf3a13ebba227_
(http://www.cycleprotectionproducts.com/msr200-hd-motorsports-camera-p-1101.html?zenid=d4943b94dc524ba7f7db
f3a13ebba227)
Hey guys we are now selling the MSR-200 High Definition MotorSports camera
this
is a must have!
Accept up to 32GB SD/SDHC cards, the MSR-200 can record uniterupted for up
to 12hrs
in HD..
I am giving discount again for you guys on the forum.
Software for easy YouTube uploads!
Retail Price: $349.99
Forum guys price $285:)
If your not satisfied I will refund you back 100% you have nothing to lose!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
Bob,
I'll attempt to explain myself in the fewest words.
I meant no offense to you. Your concepts are excellent and your
contribution to aviation and aviation safety is renowned. We all owe you - some
of
us in treasury and others for our lives.
1. I say, yes, DEPEND on electrical information while airborne. I do
DEPEND on cockpit information while airborne - whether it is electrical
information, or something else, such as airspeed indication. I analyze presented
information (electrical or otherwise) to determine if the system is
properly functioning. If my airspeed indication appears to be erroneous, I have
several backup plans. If my electrical indications are non-normal, I have
several backup plans. The backup plans are not crisis management in the
cockpit nor are they devised "on the fly."
2. I concur that investigation, deduction, design and planning are best
done on the ground. Crisis management should not be done in the cockpit.
Management of a crisis is preplanned - detailed thought in advance is vital.
Having a detailed plan of action for all of the situations you can expect
allows you to adjust when an unplanned situation presents itself. That has
happened to me several times - once when a never-happened-before
malfunction occurred and forced me to eject. Ground preparation is critical to
success in a non-normal situation and cockpit information is critical to
assessing the situation and making the correct decision.
3. I can guarantee you that my desire for cockpit information is not due to
"a lack of confidence in understanding the system." I, and I suspect all
pilots, study our aircraft systems in detail and have a plan of attack in
the event of systems failures. Implementation of your electrical concepts,
say Z-11, should not preclude having electrical information in the
cockpit. Furthermore, that information can help the pilot analyze the malfunction
- which will lead to a better decision.
4. I'll bet a dollar that if the membership of this list were polled, the
consensus perception would be as James described - that is, your electrical
plan B is intended to make airborne decisions simpler - or put another
way, more "idiot-proof." So, if I have misinterpreted your offerings, others
likely have, too. You profess that fuses and/or circuit breakers should
not be reachable by the pilot. You profess that pilots do not need
electrical data in the cockpit for fear they may try to analyze that data instead
of
defaulting to plan B. Your concepts are well thought out, but the result
(or perception) is that the pilot is removed from the decision process in
the event of an electrical non-normal. Thus, the airplane is made more
"idiot-proof."
I have the highest regard for the depth of your electrical knowledge. My
decades of flying knowledge have proven to me that having information in
the cockpit is important.
As you have stated, analysis is best done on the ground - I call that
preparation. But, application must be done in the air. Information in the
cockpit is important in any non-normal situation - even electrical.
Regards,
Stan Sutterfield
He indicates that pilots should
not use information about their electrical system to make assessments
or decisions while airborne.
No. Not DEPEND on information while airborne . . .
Bob advocates having an electrical plan B that removes the PIC from
the airborne decision process.
No. The effective Plan-B MUST be crafted and understood by
that same PIC. The PIC is very much in the loop. The task
is to do all the investigation, deduction, design and
planning ON THE GROUND. The cockpit is a lousy classroom
for crisis management.
By the way, these are not ideas unique to me. They have
been handed down by generations of thoughtful
students/teachers of the art and science of elegant
systems design. What I've offered is not mere opinion
but fact demonstrated by our ancestors.
As you clearly explained, the intent is to make electrical problems
idiot-proof. Nothing wrong with that as it can make aviation safer
and simpler.
I think you have mis-interpreted my offerings.
"Idiot proof" was never a design goal.
When one crafts a complex system wherein the
smallest of failures represents a major operational
problem (like a speck of rust clogging your carburetor
jet) the prudent designer strives for failure tolerance.
I have produced an analysis of the accident that
totaled an expensive airplane, injured some folks
and now plagues the lives of individuals who would
MUCH rather be flying, water skiing, or reading
a good book. All this expense, inconvenience,
pain and taxation of $time$ came about because
some individuals didn't know what they didn't know.
They stacked extra goodies together with some
notion of adding "safety" while in fact, crafting
a system guaranteed to fail. Poor application of
a $3 worth of components set the stage for $millions$
of misery. This pilot had perhaps 30 seconds to do all
the multi-tasking that was demanded of him before
the inevitable came to pass.
Adequate and accurate information about system operation
and behavior in both normal and failure modes is necessary
for REDUCING probability of failure, REDUCING the effects
of any given failure and crafting a PLAN-B for comfortable
management of said failure.
But, the pilot in me wants information. For me, more information is
better
Absolutely . . . but a desire for lots of lights and
dials in the cockpit and plans to sift offered
data in flight suggests a lack of confidence
in understanding the system.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
The winglet height is adequate for the 20.3 inch vertical limb. I
would use the Miracle Whip, but it is too long for the winglet height.
I considered extending it along the outer wing foam with the last 1/2
of the tip in the vertical part of the winglet, but that would
require quite a bit of surgery to bury the base load box in the wing
foam near the center of the wing and might compromise the foam-skin
stress structure of the wing( a definite no go there option).
Agreed.
I could go to an external whip antenna with a ground plane of wire or
aluminum, but I would prefer not to add parasitic drag. The wingtip
idea is less invasive surgery.
Okay. How about a 1/4 wave with 'half' a ground
plane? Run a 21 inch piece of copper up the winglet
and two to five radials into the foam toward the
fuselage. Connect all the radials together at the
coax shield, center conductor to the winglet radiator
and ditch the donuts.
Don't worry about bandwidth. Proximity effects
of conductors for de-tuning and/or pattern
modification are profoundly more hazardous to
performance than SWR.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
Stan,
I don't think for a second that the system should be idiot-proof.
I've been designing software for a long time, and as soon as you try
and make it idiot-proof, all sorts of idiots start breaking the
system!
However, it makes perfect sense to me to have a known fallback
position. That's all. If things go pop in the cockpit, there's a
known mode for the system to operate in that has some redundancy, has
known limitations, but at the end of the day is just a battery and a
few devices, and that really appeals to me, a low hours pilot.
One thing that does come across in your messages, and in Bob's, is
that thinking about things in advance is obviously the best thing.
Perhaps I need to take more of a Bob-centric approach to other systems
in the plane, e.g. what happens if I lose my xyz instrument? Or some
other system.
James
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 AM, wrote:
> Bob,
> I'll attempt to explain myself inthe fewest words.
> I meant no offense to you. Your concepts are excellent and your
> contribution to aviation and aviation safety is renowned. We all owe you -
> some of us in treasury and others for our lives.
> 1. I say, yes, DEPEND on electrical information while airborne. I do DEPEND
> on cockpit information whileairborne - whether it is electrical
> information, or something else, such as airspeed indication. I analyze
> presented information (electrical or otherwise) to determine if the system
> is properly functioning. If my airspeed indicationappears to beerroneous,
> I have several backup plans. If my electrical indications are non-normal, I
> have several backup plans. The backup plans are not crisis management in
> the cockpit nor are they devised "on the fly."
> 2. I concur that investigation, deduction, design and planning are best done
> on the ground. Crisis management should not be done in the cockpit.
> Management of a crisis is preplanned - detailed thought in advance is
> vital. Having a detailed plan of action for all of the situations you can
> expect allows you to adjust when an unplanned situation presents itself.
> That has happened to me several times - once when a never-happened-before
> malfunction occurred and forced me to eject. Ground preparation is critical
> to success in a non-normal situation and cockpit information is critical to
> assessing the situation and making the correct decision.
> 3. I can guarantee you that my desire for cockpit information is not due to
> "a lack of confidence in understanding the system." I, and I suspect all
> pilots, study our aircraft systems in detail and have a plan of attack in
> the event of systems failures. Implementation of your electrical concepts,
> say Z-11,should not preclude having electrical information in the cockpit.
> Furthermore, that information can help the pilotanalyze the malfunction -
> whichwill lead to a better decision.
> 4. I'll bet a dollar that if the membership of this list were polled, the
> consensus perception would be as James described - that is, your
> electricalplan B is intended to make airborne decisions simpler - or put
> another way,more "idiot-proof." So,if I havemisinterpreted your
> offerings, others likely have, too. You profess that fuses and/or circuit
> breakers should not be reachable by the pilot. You profess that pilots do
> not need electrical data in the cockpit for fear they may try to analyze
> that data instead of defaulting to plan B. Your concepts are well thought
> out, but the result (or perception) is that the pilot is removed from the
> decision process in the event of an electrical non-normal. Thus, the
> airplane is made more "idiot-proof."
> I have the highest regard forthe depth of your electrical knowledge. My
> decades of flying knowledge have proven to me that having information in the
> cockpit is important.
> As you have stated, analysisis best doneon the ground - I call that
> preparation. But, application must be done in the air. Information in the
> cockpit is important in any non-normal situation - even electrical.
> Regards,
> Stan Sutterfield
>
> He indicates that pilots should
> not use information about their electrical system to make assessments
> or decisions while airborne.
>
> No. Not DEPEND on information while airborne . . .
>
> Bob advocates having an electrical plan B that removes the PIC from
> the airborne decision process.
>
> No. The effective Plan-B MUST be crafted and understood by
> that same PIC. The PIC is very much in the loop. The task
> is to do all the investigation, deduction, design and
> planning ON THE GROUND. The cockpit is a lousy classroom
> for crisis management.
>
> By the way, these are not ideas unique to me. They have
> been handed down by generations of thoughtful
> students/teachers of the art and science of elegant
> systems design. What I've offered is not mere opinion
> but fact demonstrated by our ancestors.
>
> As you clearly explained, the intent is to make electrical problems
> idiot-proof. Nothing wrong with that as it can make aviation safer
> and simpler.
>
> I think you have mis-interpreted my offerings.
> "Idiot proof" was never a design goal.
>
> When one crafts a complex system wherein the
> smallest of failures represents a major operational
> problem (like a speck of rust clogging your carburetor
> jet) the prudent designer strives for failure tolerance.
>
> I have produced an analysis of the accident that
> totaled an expensive airplane, injured some folks
> and now plagues the lives of individuals who would
> MUCH rather be flying, water skiing, or reading
> a good book. All this expense, inconvenience,
> pain and taxation of $time$ came about because
> some individuals didn't know what they didn't know.
> They stacked extra goodies together with some
> notion of adding "safety" while in fact, crafting
> a system guaranteed to fail. Poor application of
> a $3 worth of components set the stage for $millions$
> of misery. This pilot had perhaps 30 seconds to do all
> the multi-tasking that was demanded of him before
> the inevitable came to pass.
>
> Adequate and accurate information about system operation
> and behavior in both normal and failure modes is necessary
> for REDUCING probability of failure, REDUCING the effects
> of any given failure and crafting a PLAN-B for comfortable
> management of said failure.
>
> But, the pilot in me wants information. For me, more information is better
>
> Absolutely . . . but a desire for lots of lights and
> dials in the cockpit and plans to sift offered
> data in flight suggests a lack of confidence
> in understanding the system.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Yeah, until the transmitter power amp stage folds-back at higher SWR to
protect the output transistor - that's a performance-killer, sometimes.
Bandwidth can matter...
>>Don't worry about bandwidth. Proximity effects
of conductors for de-tuning and/or pattern
modification are profoundly more hazardous to
performance than SWR.<<
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> The winglet height is adequate for the 20.3 inch vertical limb. I would use
> the Miracle Whip, but it is too long for the winglet height.
>
> I considered extending it along the outer wing foam with the last 1/2 of
> the tip in the vertical part of the winglet, but that would require quite a
> bit of surgery to bury the base load box in the wing foam near the center of
> the wing and might compromise the foam-skin stress structure of the wing( a
> definite no go there option).
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> I could go to an external whip antenna with a ground plane of wire or
> aluminum, but I would prefer not to add parasitic drag. The wingtip idea is
> less invasive surgery.
>
> Okay. How about a 1/4 wave with 'half' a ground
> plane? Run a 21 inch piece of copper up the winglet
> and two to five radials into the foam toward the
> fuselage. Connect all the radials together at the
> coax shield, center conductor to the winglet radiator
> and ditch the donuts.
>
> Don't worry about bandwidth. Proximity effects
> of conductors for de-tuning and/or pattern
> modification are profoundly more hazardous to
> performance than SWR.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis" <dennis.glaeser(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | IVO Electronic CB report |
Bob,
I had the opportunity to put a scope on the circuit this past weekend. I sent
a photo of the screen (jpg) file to your AeroElectric email address, because sending
attachments to the Matronics list doesn't work. But I don't know if your
email accepts attachments either. I can put the photo up on a website if necessary,
let me know.
When the motor is running, the collector of Q103 sees 5V. When the limit current
is reached, the voltage at the gate of Q114 drops in about 200ms.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IVO Electronic CB report |
At 08:55 AM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I had the opportunity to put a scope on the circuit this past
>weekend. I sent a photo of the screen (jpg) file to your
>AeroElectric email address, because sending attachments to the
>Matronics list doesn't work. But I don't know if your email accepts
>attachments either. I can put the photo up on a website if
>necessary, let me know.
>
>When the motor is running, the collector of Q103 sees 5V. When the
>limit current is reached, the voltage at the gate of Q114 drops in about 200ms.
Yes, I saw your picture. I thought I had replied
and thanked you for the effort. In any case, you've
validated the paper-work that went into the design.
How do you plan to package the accessory? Others
on the List might find value in seeing how it
goes together.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
One thing that does come across in your messages, and in Bob's, is
that thinking about things in advance is obviously the best thing.
Perhaps I need to take more of a Bob-centric approach to other systems
in the plane, e.g. what happens if I lose my xyz instrument? Or some
other system.
Exactly! . . . except that the processes I've been
recommending have nothing to do with any original
material or thought processes on my part. Failure Modes
Effects Analysis is an armchair exercise that brightly
illuminates . . .
(1) the evaluator's understanding of the system
design goals . . .
(2) the simple-ideas that went into fabrication . . .
(3) effectiveness of the design in meeting design
goals . . .
(4) the potential effects on outcome of a flight
by failure of any single part. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Failure%20Modes%20Effects%20Analysis.pdf
Every system aboard a type-certificated aircraft
gets this microscopic analysis during the
certification process. After a few FMEA
experiences, a designer tends to incorporate
the FMEA thought processes throughout the design,
development and testing processes.
The goal is to minimize complexity, weight, cost
of ownership, and hazards due to inevitable failures.
A huge benefit can be realized by designs so
elegant that the pilot can deal with ANY single
failure with an absolute minimum of distraction
-OR- hazard for having reacted to a failure event
based on an erroneous deduction.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
At 11:42 PM 6/7/2010, you wrote:
Bob,
I'll attempt to explain myself in the fewest words.
I meant no offense to you. Your concepts are excellent and your
contribution to aviation and aviation safety is renowned. We all owe
you - some of us in treasury and others for our lives.
No offense taken. 1800 other folks have an opportunity
to read this exchange and I'm only attempting to
maximize the benefits for taking the time to do
it . . .
1. I say, yes, DEPEND on electrical information while airborne. I do
DEPEND on cockpit information while airborne - whether it is
electrical information, or something else, such as airspeed
indication. I analyze presented information (electrical or
otherwise) to determine if the system is properly functioning. If my
airspeed indication appears to be erroneous, I have several backup
plans. If my electrical indications are non-normal, I have several
backup plans. The backup plans are not crisis management in the
cockpit nor are they devised "on the fly."
But you're speaking of data important to
the OPERATION of the airplane where missing or
bad data increases risk. One does have a
dependence on the quality of such data.
2. I concur that investigation, deduction, design and planning are
best done on the ground. Crisis management should not be done in the
cockpit. Management of a crisis is pre-planned - detailed thought in
advance is vital. Having a detailed plan of action for all of the
situations you can expect allows you to adjust when an unplanned
situation presents itself. That has happened to me several times -
once when a never-happened-before malfunction occurred and forced me
to eject. Ground preparation is critical to success in a non-normal
situation and cockpit information is critical to assessing the
situation and making the correct decision.
Here is where we may have a disconnect. I'm suggesting
that there is NO situation where the artfully crafted
and maintained electrical system offers ANY risk
for an 'unplanned' situation.
3. I can guarantee you that my desire for cockpit information is not
due to "a lack of confidence in understanding the system." I, and I
suspect all pilots, study our aircraft systems in detail and have a
plan of attack in the event of systems failures. Implementation of
your electrical concepts, say Z-11, should not preclude having
electrical information in the cockpit. Furthermore, that information
can help the pilot analyze the malfunction - which will lead to a
better decision.
Which goes to my question as to what single failure
in Z-13/8 where informing the pilot of any voltage
or current ANYWHERE in the system would aid in-flight
analysis of the situation and encourage an action
DIFFERENT than a prearranged Plan-B?
4. I'll bet a dollar that if the membership of this list were polled,
the consensus perception would be as James described - that is, your
electrical plan B is intended to make airborne decisions simpler - or
put another way, more "idiot-proof." So, if I have misinterpreted
your offerings, others likely have, too. You profess that fuses
and/or circuit breakers should not be reachable by the pilot. You
profess that pilots do not need electrical data in the cockpit for
fear they may try to analyze that data instead of defaulting to plan
B. Your concepts are well thought out, but the result (or
perception) is that the pilot is removed from the decision process in
the event of an electrical non-normal. Thus, the airplane is made
more "idiot-proof."
I prefer to call it free of distraction and
attendant risks for being distracted. I.e.,
no problems that are not comfortably handled
by Plan-B. Simplicity is part and parcel of
that goal.
I have the highest regard for the depth of your electrical
knowledge. My decades of flying knowledge have proven to me that
having information in the cockpit is important. As you have stated,
analysis is best done on the ground - I call that preparation. But,
application must be done in the air. Information in the cockpit is
important in any non-normal situation - even electrical.
Reliable OPERATIONAL information is not a component
of this discussion. DIAGNOSTIC information cannot
be utilized in flight without causing the observer
to be something other than a pilot. Do you not agree
that the elegant design offers a high probability for
comfortable termination of flight without taxing
the pilot with a decision making study based on
diagnostic data?
If this IS a noble and just cause, then what potential
failures does an architecture like Z-13/8 have that
would render any Plan-B ineffective and force the
pilot into a diagnostic mode? If any such failure
is identified, what voltage or current data points would
you add to the panel displays to isolate the failure?
What words would you add to emergency procedures in the
POH to assist in gathering, evaluating, and making a
useful decision based on available data?
To my way of thinking, the emergency procedures page
for the elegant electrical system is perhaps one
simple paragraph that requires NO analysis of data.
This has always been a design goal of the Z-figures
and the thrust of recipes for success offered in
Chapter 17.
As soon as we add data to the panel displays, there's
an implication of value. If that data has value
for reducing risk, then there is a presumption
that the pilot already knows how to use the
data. Alternatively you write more paragraphs into the
emergency procedures section.
This isn't about anyone's personal preferences to
put LOTS of numbers on the panel. It's about
the simple-idea that the numbers MEAN something.
If that meaning has anything to do with OPERATION
of the airplane, then it's part of the transition
training into the aircraft. If it's part of the
DIAGNOSTICS, then how do we confirm that the pilot
knows the significance of the numbers AND will
make good decisions therefrom?
I've had dozens of conversations with builders
over the counter at OSH where we considered his/
her decision to spend $killo$ on really nice
glass that puts LOTS of numbers on the panel.
My questions of that builder were always the same.
What numbers? What do they mean in terms of
operation or diagnostics? How do you plan to
use those numbers in flight? Are you going to
write and practice procedures for making
the correct decisions and taking the correct
actions? Most didn't have answers. This suggests
that the value of lots-of-numbers was not
known. This makes it almost a certainty that
during non-normal operations, availability
of lots of numbers will add to risk.
Of course, those are the extreme examples.
The question that started this thread was
an inquiry into what electrical system voltages
and/or currents are of greatest value to a pilot.
My question of ANYONE on the List remains: "Where
do we find value in knowing the numbers for more
voltages and currents and how would they
be used?"
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: twisted pairs -- turns per inch |
At 12:42 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
>I'm now installing a roll servo in the right wing of my RV-7A and I
>know I read this somewhere in the AEC but can't find it now -- how
>many twists per inch (or per foot) should there be for a twisted
>pair of 22 AWG wires (does this vary by wire size?)?
For the most part, twisting is a physical convenience
for bundling a group of wires while minimizing the
numbers of string-ties or tie-wraps necessary to
keep the wires in close proximity. 5 turns per
foot are enough, 10/ft are probably too tight.
> Also, is grounding the negative lead for the servo out at the wing
> going to possibly create problems that could be eliminated by
> running the ground back to the firewall grounding block? Thanks.
What do the manufacturer's drawings say? If I were
manufacturing an autopilot system, the servos
would get power from, signals from, and grounds
returned to the black box that holds the servo
drive electronics.
In other words, keep ALL wires to the servo
in close proximity bundle for full length of
the run. Ground the servo to assigned pin in
a connector or to the SAME ground as electronics
in black box that drives the servo.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
At 08:06 AM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
>I would be interested in the accident report for the situation Bob
>describes, $3 or so of parts causing loss of life and so many $$ of damage.
There was no loss of life . . . only enduring injury.
This is a case in litigation where I'm a participant.
I'll publish a report on my findings when the case
is decided.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis" <dennis.glaeser(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IVO Electronic CB report |
Yes, I saw your picture. I thought I had replied and thanked you for the effort.
In any case, you've validated the paper-work that went into the design. How
do you plan to package the accessory? Others on the List might find value in seeing
how it goes together.
Bob . . .
----------------------
Great! I hadn't gotten a response (I'll have to check my junk filter) so I just
wanted to be sure the picture hadn't disappeared into the ether. Murphy's Law
has not yet been repealed.
The components were assembled on a Radio Shack circuit board. I bought a Radio
Shack Project Box to put it in, thinking (foolishly, as it turns out) that the
board would fit their box. I had to chop the board down to fit, so my previously
nice and neat circuit board now looks rather ugly, but it still works. I
will put some pictures up on a website in the near future showing what I did.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
Bob, wrote:
<< Reliable OPERATIONAL information is not a component of this
discussion. DIAGNOSTIC information cannot be utilized in flight without
causing the observer to be something other than a pilot. Do you not agree
that the elegant design offers a high probability for comfortable
termination of flight without taxing the pilot with a decision making study
based on diagnostic data? >>
I have a friend that has an EIS and GPS system in his homebuilt. Each time
he takes a flight the EIS and GPS are connected to his laptop to gather data
every couple of seconds for every parameter monitored by these instruments.
When there is a problem he focuses on flying the airplane. Afther he has
landed safely, the data is in his laptop to go back and look at what
happened. There is a time for flying and a time for figuring out root cause
of problems. As I hear Bob, these are both important duties but only flying
is important while airborne. With all the digital equipment we are putting
in our airplanes, it is not a big step to connect it up to your laptop and
log all kinds of information to be used if and when we need it later to
solve a problem. If we look at this thread as finding ways to "log" all the
data we can during a flight rather than "displaying" all the information we
can during the flight, we will be the safest we can be; Design goal #1 for
everybody
Regards,
Bob Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
thanks to all the input. i can't imagine getting my list right for all the
labels to be made at once. and one change or scratch and i would have to
order more labels. so i am going with the brothers labeler with white
letters on clear.
bob noffs
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:33 PM, James Kilford wrote:
> Bob,
>
> If you're not already committed to panel labelling... I've had really
> neat results using custom Letraset. I don't know if you have this
> stuff where you are -- it's rub-on lettering in sheets. Anyway, they
> also do custom sheets. You upload your artwork and they send you a
> sheet of transfers. Brilliant stuff.
>
> It's not cheap -- about =A375 for an A4 sheet -- but then again it's
> probably a lot cheaper than custom engraving, say. I fitted all the
> panel lettering, warnings, reference speeds, lines, boxes, placards,
> etc. onto one sheet.
>
> http://www.letraset.com/design/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=130&cat=Col
our
>
> (Photo of switch panel attached FYI)
>
> Once you've applied the lettering, etc., a coat of lacquer fixes the
> transfers.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:56 AM, bob noffs wrote:
> > hi all,
> > i am ready to label switches etc. on my grey panel. i am using white
> > letters on a clear tape. what works best to keep the tapes ''level''?
> > masking tape or a light pencil mark maybe? how far below the switch as
a
> > rule of thumb? and the best way to remove the pencil line if that is th
e
> way
> > to go?
> > any info appreciated. bob noffs
> >
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph & Maria Finch" <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | twisted pairs -- turns per inch |
Bob, if the twisted pair is shielded, where would you ground the shield?
Locally at the servo, or same place as the electronics?
Ralph Finch
Davis, California
RV-9A QB-SA
> Also, is grounding the negative lead for the servo out at the wing
> going to possibly create problems that could be eliminated by
> running the ground back to the firewall grounding block? Thanks.
What do the manufacturer's drawings say? If I were
manufacturing an autopilot system, the servos
would get power from, signals from, and grounds
returned to the black box that holds the servo
drive electronics.
In other words, keep ALL wires to the servo
in close proximity bundle for full length of
the run. Ground the servo to assigned pin in
a connector or to the SAME ground as electronics
in black box that drives the servo.
Bob . . .
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5183 (20100608) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | twisted pairs -- turns per inch |
At 07:59 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob, if the twisted pair is shielded, where would you ground the shield?
>Locally at the servo, or same place as the electronics?
Unless the instructions call for something different,
one end only and at the same end as the electronics
box.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Off Topic - Special gain amplifier |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
I came across this special amplifier, guaranteed to boost and smooth your
signal. I can't wait to order one.
I hope the photo comes through.
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Off Topic - Special gain amplifier |
Sam...
Cool! Wonder how many were sold, and how many people to this day think
it did something?
If I had "invented" it, I would have put in some more useless wires and
parts to make it look like the trim pots connected to something. Just in
case someone opened it up, as was done here! And maybe run the coax
through another, sealed, interior box so that it's routing wouldn't be
so obvious.
At least the power light is real!
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6/9/2010 9:03 AM, Sam Hoskins wrote:
> I came across this special amplifier, guaranteed to boost and smooth
> your signal. I can't wait to order one.
>
> I hope the photo comes through.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
I started my design with two voltmeters and two ammeters on my panel
because I thought this would be useful information in flight if I had
an electrical problem.
However, how would I teach my wife to use this information in the
event of a problem while she was flying ?
Also, the meters took up precious space on the panel.
After further thinking I realized that my concern was for battery
drain after losing an alternator. The meters would allow me to
selectively turn off equipment to match the ability of the SD-8
alternator.
However, with an essential bus, the plan B load is previously
established, so watching the meters in flight is not necessary.
Low voltage leds will tell me in flight if plan B is successfully
maintaining the battery charge. The meters are gone from the design.
I intend to add a connector to the bottom of the panel to make
convenient troubleshooting measurements on the ground without having
to open the cowl.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Strobes vs. Nav/Com question |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Has anyone had interference between strobes and Nav/Coms? And if so, did you do
anything to reduce it?
I ran a seat-of-the-pants experiment by running one strobe on the bench. I found
a lot of interference on a broadcast AM radio, but almost none with a comm
radio. The little I did notice seemed to be coming from the power line and not
the antenna (when I turned the volume down, I still heard it), and with the
engine running, I doubt I would be able to hear it anyway. I'm more concerned
about the nav or gps receivers.
I'm asking because I need to run wires and don't know if I need to keep the strobe
wires away from other wires, and if so, how far. It will complicate things
if I do (drill more holes in structural members, etc.), so I'd like to bundle
all the wires together. On the other hand, if I need to keep them separate,
I'd rather do the work while I'm building, than try to retrofit a fix after the
plane is built.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300698#300698
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Eastveld" <j.eastveld(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Bouncing ammeter |
Bob
My RV-4. In the effort to cure the, recently started, bouncing ammeter
guage I have had the Nippon Denso 30 amp alternator rebuilt, installed a
new VR-166 regulator, checked and cleaned the battery ground but a few
minutes after start up the ammeter needle still bounces 0-18 amps every
1 to 2 seconds. I switch on radios, transponder, landing light,
navigation lights and strobes. The amp needle steadies for a minute or
two then starts bouncing again. Is this OK because it says regulator is
working.
John Eastveld
j.eastveld(at)sympatico.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchdes.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Off Topic - Special gain amplifier |
Sam,
The frequency range shown on the cover implies that you are going to use
it for VOR amplification, since COM is a two way street, and any
amplifier in a simple in-line connection will interfere with one way.
I see several things wrong with the amplifier and its use. First, it is
poorly built and may not stand up to aircraft quality standard. Second,
an in-line amplifier can boost a signal, but it cannot "smooth" unless
it filters our certain frequencies. If you know the "smoothing"
function, then you can determine what frequencies are being attenuated.
Are these frequencies crucial to your application? Third, any in-line
active amplifier will add noise. Do you know what its SNR is? If it is
low enough, it may be tolerable. If it isn't, you're just adding
another problem.
Most equipment, especially our aviation equipment, is made to connect to
antennas without amplification to avoid the above problems. Do you have
a specific problem with the system you're trying to fix? Can it be
fixed without amplification?
Simon Ramirez
LEZ N-44LZ
On 6/9/2010 9:03 AM, Sam Hoskins wrote:
> I came across this special amplifier, guaranteed to boost and smooth
> your signal. I can't wait to order one.
>
> I hope the photo comes through.
>
> Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
On an opposite note, I can tell a small episode which happened to me:
I have 2 panel voltmeters (one for each battery), and 3 amp indicators,
being 2 Hall Effect sensors connected to the EIS/EFIS which work as batt.
charge indicators and one 50mV shunt connected to a panel mounted digital
ammeter, which works as an alternator loadmeter.
I noticed that my electric c/s prop controller was not working, having lit a
blinking yellow led that I didn't remember what it meant.
I immediately checked my voltmeters, which were indicating normal voltage,
and then I checked the batt. charge ammeters, which were negative,
indicating that batteries were not being charged. Then I checked the
alternator loadmeter, which had a round 0 on it, and immediately realized
that the alternator was not producing any juice.
After a few seconds, I found the ALT Field switch was Off, turned it On, and
everything got back to normal.
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Page
> Sent: quarta-feira, 9 de Junho de 2010 15:34
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics
>
>
> I started my design with two voltmeters and two ammeters on my panel
> because I thought this would be useful information in flight if I had
> an electrical problem.
>
> However, how would I teach my wife to use this information in the
> event of a problem while she was flying ?
>
> Also, the meters took up precious space on the panel.
>
> After further thinking I realized that my concern was for battery
> drain after losing an alternator. The meters would allow me to
> selectively turn off equipment to match the ability of the SD-8
> alternator.
>
> However, with an essential bus, the plan B load is previously
> established, so watching the meters in flight is not necessary.
>
> Low voltage leds will tell me in flight if plan B is successfully
> maintaining the battery charge. The meters are gone from the design.
>
> I intend to add a connector to the bottom of the panel to make
> convenient troubleshooting measurements on the ground without having
> to open the cowl.
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Off Topic - Special gain amplifier |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Simon,
The frequency range on the box actually specs broadcast and bands of cable TV,
airband anything
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300718#300718
________________________________________________________________________________
HI Bob,
Thanks for your replies. I have one question on the dipole with several
radial base wires. That would be easy to set up, but I don't understand why I
could ditch the toroids at the end of the coax. Does the balance of the
coax and dipole work out due to many ground radials or does the arrangement
turn the antenna into a simple base loaded 1/4 wave whip? I assume the latter
is what happens. Would the base on only the wing side of the vertical
element make it quite directional or not significantly directional?
John Greaves
In a message dated 6/7/2010 9:49:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
The winglet height is adequate for the 20.3 inch vertical limb. I
would use the Miracle Whip, but it is too long for the winglet height.
I considered extending it along the outer wing foam with the last 1/2
of the tip in the vertical part of the winglet, but that would
require quite a bit of surgery to bury the base load box in the wing
foam near the center of the wing and might compromise the foam-skin
stress structure of the wing( a definite no go there option).
Agreed.
I could go to an external whip antenna with a ground plane of wire or
aluminum, but I would prefer not to add parasitic drag. The wingtip
idea is less invasive surgery.
Okay. How about a 1/4 wave with 'half' a ground
plane? Run a 21 inch piece of copper up the winglet
and two to five radials into the foam toward the
fuselage. Connect all the radials together at the
coax shield, center conductor to the winglet radiator
and ditch the donuts.
Don't worry about bandwidth. Proximity effects
of conductors for de-tuning and/or pattern
modification are profoundly more hazardous to
performance than SWR.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Matronics list attachments / enclosures |
6/9/2010
Hello Dennis, You wrote: "....... because sending attachments to the
Matronics list doesn't work."
Well it should. Below are the rules for attachments (called enclosures by
Matt). Have you found that these rules do not work?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
=======================================================
**************************************
*** Enclosure Support on the Lists ***
**************************************
Limited posting of enclosures such as pictures, documents, and
spreadsheets
is supported on the Lists. There are a number of restrictions, and
these
are detailed below. Please abide by the rules put forth regarding
the
content of enclosures.
These are some of the features and limits of enclosures on the
Matronics
Lists:
1) Enclosures will only be posted to the Real Time version of the
Lists.
2) Enclosures will NOT be included in the Daily Digest version of
the Lists.
3) Enclosures WILL BE forwarded on to the BBS Forum Web site.
4) Enclosures will NOT be appended to the Archives.
5) Enclosures will NOT be available in the List Browse feature.
6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed:
bmp doc dwg dxf gif jpg pdf png txt xls
All other enclosures types will be rejected and email returned
to
sender. The enclosure types listed above are relatively safe
from
a virus standpoint and don't pose a particularly large security
risk.
7) !! All incoming enclosures will be scanned for viruses prior to
posting
to the List. This is done in real time and will not slow down
the process of posting the message !!
Here are some rules for posting enclosures. Failure to abide by
these rules
could result in the removal of a subscriber's email address from
the Lists.
1) Pay attention to what you are posting!! Make sure that the
files
you are enclosing aren't HUGE (greater that 1MB). Remember that
there
are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. If
you post
30MB worth of pictures, you are placing an unnecessary burden on
these
folks and the rest of us, for that matter.
2) SCALE YOUR PICTURES DOWN!!! I don't want to see huge 3000 x
2000
pictures getting posted that are 3 or 4MB each. This is just
unacceptable. Use a program such as Photoshop to scale the
picture
down to something on the order of 800 x 600 and try to keep the
file size to less-than 200KB, preferably much less.
Microsoft has a really awesome utility available for free that
allows
you to Right-Click on a picture in Explorer and automatically
scale it down and resave it. This is a great utility - get it,
use it!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Look for the link "Image Resizer"
3) !! This would seem to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway.
Do not
post anything that would be considered offensive by your
grandmother.
And you know what I'm saying; I don't want to see anything even
questionable. !!
4) REMEMBER THIS: If you post a 1MB enclosure to a List with 1000
members
subscribed, your 1MB enclosure must be resent 1000 times
amounting
to 1MB X 1000 = 1 Gigabyte of network traffic!! BE CAREFUL and
BE COURTEOUS!
Also see the section below on the Matronics Photo and File Share
where
you can have your files and photos posted on the Matronics web
server
for long time viewing and availability.
==================================================
From: "Glaeser, Dennis" <dennis.glaeser(at)hp.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IVO Electronic CB report
Bob,
I had the opportunity to put a scope on the circuit this past weekend. I
sent
a photo of the screen (jpg) file to your AeroElectric email address, because
sending
attachments to the Matronics list doesn't work. But I don't know if your
email accepts attachments either. I can put the photo up on a website if
necessary,
let me know.
When the motor is running, the collector of Q103 sees 5V. When the limit
current
is reached, the voltage at the gate of Q114 drops in about 200ms.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Matronics list attachments / enclosures |
| From: | "Dennis Glaeser" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
I currently use the Web email list browser - no attachments. I'll have to upgrade
to the BBS forum (but I like the other, simpler, user interface better) I'm
doing this from the BBS forum as a test...(it's an old dog, new trick thing
:-)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300743#300743
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
6/9/2010
Hello Fellow Aeroelectric List Members, In my recent posting on the subject
of Aircraft Radio Station Licenses I referred to my prior rant which was on
the subject of Airplane and Helicopter Flight Manuals in experimental
amateur built aircraft. I had not posted that rant to the aeroelectric list
because I felt that it was off list subject matter.
Now list members have asked me about that prior rant so I feel obligated to
now post portions of that prior rant and subsequent exchanges to this list.
Please see the copied material below.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
=========================================================
6/8/2010
On my soap box now -- I was very disappointed in the page 16 article in the
May 2010 issue of Sport Aviation.
Discussion:
I have made the point in the past of lawyers and bureaucrats writing
(including regulations) as if only type certificated airplanes existed. This
requires the experimental amateur built airplane builder and pilot to read
with a skeptical and searching mind. That is OK when reading some newstand
type "Gee, this is really me, really flying, a real airplane" magazine, but
I expect a higher standard of writing from the EAA.
To whit:
A) One paragraph in the page 16 article reads in part: "The inspector will
want to see aircraft documents, too. These include ....... radio station
license ...........".
A radio station license for an airplane is only required in certain
circumstances-- the article just glosses over this point -- sloppy writing
/ editing by the "Expert Panel".
B) Another paragraph discussing the requirement to have a flight manual
aboard reads in part: "Flying a rental aircraft without a flight manual is a
good example. .................. If you own the aircraft or built it,
obviously there is no one else to blame. ".
This paragraph implies that a flight manual is a mandatory item to be
carried in an experimental amateur built airplane. No regulatory
requirement for this implication is cited. This article in this magazine
owes us this citation, but does not provide it -- why not?
Owen C. Baker
=============================================================
6/8/2010
Dear Editor, The article "Ramp Check!" on page 16 of the May 2010 issue of
Sport Aviation magazine implies that EAB (Experimental Amateur Built)
aircraft are required to have a flight manual on board when flying.
Presumably the article is referring to an "approved Airplane or Rotorcraft
Flight Manual" as referred to in 14 CFR 91.9.
Would you please cite the exact federal regulations that make this Airplane
or Rotorcraft Flight Manual requirement mandatory?
A prior discussion of this issue is copied below.
Thank you,
Owen C. Baker
EAA 0073580
=========================================================
To answer your question -- I think the short answer is that the FAA intends
that you do have an Airplane Flight Manual available while operating your
EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft (see 14 CFR 91.9), but has no
enforcement mechanism in place. I'll explain:
1) First off let's assume you are asking about an FAA required publication
called an "Airplane Flight Manual". We'll leave the discussion about the
differences between AFM (Airplane Flight Manuals), POH (Pilot Operating
Handbooks), and PIM (Pilot Information Manuals) for another day.
2) Here is an excerpt regarding certification of amateur built experimental
aircraft from FAA Order 8130.2F, including change 3, Section 9. Paragraph e.
(5),
"Advising Applicants. Second, the flight test data is used to develop an
accurate and complete aircraft flight manual and to establish emergency
procedures."
3) Your airplane's Operating Limitations say this:
" In addition, this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable
air traffic and general operating rules of part 91 and all additional
limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of 91.319(i). These
operating limitations are a part of Form 8130-7, and are to be carried in
the aircraft at all times and be available to the pilot in command of the
aircraft."
4) Now let's see what FAR Section 91.9 says:
"Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations
specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings,
and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of
the country of registry.
(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft-
(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by 21.5
of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current,
approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in
121.141(b); and
(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by
21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current
approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material,
markings, and placards, or any combination thereof."
Note particularly the words "....... or any combination thereof"
5) Now let's see what FAR Sec 21.5 says:
"21.5 Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
(a) With each airplane or rotorcraft that was not type certificated with an
Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual and that has had no flight time prior
to March 1, 1979, the holder of a Type Certificate (including a Supplemental
Type Certificate) or the licensee of a Type Certificate shall make available
to the owner at the time of delivery of the aircraft a current approved
Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
(b) The Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must contain the following information:
(1) The operating limitations and information required to be furnished in an
Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or in manual material, markings, and
placards, by the applicable regulations under which the airplane or
rotorcraft was type certificated."
Since we builders of amateur built experimental aircraft are not holders of
a Type Certificate we don't have to make available a current approved
Airplane Flight Manual to the owner (ourselves) at the time of delivery of
the aircraft.
6) Note that the data intended to be used to create the Airplane Flight
Manual for the experimental amateur built airplane is not available at the
time of original FAA airworthiness certification inspection, but is only
gained
during the Phase One flight testing. So the FAA's one normal or routine
opportunity to examine your airplane and paperwork, other than for issuing
the Repairman's
Certificate, or when you make a major modification, is passed.
7) If one is ramp checked and does not have a complete Airplane Flight
Manual on board the aircraft and the inspector is insisting that the pilot
must have one the pilot may cite the fact that in compliance with 91.9 (b)
(2) he has "....approved (by the original airworthiness inspector) manual
material, markings, and placards, or ANY combination thereof." on board his
aircraft.
I hope that I haven't lost you or bored you with this tour through the regs.
I welcome any other inputs on this subject. Undoubtedly there are people,
including FAA employees who do think a complete Airplane Flight Manual is
required by regulation for operating EAB aircraft. I urge them to show us
how.
Owen C. Baker
EAA 0073580
================================================================
Hello Mr. Baker,
Your email has been forwarded to me for response. My response is, you're
absolutely right! I agree 100% with your understanding of the regulations.
There is no regulatory requirement for a flight manual or operator handbook
of any kind in an experimental amateur-built aircraft. Some kit vendors or
users groups have developed flight manuals for some designs, and the FAA
would encourage individual builders/owners/pilots to develop a flight manual
for their aircraft, but there is no requirement and no enforcement mechanism
in place. The article should not have suggested that a flight manual is
required for an experimental amateur-built aircraft.
EAA will be running a clarification of this issue in an upcoming Sport
Aviation.
Let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Joe
Joe Norris
EAA 113615 Lifetime
Homebuilders Community Manager
EAA-The Spirit of Aviation
Phone: 888.322.4636 Extension 6806
Fax: 920.426.4873
www.eaa.org
See you at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh-July 26 - August 1, 2010
Join us every day at Oshkosh 365! (www.oshkosh365.org)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Ground power cart protection |
Is there a simple circuit to install on a ground power cart that will shut
off a 24V source when connected to a 12V system? Something like
"under-voltage crowbar protection"?
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
Carlos;
Not trying to be argumentative Carlos, but, how could your voltmeters be
"normal" if the alternator was offline?? "Normal should be 14+ volts and
with the alternator offline and any significant load you would see closer to
12 volts (until the battery became discharged and then it would fall lower).
Also you imply that your c/s prop controller problem was as a result of the
alternator not working but the voltage was "normal". Why would the prop
controller be affected by "normal" voltage?
A simple low voltage warning light will immediately warn you of alternator
offline conditions such as you experienced and alert you to check the
"field" switch just as your ammeters did. That single light will tell you
that your electrical loads are being carried by the battery or batteries and
that your alternator isn't keeping up, exactly the same information as
provided by your multiple gauges but by a much simpler installation.
Now having said all that, I also like gauges, but for simplicity, a low
voltage warning gives just as much operational information. (Check field
switch, revert to reduced consumption plan "B" if that wasn't the issue, fly
to destination, check out and solve problem before next flight.)
Are you sure that "blinking yellow LED" wasn't a low voltage warning?? :-)
:-) (You did say you weren't sure what it meant)
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics
On an opposite note, I can tell a small episode which happened to me:
I have 2 panel voltmeters (one for each battery), and 3 amp indicators,
being 2 Hall Effect sensors connected to the EIS/EFIS which work as batt.
charge indicators and one 50mV shunt connected to a panel mounted digital
ammeter, which works as an alternator loadmeter.
I noticed that my electric c/s prop controller was not working, having lit a
blinking yellow led that I didn't remember what it meant.
I immediately checked my voltmeters, which were indicating normal voltage,
and then I checked the batt. charge ammeters, which were negative,
indicating that batteries were not being charged. Then I checked the
alternator loadmeter, which had a round 0 on it, and immediately realized
that the alternator was not producing any juice.
After a few seconds, I found the ALT Field switch was Off, turned it On, and
everything got back to normal.
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Page
> Sent: quarta-feira, 9 de Junho de 2010 15:34
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics
>
>
> I started my design with two voltmeters and two ammeters on my panel
> because I thought this would be useful information in flight if I had
> an electrical problem.
>
> However, how would I teach my wife to use this information in the
> event of a problem while she was flying ?
>
> Also, the meters took up precious space on the panel.
>
> After further thinking I realized that my concern was for battery
> drain after losing an alternator. The meters would allow me to
> selectively turn off equipment to match the ability of the SD-8
> alternator.
>
> However, with an essential bus, the plan B load is previously
> established, so watching the meters in flight is not necessary.
>
> Low voltage leds will tell me in flight if plan B is successfully
> maintaining the battery charge. The meters are gone from the design.
>
> I intend to add a connector to the bottom of the panel to make
> convenient troubleshooting measurements on the ground without having
> to open the cowl.
>
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jrg3689 <jrg3689(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Invitation from jrg3689 |
See my latest photos, updates and friends on Bebo.
Click to view my profile.
http://www.bebo.com/T/2.2Bafl2JiTgmc9xjMQ0QT4A/inv/10601650499a485974035b8726691782c0d0e141
Please note: if you are not yet a Bebo member, you must register first.
.......................................................................
This email was sent to you at the direct request of jrg3689 .
You have not been added to a mailing list.
If you would prefer not to receive invitations from ANY Bebo members please click here - http://www.bebo.com/T/2.2Bafl2JiTgmc9xjMQ0QT4A/unsub/10601650499a485974035
Bebo, Inc., 795 Folsom St, #250, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 11:17 AM 6/9/2010, you wrote:
>HI Bob,
>
>Thanks for your replies. I have one question on the dipole with
>several radial base wires. That would be easy to set up, but I don't
>understand why I could ditch the toroids at the end of the coax.
They don't really do much unless they're of a material
appropriate to the operating frequency and then only
when they add significant inductance to the currents
flowing in the shield.
Since inductance is proportional to the square of
the turns, you need 9 toroids on the coax (nine
series connected inductors of 1-turn each) to equal
1 toroid with three turns of coax wound through
the center. Take the miracle whip "can" apart
and you'll find a single core with multiple turns
through it.
The idea was to improve the interface between an
unbalanced feeder (coax) and a balanced antenna (dipole)
but it takes quite a few of the RIGHT toroid to do
the best job . . . and tens of thousands of airplanes
have successfully fed balanced VOR cat-whiskers
at the top of the vertical fin with coax and NO
toroids for decades.
Does the balance of the coax and dipole work out due to many
ground radials or does the arrangement turn the antenna into a simple
base loaded 1/4 wave whip? I assume the latter is what happens. Would
the base on only the wing side of the vertical element make it quite
directional or not significantly directional?
Correct. Adding radials to the "base" of a single
vertical makes it an unbalanced antenna that more
closely approximates a ground plane. And yes,
it's radiation patter will not be 'round' but
if it's more efficient, a few bumps in the radiation
plot may not matter. Having say 4 radials at the
base make the sum total of their radiation resistance
1/4th that of the vertical radiator. This makes
the radiator do it's magic with the majority of
energy arriving at the end of the feedline.
Further, the antenna is now decidedly unbalanced
and the toroids are no longer suggested . . .
although they were of limited value in the first
place. A coax balun does a better job but also narrows
the bandwidth of the system. A broadband balun has
a wider bandwidth but adds its own losses.
1/4 wave comm antennas over ground planes have
been doing a really good job on viritually EVERY
radio equipped airplane since the Lear LTRA6
and Narco VT1 radios gave voice to little GA
aircraft in the 50's.
I think you the highest probability for success
lies in getting as close to that configuration
as the layout of your winglet allows. The more
radials the better. 4 is enough and 8 is
probably not practical.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground power cart protection |
At 07:12 PM 6/9/2010, you wrote:
>Is there a simple circuit to install on a ground power cart that
>will shut off a 24V source when connected to a 12V
>system? Something like "under-voltage crowbar protection"?
Hi Dave, long time no hear!
This will probably work for you . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Aircraft Radio Station License |
6/9/2010
Hello Again Fellow Builders and Pilots of Experimental Amateur Built
Aircraft, This is a follow up to my prior rant about the poor quality of the
"Expert Panel" article entitled "Ramp Check!" on page 16 of the May 2010
issue of Sport Aviation magazine.
In that prior rant I discussed the article's erroneous implication that
experimental amateur built aircraft were required to have an Airplane Flight
Manual on board when operating. The EAA (Joe Norris) has agreed to publish a
correction to the article. (Let me know if you want the particulars of my
prior rant.)
This posting is about the article's erroneous statement, without any
qualification, that the ramp inspector would want to see "some specific
documents" including the aircraft's radio station license.
Here is a web site that you can go to in order to check out the validity of
the article's statement regarding the requirement for an aircraft's radio
station license:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/47cfr87_06.html
Here are extracts of the pertinent elements from that site:
"(b) An aircraft station is licensed by
rule and does not need an individual license
issued by the FCC if ....skip..... the aircraft station does not make
international flights or communications."
See below for more from this section of the FCC regulations.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
=====================================================
87.18 Station license required.
(a) Except as noted in paragraph (b)
of this section, stations in the aviation
service must be licensed by the FCC either
individually or by fleet.
(b) An aircraft station is licensed by
rule and does not need an individual license
issued by the FCC if the aircraft
station is not required by statute, treaty,
or agreement to which the United
States is signatory to carry a radio,
and the aircraft station does not make
international flights or communications.
Even though an individual license
is not required, an aircraft station
licensed by rule must be operated
in accordance with all applicable operating
requirements, procedures, and
technical specifications found in this
part.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground power cart protection |
Hi Bob,
That's along the right lines, but what I'm trying to accomplish is to make
my 24V APU cart a little safer by having it shut off if it's connected to a
12V system. If every plane had this "real" APU circuit, we could just plug
24V into anything and let the system take care of itself. Unfortunately, a
lot of the planes we see aren't so well thought out. It's just a matter of
time until something gets damaged.
Any other ideas? I've tried labeling the cart, posting warnings, educating
everyone who uses the cart...I think I need a hardware solution.
When 24V goes into a 12V battery, what would happen on the cart side of the
system that could be measured to set off an alarm, trip a breaker, etc?
Seems tricky because sometimes a 24V battery drops low enough to seem like
12V, but it happily soaks up the input. Then you don't want the alarm. I
don't know enough about how a battery behaves to know what to look for.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 07:12 PM 6/9/2010, you wrote:
>
>> Is there a simple circuit to install on a ground power cart that will shut
>> off a 24V source when connected to a 12V system? Something like
>> "under-voltage crowbar protection"?
>>
>
> Hi Dave, long time no hear!
>
> This will probably work for you . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground power cart protection |
At 09:43 AM 6/10/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>That's along the right lines, but what I'm trying to accomplish is
>to make my 24V APU cart a little safer by having it shut off if it's
>connected to a 12V system. If every plane had this "real" APU
>circuit, we could just plug 24V into anything and let the system
>take care of itself. Unfortunately, a lot of the planes we see
>aren't so well thought out. It's just a matter of time until
>something gets damaged.
>
>Any other ideas? I've tried labeling the cart, posting warnings,
>educating everyone who uses the cart...I think I need a hardware solution.
Opps . . . NOW I understand . . . I'll need to think
about it some . . .
>When 24V goes into a 12V battery, what would happen on the cart side
>of the system that could be measured to set off an alarm, trip a
>breaker, etc? Seems tricky because sometimes a 24V battery drops
>low enough to seem like 12V, but it happily soaks up the
>input. Then you don't want the alarm. I don't know enough about
>how a battery behaves to know what to look for.
Yup, that's the phenomenon to understand and THEN
to design hardware that operates reliably based on
that understanding.
Obviously, the initial connection current demands
of 24 volt cart connected to a 12 volt battery
are high and do not fall off quickly (unless the
ship's battery is in REALLY bad shape). There's
also a concern for whether or not the ground power
cart can be connected to the ship's battery and
the connection evaluated BEFORE any ship's hardware
is powered up.
This illustrates my preference for (1) having
a ground power contactor that (2) feeds ground
power directly to the battery upstream of the
battery contactor.
Unfortunately, when you walk up to an airplane
with a ground power connector on it, there's NO
standard way to be sure that they're all wired
this way . . . in fact, most small aircraft have
NO ground power contactor.
MY airplane's ground power contactor would be
placarded for the requested ground power voltage,
but placards do run against the grain of builders
who spent a LOT of time on a slick paint job.
At first blush, I don't see a totally automatic
way to resolve the question . . . but you can
probably do some things to reduce risk. For
example, you could add a "test" contactor in
series with the power cart output cable and
place a power resistor across the contacts.
Something on the order of 1/2 ohm seems appropriate.
A voltmeter or sensing module downstream of
this resistor can test behavior of the ship's
electrical system when connected to 24 volt
source with a high source impedance. If it's
a 24 volt airplane, the downstream side would
quickly rise above 18 volts (a few seconds)
even if the ship's battery were super-flat.
Now, this assumes that the ship's battery is
on line before ground power is applied. Some
airplanes put ground power to the ship's bus
and if the battery is really dead, dead, dead,
you can't even get the battery contactor
to close. The idea would be to short out the
series resistor after it was deduced that
it was REALLY a 24 volt aircraft.
I'm not seeing a process that relieves the pilot
and ground power cart operator of understanding
reacting to what can be observed. There's just
a whole lot of variables. I'll think about it
some more. If anyone on the list has some ideas,
I would be useful to hear them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
| From: | "gordon" <gptailwind(at)msn.com> |
Bob: Ten days or so ago you answered my question about the ability
for these 2 to work together. I have installed both, and one thing I am
not sure of is that when doing to the menu and setting the volume on
the transciever, I am not able then after getting out of menu to do
any changing to volume except to use the volume controls on my Lightspeed
headsets. The volume control on the Flightcom 403 works to control volume
just between my passenger and I guess thats how its supposed to be.
I called ICOM tec but got a man in an office that doesn't seem too knowledgeable
and said that is probably how its done. He suggested to
go to menu and set volume all the way up and then control volume with
headset controls. he said a Tec would call but hasn't yet. Do you think
that is how they are to work together. On my old Val 760 and using
the same Flightcom I could dial in volume any time on the Val and
if too loud for my passenger, they could turn it down themselves on
the head set control. Thanks Gordon[list=][/list]
--------
tailwind10
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300881#300881
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks much Bob for the explanation. It looks like the radial base may be
my best bet for coming close to a standard aircraft cats-whisker antenna. I
will try that first and I can lay it out on the outer skin and measure the
SWR for confirmation of the efficiency before I install it in the foam. I
will also see how different the SWR will be between the outer surface and
inside the foam. I will report back.
John Greaves
In a message dated 6/9/2010 9:25:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 11:17 AM 6/9/2010, you wrote:
HI Bob,
Thanks for your replies. I have one question on the dipole with several
radial base wires. That would be easy to set up, but I don't understand why I
could ditch the toroids at the end of the coax.
They don't really do much unless they're of a material
appropriate to the operating frequency and then only
when they add significant inductance to the currents
flowing in the shield.
Since inductance is proportional to the square of
the turns, you need 9 toroids on the coax (nine
series connected inductors of 1-turn each) to equal
1 toroid with three turns of coax wound through
the center. Take the miracle whip "can" apart
and you'll find a single core with multiple turns
through it.
The idea was to improve the interface between an
unbalanced feeder (coax) and a balanced antenna (dipole)
but it takes quite a few of the RIGHT toroid to do
the best job . . . and tens of thousands of airplanes
have successfully fed balanced VOR cat-whiskers
at the top of the vertical fin with coax and NO
toroids for decades.
Does the balance of the coax and dipole work out due to many ground
radials or does the arrangement turn the antenna into a simple base loaded 1/4
wave whip? I assume the latter is what happens. Would the base on only the
wing side of the vertical element make it quite directional or not
significantly directional?
Correct. Adding radials to the "base" of a single
vertical makes it an unbalanced antenna that more
closely approximates a ground plane. And yes,
it's radiation patter will not be 'round' but
if it's more efficient, a few bumps in the radiation
plot may not matter. Having say 4 radials at the
base make the sum total of their radiation resistance
1/4th that of the vertical radiator. This makes
the radiator do it's magic with the majority of
energy arriving at the end of the feedline.
Further, the antenna is now decidedly unbalanced
and the toroids are no longer suggested . . .
although they were of limited value in the first
place. A coax balun does a better job but also narrows
the bandwidth of the system. A broadband balun has
a wider bandwidth but adds its own losses.
1/4 wave comm antennas over ground planes have
been doing a really good job on viritually EVERY
radio equipped airplane since the Lear LTRA6
and Narco VT1 radios gave voice to little GA
aircraft in the 50's.
I think you the highest probability for success
lies in getting as close to that configuration
as the layout of your winglet allows. The more
radials the better. 4 is enough and 8 is
probably not practical.
Bob . . .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 05:31 PM 6/10/2010, you wrote:
>Thanks much Bob for the explanation. It looks like the radial base
>may be my best bet for coming close to a standard aircraft
>cats-whisker antenna. I will try that first and I can lay it out on
>the outer skin and measure the SWR for confirmation of the
>efficiency before I install it in the foam. I will also see how
>different the SWR will be between the outer surface and inside the
>foam. I will report back.
Good show! Inquiring minds want to know . . .
Get a plot over the whole comm range.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
At 04:14 PM 6/10/2010, you wrote:
>
>Bob: Ten days or so ago you answered my question about the ability
>for these 2 to work together. I have installed both, and one thing I am
>not sure of is that when doing to the menu and setting the volume on
>the transciever, I am not able then after getting out of menu to do
>any changing to volume except to use the volume controls on my Lightspeed
>headsets. The volume control on the Flightcom 403 works to control volume
>just between my passenger and I guess thats how its supposed to be.
I think that's correct. Sounds like there's
some operational function yet to be mastered
in the Icom -or- perhaps it has some kind of
problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground power cart protection |
>Any other ideas? I've tried labeling the cart, posting warnings,
>educating everyone who uses the cart...I think I need a hardware solution.
Dave,
I've pondered your question without much success.
There are too many variables. The MOST important
variables include whether or not a good battery is
connected to the system getting ground power -AND-
how many electro-whizzies are energized on the
system at the time ground power is applied.
I think you're stuck with the same functional
problem that gave rise to a host of flight
line ops mistakes that run the gamut from
fueling of piston airplanes with Jet-A down to
waving a departing aircraft to the taxi ramp while his
nose wheel chocks are still in place.
I think it's that "situational awareness" thingy
we pilots are so fond of talking about. Its
value extends far outside the cockpit.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | D-sub jackscrews for 90 degree shell |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Bob
I like your idea for DIY jack-screws made out of hex standoffs.
For most part i can use that concept to make for easier access on some kind of
hard to reach connectors.
I however have one 50 pin D-sub going into the bottom of my instrument module on
the port side that has wires exiting aft at 90 degrees. The wires block access
to aft screw.
Any ideas on how to deal with aft screw that is blocked by wires?
We tried to order various clothes pin pinch opened style security devises, and
metal wire bales, but they are on back order for 120 days. Not certain they will
work. Slim pickings for 50 pin 90 degree shells, the one we decided on allows
for an extended front jack-screw. On aft securing screw perhaps there is 1/2"
from the hole on D-sub to wires exiting at 90 degrees right over screw.
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300962#300962
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Keith Burris" <klburris(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Blown fuse annunciator circuit |
Bob and all;
I have uploaded a picture of an idea I have for a blown fuse annunciating
circuit. The circuit would have to be duplicated for each fuse monitored. It
this. Id like for someone to tell me if Im on the right track here or
completely out in left field. The idea is that the light would stay on as
long as the fuse is blown, regardless of which position the equipment power
switch is in. All comments welcome. Thanks in advance.
P.S. This will also be a test of how easy, hard, simple, etc of uploading
attachments
-- Keith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Blown fuse annunciator circuit |
Why not just use "Smart Glow FUSE" "It glows when it blows" and save weig
ht
Just inquiring minds
Dick
In a message dated 6/11/2010 6:25:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
klburris(at)frontiernet.net writes:
Bob and all;
I have uploaded a picture of an idea I have for a blown fuse annunciating
circuit. The circuit would have to be duplicated for each fuse monitored.
u
read this. I=99d like for someone to tell me if I=99m on the
right track here
or completely out in left field. The idea is that the light would stay on
as
long as the fuse is blown, regardless of which position the equipment
power switch is in. All comments welcome. Thanks in advance.
P.S. This will also be a test of how easy, hard, simple, etc of uploading
attachments
-- Keith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blown fuse annunciator circuit |
At 06:18 PM 6/11/2010, you wrote:
>Bob and all;
>I have uploaded a picture of an idea I have for a blown fuse
>annunciating circuit. The circuit would have to be duplicated for
>or may not be there when you read this. I'd like for someone to tell
>me if I'm on the right track here or completely out in left field.
>The idea is that the light would stay on as long as the fuse is
>blown, regardless of which position the equipment power switch is
>in. All comments welcome. Thanks in advance.
One idea behind the fuseblocks was the low cost
and labor for offering lots of protected feeders
from a bus . . . eliminating current or future
situations where multiple systems have to share
a single protected feeder. It's true that circuit
breakers offer a visual indication of having tripped . . .
but of what value? While airborne, what value is
there in knowing that gizmo (1) has stopped working
because the power is removed due to overloaded
breaker or (2) has stopped working for dozens of
other reasons that do not trip the breaker?
If any device becomes non-functional, the likelihood of
putting it back in service by replacing a fuse or
resetting a breaker is nearly zero. If any failure
presents an extra ordinary task for comfortable return
to earth, THAT system needs a backup . . . a plan-B.
Once you're on the ground, how difficult is it
to confirm whether or not the fuse has opened on
any one system? It's a 30 second test with your
multimeter. How often do you expect to troubleshoot
a potentially blown fuse? I can share that in 1000+
hours of time in little airplanes, I've had TWO
breaker tripping events. One was the alternator B-lead
breaker . . . DESIGNED to nuisance trip. The other
was power to the audio distribution amplifier . . .
shorted transistors. NO recovery possible by resetting
the breaker. How often do you find it necessary to
find a popped fuse in your lifetime experience driving
cars? I've had a less than a hand-full in 50+ years.
Haven't had one in over 20 years.
So what's the return on investment for putting blown
fuse indicators on all your present and future fuses?
Are all the new wires protected? Is there some other
task on your project that would benefit from expenditure
of $time$, talent, weight, space and other resources
on your airplane? Finally, have you considered the
use of fuses with built-in indicators?
http://www.escience.ca/hobby/RENDER/0001/2065/3099/11978.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D-sub jackscrews for 90 degree shell |
At 05:19 PM 6/11/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>I like your idea for DIY jack-screws made out of hex standoffs.
>
>For most part i can use that concept to make for easier access on
>some kind of hard to reach connectors.
>
>I however have one 50 pin D-sub going into the bottom of my
>instrument module on the port side that has wires exiting aft at 90
>degrees. The wires block access to aft screw.
>
>Any ideas on how to deal with aft screw that is blocked by wires?
>
>We tried to order various clothes pin pinch opened style security
>devises, and metal wire bales, but they are on back order for 120
>days. Not certain they will work. Slim pickings for 50 pin 90 degree
>shells, the one we decided on allows for an extended front
>jack-screw. On aft securing screw perhaps there is 1/2" from the
>hole on D-sub to wires exiting at 90 degrees right over screw.
Only thing that comes immediately to mind is make a LONG
extended screw with a smooth, round spacer and bring
it right through the bundle. You can put a hex head on
the end after it passes through the wire bundle.
Consider too tying a plastic bushing of some kind
into the bundle such that the wires don't ride
directly on the jackscrew. A piece of nylaflo tubing
would work.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
RE Silkscreening:
Earlier I said that I would post my experience with EZScreen Print.
After a trial and error learning curve, I wasn't satisfied with the results. The
problem was somewhat self-inflicted as I was trying to print a fairly small
font and the screen printing process has some limitations in how a finely detailed
an image prints. I was trying to do 16 pt and the edges were just not crisp
enough for me. Larger block fonts of about 36 points look pretty good. They
look nicely painted but not like computer print work. If I was doing large font
work, I'd be happy with the look. It has more body, color vibrancy. Kind of
like the difference between a beautifully rendered painting and a photo of the
same subject.
So that said, I'm done with my experiment and if someone else would like to try
it, $25 gets the $85 kit of Red, Blue, Black, White paint, squeegees, 1 full
sheet and about 3/4 sheet (8.5 x 11) of the artwork ready Hi-Res screen, laser
printer transparencies for artwork, and instructions.
Next experiment is vinyl decal with solvent based inks that should be compatible
with the clear acrylic. Will post results.
For the EZSreen Print kit, Email me at jonlaury(at)impulse.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301004#301004
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Keith Burris" <klburris(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blown fuse annunciator circuit |
Bob:
You wrote:
One idea behind the fuse blocks was the low cost
and labor for offering lots of protected feeders
from a bus . . . eliminating current or future
situations where multiple systems have to share
a single protected feeder. It's true that circuit
breakers offer a visual indication of having tripped . . .
but of what value? While airborne, what value is
there in knowing that gizmo (1) has stopped working
because the power is removed due to overloaded
breaker or (2) has stopped working for dozens of
other reasons that do not trip the breaker?
Keeping in mind that I am not a high time pilot and only thinking of my
experience in the cockpit so far -- wouldnt you want to know, now, why
something is not working instead of worrying about what else is not working?
Seems to me there is a comfort factor there. Regarding weight, I can't
imagine a few ounces making much difference but I am ready to stand
corrected.
If any device becomes non-functional, the likelihood of
putting it back in service by replacing a fuse or
resetting a breaker is nearly zero. If any failure
presents an extra ordinary task for comfortable return
to earth, THAT system needs a backup . . . a plan-B.
Don't plan to try to put it back in service. I would just know whats wrong
and not worry about it while attempting to land.
Once you're on the ground, how difficult is it
to confirm whether or not the fuse has opened on
any one system? It's a 30 second test with your
multimeter. How often do you expect to troubleshoot
a potentially blown fuse? I can share that in 1000+
hours of time in little airplanes, I've had TWO
breaker tripping events. One was the alternator B-lead
breaker . . . DESIGNED to nuisance trip. The other
was power to the audio distribution amplifier . . .
shorted transistors. NO recovery possible by resetting
the breaker. How often do you find it necessary to
find a popped fuse in your lifetime experience driving
cars? I've had a less than a hand-full in 50+ years.
Haven't had one in over 20 years.
This may just be me and being a low time, scared pilot - If, for whatever
reason, I forget, or don't fix it right, or get distracted, or fix it and
break something else in the process, whatever, I have a visual reference, on
the panel, that the plane is not airworthy before I commit by wheels up.
This indication would be available after the pre-flight. The pre-flight, it
seems to me, could be a place where an electrical problem could be missed,
but again, this is from a guy who puts creases in the middle of the left
seat when he flies :-)
So what's the return on investment for putting blown
fuse indicators on all your present and future fuses?
Are all the new wires protected? Is there some other
task on your project that would benefit from expenditure
of $time$, talent, weight, space and other resources
on your airplane? Finally, have you considered the
use of fuses with built-in indicators?
Following the advice in the Connection, I have decided to use a fuse block
with indicating fuses. The problem is, the fuse block will be out of site of
the panel. The wires for the panel indicators are not protected, and,
indeed, one could carry the idea of protection to the point of
ridiculousness. I guess the only benefit I see is just some piece of mind
for the new or inexperienced pilot, but that's why I'm on this list.
-- Keith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
Check out http://www.pulsarprofx.com/
You do need to find a heat sealer (or buy the one they sell), but the
results are as good as they claim. I did my panels with this and it
came out great! There is s bit of a learning curve at the start, but
the kit provides plenty of material. I did use a clear overcoat for
additional durability, but it is not necessary in areas of minimum
exposure - near switches, yes; general labeling on the main panel, not
really.
Dick Tasker
jonlaury wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jonlaury"
>
> RE Silkscreening:
>
> Earlier I said that I would post my experience with EZScreen Print.
>
> After a trial and error learning curve, I wasn't satisfied with the results.
The problem was somewhat self-inflicted as I was trying to print a fairly small
font and the screen printing process has some limitations in how a finely detailed
an image prints. I was trying to do 16 pt and the edges were just not
crisp enough for me. Larger block fonts of about 36 points look pretty good. They
look nicely painted but not like computer print work. If I was doing large
font work, I'd be happy with the look. It has more body, color vibrancy. Kind
of like the difference between a beautifully rendered painting and a photo of
the same subject.
>
> So that said, I'm done with my experiment and if someone else would like to try
it, $25 gets the $85 kit of Red, Blue, Black, White paint, squeegees, 1 full
sheet and about 3/4 sheet (8.5 x 11) of the artwork ready Hi-Res screen, laser
printer transparencies for artwork, and instructions.
>
> Next experiment is vinyl decal with solvent based inks that should be compatible
with the clear acrylic. Will post results.
>
> For the EZSreen Print kit, Email me at jonlaury(at)impulse.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301004#301004
>
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
The best way to label your panel that I have come across in the full sticky
back full sheet Avery labels. They are clear #18665 or vellum like clear
#53203. The sheets are 8.5 X 11 and are designed for ink jet printers. I
made up my labels using Word and then printed the sheets and then cut apart
as needed and applied to the panel. I even printed circles to correspond
with the switch holes in the panel which helped me to align the labels when
I applied to the panel. Then I just cut out the holes with a razor knife
and installed the switches. Looks pretty darn good if I do say so myself.
You can overspray them with clear lacquer if you feel you need to protect
them better. Just keep the Word file and reprint if you want to replace or
change. As it turns out, I am changing a lot of stuff and this makes that a
snap.
With a little planning, you can get the entire panel on 1 or 2 sheets and
then cut with a scissors and apply.
While you are getting everything to fit and align, you can print on regular
paper and hold it over the location on the panel to see if it fits and looks
like you want it to.
You can get 10 sheets of the clear (18665) for $13. That is enough to label
the panel of everybody you know and still have some left for changes!
Hard to beat for the price!!
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jonlaury
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 12:53 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: labeling panel
RE Silkscreening:
Earlier I said that I would post my experience with EZScreen Print.
After a trial and error learning curve, I wasn't satisfied with the results.
The problem was somewhat self-inflicted as I was trying to print a fairly
small font and the screen printing process has some limitations in how a
finely detailed an image prints. I was trying to do 16 pt and the edges
were just not crisp enough for me. Larger block fonts of about 36 points
look pretty good. They look nicely painted but not like computer print work.
If I was doing large font work, I'd be happy with the look. It has more
body, color vibrancy. Kind of like the difference between a beautifully
rendered painting and a photo of the same subject.
So that said, I'm done with my experiment and if someone else would like to
try it, $25 gets the $85 kit of Red, Blue, Black, White paint, squeegees, 1
full sheet and about 3/4 sheet (8.5 x 11) of the artwork ready Hi-Res
screen, laser printer transparencies for artwork, and instructions.
Next experiment is vinyl decal with solvent based inks that should be
compatible with the clear acrylic. Will post results.
For the EZSreen Print kit, Email me at jonlaury(at)impulse.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301004#301004
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Resistor too hot? |
| From: | "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero> |
I'm planning on using some LED strips for courtesy lighting. I found a 19" strip
with 30 LEDs that draw 130mA at 12v. Since I'm going to using a 24v system,
I'm going to need to drop use a resistor.
So using 28v as the supply with a voltage drop of 12v and a current of 130mA gave
me a 123 ohm 2 watt resistor. I have access to some 123 ohm, 2 watt, metal
film resistors so I tried those.
When I set it up on the breadboard the current was reading 100ma but the resistor
was almost immediately too hot to touch. Using a point and shoot thermometer
(not the most accurate for this) showed 120 degrees within about 1 minute and
after 5 minutes it was up to 140 degrees.
Now I don't expect these lights will stay on much longer than 5 minutes as they
will most likely be used during loading and unloading but that heat doesn't seem
right.
How hot is too hot for a resistor?
Should I bump up to a 5 watt resistor?
Did I miscalculate?
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301014#301014
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blown fuse annunciator circuit |
>
>Following the advice in the Connection, I have decided to use a fuse
>block with indicating fuses. The problem is, the fuse block will be
>out of site of the panel. The wires for the panel indicators are not
>protected, and, indeed, one could carry the idea of protection to
>the point of ridiculousness. I guess the only benefit I see is just
>some piece of mind for the new or inexperienced pilot, but that's
>why I'm on this list.
Understand. Please know that nobody's trying to drive
your design goals either. This is a forum for discovery
evaluation and incorporation of simple-ideas into recipes
for success. The sum total of this List's membership brings
the added benefit of perhaps several centuries of experience
in such matters.
To the extent that you can use this resource to both
refine your ideas and assuage ill-founded fears, so
be it. But in the final analysis, it's your airplane.
The best way to evaluate your design decisions is to
tell us what Plan-B you've crafted for the loss of
any truly useful electro-whizzy based on the manner you
will be using your airplane. It's called critical design
review . . . a practice common to virtually every successful
venture. Putting your ideas down in black and white for
review by fellow travelers of aviation circles goes a
long way toward validation of the design which in turn
confirms or discounts your fears. Suggest you check out
Chapter 17 in the 'Connection if you've not already done
so.
But even after your airplane is finished, go test your
design goals in a low-risk flight environment. One
of my first business cross country trips after getting
my ticket was to Brainerd MN. I was partnered with
a fellow who worked for Wilcox, an avionics manufacturer
in Kansas City. I picked him up at Johnson County
Exec Apt and we headed north. He had never flown
in a little airplane before. He understood what
all that hardware on the panel was for but had never
considered its role in the grand-plan for getting
us from point A to point B.
He expressed some relief in having all those goodies
to get us where we were going. I thought I'd yank
his chain a bit . . . and shut down he electrical
system. He expressed some concern but I assured
him that if we just kept it pointed straight north,
we could get there just fine without all that "stuff".
What he didn't know was that our fluids-maintenance
stop (Ft Dodge) and Brainerd were both dead-nuts
north of KC and just staying lined up on section roads
and watching the clock made the Plan-B pretty easy. 20
years later, my hand-held GPS would have made the same
demonstration easier still.
The point is that your confidence in doing without
major chunks (if not all) of the panel mounted
electro-whizzies will be greatly improved if you
do some flying in the "J-3 mode". This will sharpen
your own thinking processes and flying skills while
validating design goals. It's not a "feat of daring do"
if you've "been there, done that" a few times on your
own terms.
When I fly, it's ALWAYS in a rented airplane. Design
and maintenance goals of my choosing are never incorporated
into the airplane-of-the-day. So I have to walk up
to that machine prepared to get where I want to go
with NOTHING on the panel working. Instead of building
back-ups-to-back-ups into your airplane, why not trade that
time, weight, space and expense for a plan and the
skills to deal with the worst that can happen? The
risks are very low when you get to stack the deck.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Resistor too hot? |
In a message dated 6/12/2010 3:32:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
don(at)numa.aero writes:
I'm planning on using some LED strips for courtesy lighting. I found a 19"
strip with 30 LEDs that draw 130mA at 12v.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Where
Tks
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Resistor too hot? |
At 03:27 PM 6/12/2010, you wrote:
>
>I'm planning on using some LED strips for courtesy lighting. I found
>a 19" strip with 30 LEDs that draw 130mA at 12v. Since I'm going to
>using a 24v system, I'm going to need to drop use a resistor.
>
>So using 28v as the supply with a voltage drop of 12v and a current
>of 130mA gave me a 123 ohm 2 watt resistor. I have access to some
>123 ohm, 2 watt, metal film resistors so I tried those.
>
>When I set it up on the breadboard the current was reading 100ma but
>the resistor was almost immediately too hot to touch. Using a point
>and shoot thermometer (not the most accurate for this) showed 120
>degrees within about 1 minute and after 5 minutes it was up to 140 degrees.
>
>Now I don't expect these lights will stay on much longer than 5
>minutes as they will most likely be used during loading and
>unloading but that heat doesn't seem right.
>
>How hot is too hot for a resistor?
>
>Should I bump up to a 5 watt resistor?
>
>Did I miscalculate?
No. The normal "full power" operating temperature
for some power resistors is pretty toasty. Typically
over 100C (will sizzle spit).
For example:
Emacs!
Here'a de-rating curve for a typical metal film power resistor.
Note that it's good for 100% of power rating at 70C ambient.
When ambient rises to about 225 degrees C (that's
really toasty), you cannot call upon the device to handle
ANY power. I.e., At full power in a 70C environment, one
can expect the surface temperature to be over 200C.
The specifications for your resistor of choice should
be available on the 'net . . . but it's unlikely that
you've got a problem with respect to the resistor itself.
A significant risk for incorporating high power devices
into a system may not be for the device itself but for
surrounding devices and/or materials that will degrade
in performance when subject to local heating.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Resistor too hot? |
> Did I miscalculate?
> Don
Don=2C
From what I see=2C and according to the information you stated=2C no=2C y
ou didn't miscalculate. A 12 volt forward voltage does sound high=2C thoug
h. Most LEDs have a forward voltage in the 2 volt range. Hmm?
From my experience with LEDs=2C why not just give a higher resistor a try
? The only thing
a higher resistor will affect is the luminosity of the LED=2C and from my e
xperience it takes a lot more resistance to reduce the brightness any signi
ficant degree. Why not try 330 ohm resistors=2C or maybe even some 470's?
Just a thought....
Mike Welch
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inbox
.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:O
N:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Resistor too hot? |
| From: | "donjohnston" <don(at)numa.aero> |
> From what I see, and according to the information you stated, no, you didn't
miscalculate. A 12 volt forward voltage does sound high, though. Most LEDs have
a forward voltage in the 2 volt range. Hmm?
Mike,
It's not a single LED, it's a strip of 30 LEDs. According the information, they're
designed for a 12v supply.
Spec's are here:
http://www.superbrightleds.com/cgi-bin/store/index.cgi?action=DispPage&Page2Disp=%2Fspecs%2FFLS.htm
It's the first one one the list (xFLS-CW30).
Sounds like I'm okay. I just need to figure out where to mount the resistor so
the heat isn't an issue.
-Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301024#301024
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Resistor too hot? |
| From: | rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us |
Hi Don
Just a thought, can you find two light strips you can
put in series? Do you have a Pep Boys automotive store near you? They sell
various length LED light strips, I have one that is bout half the length
you want to use. There is a good chance on your light strip you have if it
is like picture on website, thereare 3 LEDs in series with a
resistor. If you made a cut of wires at the 15 LED mark and put them in
series instead of parallel you could get rid of your resistor all
together.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
I have my EMS, a like new I_K Technologies AIM 1, for sale.
I won't need the I-K, as the D-180 I bought does everything this does,
and also includes an EFIS which this I-K unit only partially does
(airspeed and altitude).
So...the details:
This is what the display looks like when fired up:
www.i-ktechnologies.com/Products-aim1.htm
and that I-K Technologies web site includes more information on it.
Here is what the unit displays:
* Airspeed
* RPM
* MP
* Oil Press
* Oil Temp
* Fuel Flow
* Fuel Pressure
* EGT (x4)
* CHT (x4)
* Altitude
* Checklist
I will include all the paperwork that came with it and the instrument
mounting tray. If you want pictures of the unit as I have it, including
the data module, let me know and I can email them to you.
It is brand new. I have never installed it or even powered up. It
consists of two parts, the engine data module (which mounts on or near
the firewall) and the display module that mounts on the panel. The
entire system weighs less than 2 pounds. The only wiring to the display
from the data module is a single data cable, so the majority of the
sensor and probe wiring remains short, and near the engine.
Ralph Krongold, the owner of I-K Technologies, told me this morning that
he'd be glad to check it over for anyone who buys it from me, but
expects that there will be no problems with it and that a checkup will
most likely be unnecessary.
Just as when it is purchased from I-K, the unit does not include the
probes, sensors and wires. They are normally purchased separately, or it
can use the ones that you currently have installed on your engine. If
you don't have them, you can buy them from I-K, Stein (who has a
complete kit of the ones needed for the AIM 1
www.steinair.com/enginemonitors.htm ), Aircraft Spruce, or your favorite
aircraft supply stores.
Having said that, this unit was for the four cylinder, Lycoming O-235
that I am installing. It can be used on any 4 cylinder, air cooled
engine, and, as I mentioned, the dealers who handle it (like Stein and
Aircraft Spruce) offer the probes separately if you don't already have
your own. It uses standard j and k thermocouples, flow and pressure
sensors.
The current price of this unit is $1499 (without the probes and
sensors). You can have it for $1200. I will include everything that I
received with the display and data module unit including the data cable,
the sensor cable, the manual, the test data and the power plug and pins.
It was for my Long EZ, so the data cable should be long enough for just
about any aircraft (except an A380, maybe )
United States shipping will be for free.
Please contact me if interested...
Harley Dixon
harley(at)agelesswings.com
Long EZ N28EZ
Canandaigua, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
Jon,
Jim Wickert here. Did you use the HR High Res screen the HiRes ink? Or was
this the standard materials. Thanks.
Jim Wickert
Tel 920-467-0219
Cell 920-912-1014
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jonlaury
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: labeling panel
RE Silkscreening:
Earlier I said that I would post my experience with EZScreen Print.
After a trial and error learning curve, I wasn't satisfied with the results.
The problem was somewhat self-inflicted as I was trying to print a fairly
small font and the screen printing process has some limitations in how a
finely detailed an image prints. I was trying to do 16 pt and the edges
were just not crisp enough for me. Larger block fonts of about 36 points
look pretty good. They look nicely painted but not like computer print work.
If I was doing large font work, I'd be happy with the look. It has more
body, color vibrancy. Kind of like the difference between a beautifully
rendered painting and a photo of the same subject.
So that said, I'm done with my experiment and if someone else would like to
try it, $25 gets the $85 kit of Red, Blue, Black, White paint, squeegees, 1
full sheet and about 3/4 sheet (8.5 x 11) of the artwork ready Hi-Res
screen, laser printer transparencies for artwork, and instructions.
Next experiment is vinyl decal with solvent based inks that should be
compatible with the clear acrylic. Will post results.
For the EZSreen Print kit, Email me at jonlaury(at)impulse.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301004#301004
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Resistor too hot? |
Or, use a resistor like this:
http://mouser.com/ProductDetail/Ohmite/TBH25P150RJE/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMvhlCB8
CTbT5P3ZZcE9WVSjJn%252bo%252b5MXx0c%3d
Screw that down to some convenient large piece of metal and it will stay
much cooler. Just be sure to heat-shrink the leads so they don't short
to the heat sink surface. The tab is electrically insulated, so there's
no need for a mica sheet underneath it.
--Daniel
On Jun 12, 2010, at 6:04 PM, rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
> Hi Don
>
> Just a thought, can you find two light strips you can put in series?
Do you have a Pep Boys automotive store near you? They sell various
length LED light strips, I have one that is bout half the length you
want to use. There is a good chance on your light strip you have if it
is like picture on website, there are 3 LEDs in series with a resistor.
If you made a cut of wires at the 15 LED mark and put them in series
instead of parallel you could get rid of your resistor all together.
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | LED light strips |
>Sounds like I'm okay. I just need to figure out where to mount the
>resistor so the heat isn't an issue.
How do you plan to use this product? I sounds like
a LOT of light output capability.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | LED light strips |
>Sounds like I'm okay. I just need to figure out where to mount the
>resistor so the heat isn't an issue.
How do you plan to use this product? I sounds like
a LOT of light output capability.
OOPS . . . scratch the above . . . I picked it up
in your earlier post. I was just thinking that
these would be about 100 times more light than
what was needed for cockpit night lighting.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Seeing Matronics List Attachments |
6/13/2010
Hello Keith, Here is how I looked at your jpg attachment of the Blown fuse
annunciator circuit:
1) Note the subject matter of the email posting that has the attachment you
desire to see.
2) Go to the aeroelectric list navigator site by clicking on the URL at the
end of each list digest:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator/?AeroElectric-List
3) Click on the BBS forums URL:
http://forums.matronics.com/
4) Scroll down to the appropriate list -- in this case aeroelectric, and
click on it:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=b2280214d4829c9f10f3ad00ea4de9d3
5) Scroll further down to the subject postings. If one of the series of
postings on the subject contains an attachment the subject listing should
have a little paper clip icon indicating that some where in the series of
postings on that subject there is an attachment:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=71859
6) Scroll further down to the end of the posting with the attachment and
voila! there should be the attachment in all its visible glory.
Please let me know how you make out.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
PS: There is sort of a gotcha. I posted a jpg picture on the KIS list (see
here I hope):
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=71560
and the picture posted just fine except that its layout on the forum was so
huge such that one had to scroll all over the place to find the area of
interest.
================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Burris" <klburris(at)frontiernet.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: Blown fuse annunciator circuit
> OC;
> I really hate to sound so incredibly dense, but could you tell me where
> you
> saw my uploaded jpg file at? I've looked all over matronics and have not
> been able to find it. So much for easy photo share :(
> -- Keith
=========================================================
>
> 6/12/2010
>
> Hello Keith, You wrote: "This will also be a test of how easy, hard,
> simple,
> etc of uploading
> attachments"
>
> Your jpg attachment was there on BBS, but it was just all gray -- no
> discernable picture.
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
> to
> gather and understand knowledge."
>
> ============================================================
>
> From: "Keith Burris" <klburris(at)frontiernet.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Blown fuse annunciator circuit
>
>
> Bob and all;
> I have uploaded a picture of an idea I have for a blown fuse annunciating
> circuit. The circuit would have to be duplicated for each fuse monitored.
> It
> read
> this. Id like for someone to tell me if Im on the right track here or
> completely out in left field. The idea is that the light would stay on as
> long as the fuse is blown, regardless of which position the equipment
> power
> switch is in. All comments welcome. Thanks in advance.
>
> P.S. This will also be a test of how easy, hard, simple, etc of uploading
> attachments
>
> -- Keith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | LED light strips |
>Sounds like I'm okay. I just need to figure out where to mount the
>resistor so the heat isn't an issue.
Rather than use a resistor, I would cut the
strip in half, as the manufacturer suggests, and put the 2 strips in
series.
This way you need no resistor and you can run it on 24V. See attached
sketch.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeing Matronics List Attachments |
At 06:55 AM 6/13/2010, you wrote:
>
>6/13/2010
>
>PS: There is sort of a gotcha. I posted a jpg picture on the KIS
>list (see here I hope):
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=71560
>
>and the picture posted just fine except that its layout on the forum
>was so huge such that one had to scroll all over the place to find
>the area of interest.
This is something of a conundrum when posting pictures.
Even the most inexpensive of modern cameras are capable
of imaging and recording in great detail with some pictures
being as much as 3000 pixels wide.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeing Matronics List Attachments |
At 06:55 AM 6/13/2010, you wrote:
>
>6/13/2010
>
>Hello Keith, Here is how I looked at your jpg
>attachment of the Blown fuse annunciator circuit:
>
>PS: There is sort of a gotcha. I posted a jpg
>picture on the KIS list (see here I hope):
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=71560
>
>and the picture posted just fine except that its
>layout on the forum was so huge such that one
>had to scroll all over the place to find the area of interest.
This is something of a conundrum in that not
everyone's computer will handle viewing of a
downloaded image exactly the same way. It depends
on your default image viewing application in
addition to defaults set up within that application.
I don't even remember what the defaults are on
this computer, I set them up years ago and promptly
ignored/forgot them.
Even the inexpensive cameras are capable of
imaging and recording in great detail with
pictures upwards of 3000 pixels in width. Bob's
uploaded image was 2,304px 1,728 pixels.
The first blush presentation on my computer did
indeed produce an image that ran off the screen
in both height and width.
But in my case, a right-click on the image produced
a pull-down where "view image" is an option. Selecting
that option zoomed out on the image so that it
fit the screen. You can also right-click images
and tell your computer to save them to hard drive.
After they reside on your own hardware, you can
open them with any other application for viewing,
resizing, editing, etc.
Unless I'm posting an image that contains detail
best viewed in the camera's raw output, I try
to re-scale the pictures to 1024 pixels wide so
that they fit the native settings for most folks
computers . . . but even that's not a 100% sure
thing for everyone's viewing convenience.
By the way, adding those nifty air flow control
features at the wing roots is reminiscent of
an effort to improve the handling qualities of
a Cessna 303 Clipper/Crusader.
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=155
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_303
I recall a presentation given by a Cessna test pilot
at some dinner-with-a-tech-talk. He showed us video
of the 303 flying on the single critical engine at
some breath-taking low speed doing maneuvers that
approached aileron-rolls.
This became possible only after much study
and some tweaking that included airflow fences at
the wing roots. This insured maintenance of pitch
control under conditions that no pilot with a
family would routinely venture into. Except of
course, THAT test pilot!
Neat stuff that aerodynamics.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Welding Cable for Battery Leads. |
| From: | "AVick" <ajvick49(at)gmail.com> |
I see other post that approves the use of welding cable for the main battery feeds
to the contractor and starter etc. My question is if we are being careful
to use Tefzel for all our wire to reduce the chance of smoke in the cockpit why
would you change that for the main power feeds? Is it easier to work with
than 4 ga Tefzel, that is more flexible? I am planning on using the welding cable
because it is local and cheaper. But have that concern I would like to address
on the safety issue.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301062#301062
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Picture format for posting |
Oversized pics are a constant issue and most people just delete them
since it is so hard to view them. For PC users Microsoft has the
tool for resizing a picture. Find the download on the right .
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
To use the tool click on properties of the pic and choose small or
medium and get an new file for posting.
It would be nice if everyone used the tool.
Regards, Paul
==============
>
>
>At 06:55 AM 6/13/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>6/13/2010
>>
>>PS: There is sort of a gotcha. I posted a jpg picture on the KIS
>>list (see here I hope):
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=71560
>>
>>and the picture posted just fine except that its layout on the
>>forum was so huge such that one had to scroll all over the place to
>>find the area of interest.
>
> This is something of a conundrum when posting pictures.
> Even the most inexpensive of modern cameras are capable
> of imaging and recording in great detail with some pictures
> being as much as 3000 pixels wide.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Labeling |
I agree with Dick and would highly recommend Pulsar.
Angier Ames
On Jun 13, 2010, at 2:55 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: labeling panel
>
>
> Check out http://www.pulsarprofx.com/
>
> You do need to find a heat sealer (or buy the one they sell), but the
> results are as good as they claim. I did my panels with this and it
> came out great! There is s bit of a learning curve at the start, but
> the kit provides plenty of material. I did use a clear overcoat for
> additional durability, but it is not necessary in areas of minimum
> exposure - near switches, yes; general labeling on the main panel, not
> really.
>
> Dick Tasker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Labeling |
I agree with Dick and would highly recommend Pulsar.
Angier Ames
On Jun 13, 2010, at 2:55 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: labeling panel
>
>
> Check out http://www.pulsarprofx.com/
>
> You do need to find a heat sealer (or buy the one they sell), but the
> results are as good as they claim. I did my panels with this and it
> came out great! There is s bit of a learning curve at the start, but
> the kit provides plenty of material. I did use a clear overcoat for
> additional durability, but it is not necessary in areas of minimum
> exposure - near switches, yes; general labeling on the main panel, not
> really.
>
> Dick Tasker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Cable for Battery Leads. |
At 08:37 AM 6/13/2010, you wrote:
I see other post that approves . . .
The operative word is "suggests".
. . . the use of welding cable for the main battery feeds to the
contractor and starter etc. My question is if we are being careful
to use Tefzel for all our wire to reduce the chance of smoke in the
cockpit why would you change that for the main power feeds? Is it
easier to work with than 4 ga Tefzel, that is more flexible?
Why not 4AWG welding cable which is more flexible
yet?
I am planning on using the welding cable because it is local and
cheaper. But have that concern I would like to address on the safety issue.
Just for grins, take a piece of 22AWG Tefzel wire about
2 feet long, strip both ends about 1/2", and grab
the bared ends in a two pairs of pliers. Now stob
the pliers to the terminals of your car battery.
Observe whether or not Tefzel wire "does not
smoke". Take a little whiff of the gray-stuff
wafting away in the air . . . is it something
to which one might wish to become addicted?
My point is that there is no such thing as
a wire insulation that (1) doesn't smoke
or (2) produces a smoke that does not produce
severe discomfort in the cockpit.
Of course those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-
than-we-do are ever more willing to "approve"
or "disapprove" our selection of materials all
in the name of the "greater good".
Bottom line is that safety comes from not having
the wire smoke in the first place which has to
do more with architecture and materials. I.e.
installation of fuses and breakers. And
installation techniques, I.e, don't let wires
rub on sharp sheet metal edges.
Beyond this, insulation selection is driven
by considerations for durability in service.
Welding cable is designed to lay on gravel
roads and be run over by dump trucks dripping
oil. They'll be just fine under the floorboards
of your flying fliver.
Risk is managed more by what YOU DO than by
what YOU BUY.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Shop aid: Temporary table/shelf space |
When building an airplane, there never seems to be enough
table space for laying out inventory and tools for easy
access. I've constructed a number of these critters
over the years:
http://tinyurl.com/24nxhqs
They're built of cheap materials and not painted
to minimize acquisition $time$. They go together
in about 30 minutes for under $20. Has the same
footprint as a standard 6-foot folding table but
holds 50% more stuff. Knocks down to store. I use
them for garage sales too. I sell the table at
the sale for $30 to avoid storing them. They've
got a lot of utility when temporary table/shelf
space is needed. Got a batch of 6 under construction
for Dr. Dee's "Mother of all Garage Sales" coming up
in a couple weeks. Thought you folks might find
them as practical/useful as I have.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shop aid: Temporary table/shelf space |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Where is the garage sale going to be, Bob, Medicine Lodge or Benton?
Rick
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> When building an airplane, there never seems to be enough
> table space for laying out inventory and tools for easy
> access. I've constructed a number of these critters
> over the years:
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/24nxhqs*
>
> They're built of cheap materials and not painted
> to minimize acquisition $time$. They go together
> in about 30 minutes for under $20. Has the same
> footprint as a standard 6-foot folding table but
> holds 50% more stuff. Knocks down to store. I use
> them for garage sales too. I sell the table at
> the sale for $30 to avoid storing them. They've
> got a lot of utility when temporary table/shelf
> space is needed. Got a batch of 6 under construction
> for Dr. Dee's "Mother of all Garage Sales" coming up
> in a couple weeks. Thought you folks might find
> them as practical/useful as I have.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shop aid: Temporary table/shelf space |
At 02:16 PM 6/13/2010, you wrote:
>Where is the garage sale going to be, Bob, Medicine Lodge or Benton?
>
>Rick
Wichita. We've got about 5 households of "over-stuff"
left over from the great migration that we'll be
offering from our old digs on Bainbridge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Welding Cable for Battery Leads. |
On 6/13/2010 9:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
> At 08:37 AM 6/13/2010, you wrote:
>
> I see other post that approves . . .
>
> The operative word is "suggests".
>
> . . . the use of welding cable for the main battery feeds to the
> contractor and starter etc. My question is if we are being careful to
> use Tefzel for all our wire to reduce the chance of smoke in the
> cockpit why would you change that for the main power feeds? Is it
> easier to work with than 4 ga Tefzel, that is more flexible?
>
> Why not 4AWG welding cable which is more flexible
> yet?
>
> I am planning on using the welding cable because it is local and
> cheaper. But have that concern I would like to address on the safety
> issue.
>
> Just for grins, take a piece of 22AWG Tefzel wire about
> 2 feet long, strip both ends about 1/2", and grab
> the bared ends in a two pairs of pliers. Now stob
> the pliers to the terminals of your car battery.
>
> Observe whether or not Tefzel wire "does not
> smoke". Take a little whiff of the gray-stuff
> wafting away in the air . . . is it something
> to which one might wish to become addicted?
>
> My point is that there is no such thing as
> a wire insulation that (1) doesn't smoke
> or (2) produces a smoke that does not produce
> severe discomfort in the cockpit.
>
> Of course those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-
> than-we-do are ever more willing to "approve"
> or "disapprove" our selection of materials all
> in the name of the "greater good".
>
> Bottom line is that safety comes from not having
> the wire smoke in the first place which has to
> do more with architecture and materials. I.e.
> installation of fuses and breakers. And
> installation techniques, I.e, don't let wires
> rub on sharp sheet metal edges.
>
> Beyond this, insulation selection is driven
> by considerations for durability in service.
> Welding cable is designed to lay on gravel
> roads and be run over by dump trucks dripping
> oil. They'll be just fine under the floorboards
> of your flying fliver.
>
> Risk is managed more by what YOU DO than by
> what YOU BUY.
>
>
> Bob . . .
And, if I may piggy back on this, the fact that it is more flexible
means that a less than perfect installation is less likely to cause
fatigued connections (or even fatigued wire).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Welding Cable for fat wires |
At 04:00 PM 6/13/2010, you wrote:
And, if I may piggy back on this, the fact that it is more flexible
means that a less than perfect installation is less likely to cause
fatigued connections (or even fatigued wire).
Charlie
Absolutely! The wire is DESIGNED for flexibility being
crafted from copper cat hair . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/4AWG_Welding_Cable_1.jpg
. . . which means that it is fundamentally less suited
to stressing terminals by virtue of it's role as
a Class 2 lever. It's difficult to apply a force by
means of a soggy noodle.
Some of the earliest experiences with SVLA battery failure
manifested as a fracturing of the lead terminal-posts
just at the top of the case seal . . .
Emacs!
Root cause turned out to be 2AWG Tefzel battery jumpers
transmitting considerable stress to the posts under vibration.
Converting to welding cable jumpers fixed the problem.
However, this doesn't negate the need for support immediately
adjacent to crimped or soldered joints where the
wire transitions from very flexible to very inflexible.
Thanks for reminding me Charlie.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax 914 internal generator |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi group
I am using Eris Jones Linear Over-Voltage Protector to control my Rotax 914 internal
generator through a 75 amp automotive relay.
At moment I have relay on my schematic downstream of the Ducati regulator. If regulator
fails and there is in fact a runaway over volt event, true the L OVP
device will disconnect it from my electrical system, but the generator will still
be outputting.
Do you think I would be better off moving the relay that is controlled by the L
OVP to be in series with one of the generators yellow output wires?
Here is my schematic with relay downstream of Ducati regulator:
http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId372&g2_imageViewsIndex=0
Please click drop down to get higher resolution of 2592 x 1944.
Thanking you in advance.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301112#301112
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Jim,
I used the HiRes screens. I don't think there is a specific hi-res paint. The resolution
is a function of the # of threads/inch in the warp and weft of the screen.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301122#301122
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Bill Bradbury,
Thanks for the heads-up re Avery sticky back sheets. I'm doing essentially the
same thing through a graphics shop, but if that ends up going in the trash, then
I'll try Avery next. Ink jet isn't as color fast as laser toner, but with a
couple of clear coats, the effects of UV should be somewhat diminished. But the
color fade was a concern and solvent based inks are more color fast than water
based (ink jet) ink, so for $10 I gave it a shot.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301124#301124
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Picture format for posting |
This is odd. I use Internet Explorer 8, and used earlier versions which
behaved in the same way. Whenever I open a large graphic, e.g. a jpg photo
it opens showing me the top left corner of the photo but when it's finished
downloading it automatically resizes the image to fit my window. Maybe
there's a setting somewhere but I don't remember doing anything to get this
behavior, it's just always done this on a variety of laptops and various
versions of IE.
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 paul
wilson
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 6:43 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Picture format for posting
Oversized pics are a constant issue and most people just delete them
since it is so hard to view them. For PC users Microsoft has the
tool for resizing a picture. Find the download on the right .
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
To use the tool click on properties of the pic and choose small or
medium and get an new file for posting.
It would be nice if everyone used the tool.
Regards, Paul
==============
>
>
>At 06:55 AM 6/13/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>6/13/2010
>>
>>PS: There is sort of a gotcha. I posted a jpg picture on the KIS
>>list (see here I hope):
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=71560
>>
>>and the picture posted just fine except that its layout on the
>>forum was so huge such that one had to scroll all over the place to
>>find the area of interest.
>
> This is something of a conundrum when posting pictures.
> Even the most inexpensive of modern cameras are capable
> of imaging and recording in great detail with some pictures
> being as much as 3000 pixels wide.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 914 internal generator |
At 08:49 PM 6/13/2010, you wrote:
Hi group
I am using Eris Jones Linear Over-Voltage Protector to control my
Rotax 914 internal generator through a 75 amp automotive relay.
At moment I have relay on my schematic downstream of the Ducati
regulator. If regulator fails and there is in fact a runaway over
volt event, true the L OVP device will disconnect it from my
electrical system, but the generator will still be outputting.
Do you think I would be better off moving the relay that is
controlled by the L OVP to be in series with one of the generators
yellow output wires?
That is a better place to "shut the system" down.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
J0n,
Here is another approach I have been looking at that has been used by some
other builders and they have had great results. I have not done it but they
say it works great. http://www.pulsarprofx.com/ There are some actual
panel shots on this site. Let me know your comments. Take care happy
building
Jim Wickert
Tel 920-467-0219
Cell 920-912-1014
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jonlaury
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:44 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: labeling panel
Jim,
I used the HiRes screens. I don't think there is a specific hi-res paint.
The resolution is a function of the # of threads/inch in the warp and weft
of the screen.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301122#301122
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 914 internal generator |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Bob
"That is a better place to "shut the system" down.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf"
OK I will place relay at yellow wire.
How many AC volts, and how many AC amps should the contacts of the relay be rated
to "break" at?
Thx. again
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301199#301199
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 914 internal generator |
At 12:11 PM 6/14/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>"That is a better place to "shut the system" down.
>See:
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf"
>
>OK I will place relay at yellow wire.
>
>How many AC volts, and how many AC amps should the contacts of the
>relay be rated to "break" at?
The relay you called out on the DC side of
the rectifier/regulator will be fine.
AC is MUCH easier on relays than is DC.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ground power switch |
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
Just to make sure I understand the science as I add a ground power plug to my RV-10
project.
The panel switch to activate the ground power just needs to be a simple on/off
switch that connects between the GP relay and aircraft ground and activates the
relay by grounding it.
Is that right, or am I off the reservation?
Also, to power ship's power from a ground power source, do both the GP switch and
the main master switch both have to be on?
Thanks in advance. Please excuse my neophyte questions.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301217#301217
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IVO Electronic CB report |
| From: | "Dennis Glaeser" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
Here are pictures of my IVO circuit. I soldered the parts to the 'wrong' side
of the board so that I didn't have to worry about unintended connections on the
back side. The board looked very nice before I had to chop it down to fit in
the project box. I've also attached a PDF showing Bob's circuit design and
the physical arrangement of parts and connections I developed. I should have
gotten the project box up front, and I could have easily placed the components
closer on the board. Oh well.
Dennis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301219#301219
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/prop_circuit_layout_164.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/board_in_box_541.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/board_back_770.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
| From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
Bill Bradburry. Hey Bill. I'm in the market for panel marking. Can we get a pic
of your panel? Thanks....Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301222#301222
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ground power switch |
At 02:57 PM 6/14/2010, you wrote:
>
>Just to make sure I understand the science as I add a ground power
>plug to my RV-10 project.
>
>The panel switch to activate the ground power just needs to be a
>simple on/off switch that connects between the GP relay and aircraft
>ground and activates the relay by grounding it.
Correct ONLY IF you do not plan to use
crowbar OV protection lik4 pwge 4 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
If the ov protection is included, then the
'switch' must also be a circuit breaker.
This can be a switch-breaker . . . or a
simple push-pull, 5A breaker.
If you don't have ov protection, then page
5 applies and a simple switch suffices.
>Also, to power ship's power from a ground power source, do both the
>GP switch and the main master switch both have to be on?
If wired per the diagrams cited above, you can
charge the ship's battery through ground power
and leave the master off. But to crank the engine
or run equipment for servicing on the ground,
BOTH switches are ON.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Smith" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Active Notification of Low Voltage |
Many current OBAM aircraft have electronic EFIS and/or EIS systems installed
in their panels. Most of these systems have the capability to monitor
various engine and electrical parameters. Limits can be programmed so that
when a parameter is outside of the set limits, this is enunciated via audio
and/or visual notification (a warning light).
Is the use of these EFIS/EIS systems adequate for proper stand alone "Active
Notification of Low Voltage"? Or is it recommended that additional
equipment be employed? This additional equipment would be such as AEC9005,
AEC9024 (when available), or other such devices on the market.
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ground power switch |
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
Thanks, it is starting to make more sense now. I have been using your layout and
do have the crowbar.
What I wasn't going to bother with was the indicator light, but I am re-thinking
that.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301231#301231
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Smith" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Permanent Magnet Alternators or Dynamo |
In the AEC writings, Matronics postings and Z figures I see references to
Permanent Magnet Alternators and Dynamos. Are they one in the same; is the
physics basically the same? For instance in a Rotax or Jabiru system with a
stator being energized by magnets on the flywheel technically the same as a
B&C SD-8?
Can regulators for these systems be substituted and crisscrossed? I see
where you have illustrated the use of a AM 101406 John Deere Regulator for
the Z-9 Corvair system. I also recollect discussions about using of this
same regulator as a more robust substitution for the Rotax Ducati and the
Jabiru supplied regulator. Following this line of thought, could the AM
101406 be used also with the SD-8?
In the Z figures that incorporate Dynamos, I see some variables. I can't
quite understand the reasons for some of them.
1. Some systems incorporate a self-excitation feature such as
illustrated in Z-25. When is this recommended? Should it be used with the
Jabiru or Rotax charging system?
2. Shut down control of these systems generally incorporate a S704-1
relay with a OVM-14 crowbar over voltage module (or AEC9024) across the coil
terminals. In some Z figures this S704-1 also utilizes a diode across the
coil and some don't. Does the internal electronics of the OVM-14 or AEC9024
preclude the use of such a diode in some cases?
3. The S704-1 relay is employed sometimes in one of the legs of the
Dynamo before the regulator and sometimes in the regulator output to the
main bus. What is the reason behind this decision?
4. In some Z figures the sense for the regulator is tied directly to
the regular 12V.DC output and in others it comes from the main bus through
the alternator switch. Is there a preferred reason for one or the other?
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
| Subject: | Reverse Current - Life Is Indeed Harder When You're |
Stupid
The dumbest thing I've done on my RV-8A project - I reversed the battery co
nnections when reassembling after firewall forward work and planning a fina
l elec check before riveting on the top skin. Z-13/8; Smoke and fire from t
he diode wire to the main terminal of the battery contactor; corrected pola
rity and tried a jumper wire - more smoke and fire when I go to Batt/Alt -
making me think there is something wrong further downstream.
Ordered a replacement contactor from B&C (this time a -2; previous was a -1
) but have been on business travel and have not had a chance to troubleshoo
t.
Jumping the contactor and switching to Batt seems to have all the trons flo
wing to their proper destination; going to Batt/Alt causes everything to sh
ut down.
Any words of wisdom from the forum. Don't bother reminding me what a DS mov
e it was - I already know and still can't believe I did it.
Paul Valovich
N192NM Reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
Geoff,
I will have to take some and get them to you.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Geoff
Heap
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:38 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: labeling panel
Bill Bradburry. Hey Bill. I'm in the market for panel marking. Can we get a
pic of your panel? Thanks....Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301222#301222
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: labeling panel |
Geoff,
I will have to take some and get them to you.
Bill B
Bill,
Please post on the forum. I'm sure others are also
interested.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reverse Current - Life Is Indeed Harder When You're |
Stupid
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
Reverse polarity will not affect a contactor coil but will damage a diode connected
across the contactor coil. Assuming that the main contactor pulled in despite
the shorted diode in parallel with it, then the starter contactor diode
and alternator rectifying diodes were also shorted out and damaged along with
any other polarity sensitive devices that were turned on.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301277#301277
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent Magnet Alternators or Dynamo |
At 05:43 PM 6/14/2010, you wrote:
In the AEC writings, Matronics postings and Z figures I see
references to Permanent Magnet Alternators and Dynamos. Are they one
in the same; is the physics basically the same? For instance in a
Rotax or Jabiru system with a stator being energized by magnets on
the flywheel technically the same as a B&C SD-8?
Yes . . .
Can regulators for these systems be substituted and crisscrossed? I
see where you have illustrated the use of a AM 101406 John Deere
Regulator for the Z-9 Corvair system. I also recollect discussions
about using of this same regulator as a more robust substitution for
the Rotax Ducati and the Jabiru supplied regulator. Following this
line of thought, could the AM 101406 be used also with the SD-8?
Probably but with limits. Unlike wound-field alternators
wherein vertually all brands of every size draw
no more than 3-4 amps of field current, rectifier/
regulators for PM alternators must carry ALL of
the machine's output current. Therefore, while a
larger r/r for the 30A J-D machine may work well
with the SD-8, the converse is not true.
In the Z figures that incorporate Dynamos, I see some variables. I
can't quite understand the reasons for some of them.
Some systems incorporate a self-excitation feature such as
illustrated in Z-25. When is this recommended? Should it be used
with the Jabiru or Rotax charging system?
The self-excitation feature was crafted for
those who were concerned about delayed reaction
(like hours?) for getting the SD-8 stand-by
power source turned on to support a system
that was now being fed by a dead battery. It's
a kind of band-aid for not have crafted and/or
timely implementation of plan-B.
Where the PM alternator is your primary power
source, the utility of a self-exitation feature
is still more diminished. So, no. If the feature
is not included on any particular drawing, it's
value is considered too low to be useful.
Shut down control of these systems generally incorporate a S704-1
relay with a OVM-14 crowbar over voltage module (or AEC9024) across
the coil terminals. In some Z figures this S704-1 also utilizes a
diode across the coil and some don't. Does the internal electronics
of the OVM-14 or AEC9024 preclude the use of such a diode in some cases?
The diode can be included in all cases and
serves some utility for increasing life
of the controlling switch but yes, it's
less necessary when the OVM-14 is part of
the coil control circuit. The 9024 has the
diode mounted on the board.
The S704-1 relay is employed sometimes in one of the legs of the
Dynamo before the regulator and sometimes in the regulator output to
the main bus. What is the reason behind this decision?
Putting the relay downstream of the r/r only
disconnts it from the airplane and MIGHT
allow a damaged r/r to continue to take
energy from the dynamo and suffer further
damage. Shutting down from the power INPUT
side to the r/r brings everything to a graceful
state of being when the alternator control
switch is OFF>
In some Z figures the sense for the regulator is tied directly to the
regular 12V.DC output and in others it comes from the main bus
through the alternator switch. Is there a preferred reason for one
or the other?
Doesn't matter. You are to be commended for
taking the time to study these drawings and
picking up on the variables!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active Notification of Low Voltage |
At 05:06 PM 6/14/2010, you wrote:
>Many current OBAM aircraft have electronic EFIS and/or EIS systems
>installed in their panels. Most of these systems have the
>capability to monitor various engine and electrical
>parameters. Limits can be programmed so that when a parameter is
>outside of the set limits, this is enunciated via audio and/or
>visual notification (a warning light).
>
>Is the use of these EFIS/EIS systems adequate for proper stand alone
>"Active Notification of Low Voltage"? Or is it recommended that
>additional equipment be employed? This additional equipment would
>be such as AEC9005, AEC9024 (when available), or other such devices
>on the market.
Your choice. The operative word is "active".
If the nature of the warning provided as a
feature of a panel mounted accessory is sufficient
to get your attention within a minute of
onset of LV, then the design goals have been
met.
The B&C LR series regulators are shipped with
a rather obnoxious yellow warning light assembly
that is guaranteed to get your attention.
It's something you can experiment with in
flight. Shut the alternator off. Judge for
yourself if the resulting indication is sufficiently
attention getting.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Fogarty, Lakes & Leisure Realty, Inc." <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Reverse Current - Life Is Indeed Harder When You're |
Stupid
Change out the battery and see if that works, you may have reversed the
battery polarity in your battery. I'm sure there will be many other
ideas. Just make sure the polarity in the battery is correct.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Valovich, Paul
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 9:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reverse Current - Life Is Indeed Harder
When You're Stupid
The dumbest thing I've done on my RV-8A project - I reversed the
battery connections when reassembling after firewall forward work and
planning a final elec check before riveting on the top skin. Z-13/8;
Smoke and fire from the diode wire to the main terminal of the battery
contactor; corrected polarity and tried a jumper wire - more smoke and
fire when I go to Batt/Alt - making me think there is something wrong
further downstream.
Ordered a replacement contactor from B&C (this time a -2; previous was
a -1) but have been on business travel and have not had a chance to
troubleshoot.
Jumping the contactor and switching to Batt seems to have all the
trons flowing to their proper destination; going to Batt/Alt causes
everything to shut down.
Any words of wisdom from the forum. Don't bother reminding me what a
DS move it was - I already know and still can't believe I did it.
Paul Valovich
N192NM Reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Labeling |
So Dick You did not use the laminator at all? Also Do I need the whole kit
or just the color foil I want and the transfer foil & adhesive?
Tim Andres
>
> Check out http://www.pulsarprofx.com/
>
> You do need to find a heat sealer (or buy the one they sell), but the
> results are as good as they claim. I did my panels with this and it
> came out great! There is s bit of a learning curve at the start, but
> the kit provides plenty of material. I did use a clear overcoat for
> additional durability, but it is not necessary in areas of minimum
> exposure - near switches, yes; general labeling on the main panel, not
> really.
>
> Dick Tasker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Labeling |
Yes I used a laminator. When I bought the kit the laminator they sold
was expensive (still is) so I found one of the recommended ones on eBay
for a reasonable price. Now Digikey sells the "Personal Laminator"
which is recommended for the PCB fabrication kit for $69.95
(182-1030-ND). It is the one with the two position switch which is one
of the ones recommended for the decal kit.
Well, you don't need "the whole kit", but when you price out what you do
need, you might as well purchase the whole kit.
Of the six items in the kit, you can get the 3M blue masking tape almost
anywhere and you really don't need the sample sheets although they allow
you to experiment with pre-printed things. The selection of color foils
supplied is gross overkill for our use, but is useful for those few
places you want a different color. You can purchase the adhesive in
quite a few locations (at least in the US).
So you have to purchase the toner transfer system, the carrier boards
and the mylar carrier (for a total of $42). You will also have to
purchase locally the adhesive and the 3M tape (for around $23). And
then whatever colors you want to use. The total then becomes $65 plus
the color foil. That leaves $25 for foil which means just under three
colors. But you get two toner transfer system packages with the kit
(which you may not actually need).
I would buy the kit and if I thought that I would use more of one of the
colors, a roll of that. But keep in mind that each color sheet is 8" x
36" long. If you group the decals you make together on one sheet (even
if they will be far apart on the panel) you can get a LOT of decals from
one sheet.
Dick Tasker
Tim Andres wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Andres"
>
> So Dick You did not use the laminator at all? Also Do I need the whole kit
> or just the color foil I want and the transfer foil& adhesive?
> Tim Andres
>
>
>
>> Check out http://www.pulsarprofx.com/
>>
>> You do need to find a heat sealer (or buy the one they sell), but the
>> results are as good as they claim. I did my panels with this and it
>> came out great! There is s bit of a learning curve at the start, but
>> the kit provides plenty of material. I did use a clear overcoat for
>> additional durability, but it is not necessary in areas of minimum
>> exposure - near switches, yes; general labeling on the main panel, not
>> really.
>>
>> Dick Tasker
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strobes vs. Nav/Com question |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
Tom, I have an unresolved strobe noise problem in my composite aircraft.
For the record, the radio is an ICOM A210 and they are Sky Brite Strobes
with a Bob Archer antenna.
I think the noise is broadcast by the power supply and picked up by the
antenna.
I say unresolved because I haven't bothered to trace it it yet. I did try
an inline filter to the Strobe +12V supply, which didn't seem to do anything
but I find all the noise goes away when I have the strobe switch in the OFF
position.
Sam
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:50 AM, tomcostanza
wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone had interference between strobes and Nav/Coms? And if so, did
> you do anything to reduce it?
>
> I ran a seat-of-the-pants experiment by running one strobe on the bench. I
> found a lot of interference on a broadcast AM radio, but almost none with a
> comm radio. The little I did notice seemed to be coming from the power line
> and not the antenna (when I turned the volume down, I still heard it), and
> with the engine running, I doubt I would be able to hear it anyway. I'm
> more concerned about the nav or gps receivers.
>
> I'm asking because I need to run wires and don't know if I need to keep the
> strobe wires away from other wires, and if so, how far. It will complicate
> things if I do (drill more holes in structural members, etc.), so I'd like
> to bundle all the wires together. On the other hand, if I need to keep them
> separate, I'd rather do the work while I'm building, than try to retrofit a
> fix after the plane is built.
>
> --------
> Clear Skies,
> Tom Costanza
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300698#300698
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Strobes vs. Nav/Com question |
Sam I would suggest you run the strobes or radio off a separate 12 volt
source to see it that helps. If it changes for the better then you know the
problem is in the supply voltage.
Tim Andres
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobes vs. Nav/Com question
Tom, I have an unresolved strobe noise problem in my composite aircraft.
For the record, the radio is an ICOM A210 and they are Sky Brite Strobes
with a Bob Archer antenna.
I think the noise is broadcast by the power supply and picked up by the
antenna.
I say unresolved because I haven't bothered to trace it it yet. I did try
an inline filter to the Strobe +12V supply, which didn't seem to do anything
but I find all the noise goes away when I have the strobe switch in the OFF
position.
Sam
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:50 AM, tomcostanza
wrote:
Has anyone had interference between strobes and Nav/Coms? And if so, did
you do anything to reduce it?
I ran a seat-of-the-pants experiment by running one strobe on the bench. I
found a lot of interference on a broadcast AM radio, but almost none with a
comm radio. The little I did notice seemed to be coming from the power line
and not the antenna (when I turned the volume down, I still heard it), and
with the engine running, I doubt I would be able to hear it anyway. I'm
more concerned about the nav or gps receivers.
I'm asking because I need to run wires and don't know if I need to keep the
strobe wires away from other wires, and if so, how far. It will complicate
things if I do (drill more holes in structural members, etc.), so I'd like
to bundle all the wires together. On the other hand, if I need to keep them
separate, I'd rather do the work while I'm building, than try to retrofit a
fix after the plane is built.
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300698#300698
==========
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
11:35:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Labeling |
Thanks Dick. What is the deal with the laminator; do they want a lower heat?
Thanks again; I'm going to give it a try.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Tasker
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Panel Labeling
Yes I used a laminator. When I bought the kit the laminator they sold
was expensive (still is) so I found one of the recommended ones on eBay
for a reasonable price. Now Digikey sells the "Personal Laminator"
which is recommended for the PCB fabrication kit for $69.95
(182-1030-ND). It is the one with the two position switch which is one
of the ones recommended for the decal kit.
Well, you don't need "the whole kit", but when you price out what you do
need, you might as well purchase the whole kit.
Of the six items in the kit, you can get the 3M blue masking tape almost
anywhere and you really don't need the sample sheets although they allow
you to experiment with pre-printed things. The selection of color foils
supplied is gross overkill for our use, but is useful for those few
places you want a different color. You can purchase the adhesive in
quite a few locations (at least in the US).
So you have to purchase the toner transfer system, the carrier boards
and the mylar carrier (for a total of $42). You will also have to
purchase locally the adhesive and the 3M tape (for around $23). And
then whatever colors you want to use. The total then becomes $65 plus
the color foil. That leaves $25 for foil which means just under three
colors. But you get two toner transfer system packages with the kit
(which you may not actually need).
I would buy the kit and if I thought that I would use more of one of the
colors, a roll of that. But keep in mind that each color sheet is 8" x
36" long. If you group the decals you make together on one sheet (even
if they will be far apart on the panel) you can get a LOT of decals from
one sheet.
Dick Tasker
Tim Andres wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim
Andres"
>
> So Dick You did not use the laminator at all? Also Do I need the whole kit
> or just the color foil I want and the transfer foil& adhesive?
> Tim Andres
>
>
>
>> Check out http://www.pulsarprofx.com/
>>
>> You do need to find a heat sealer (or buy the one they sell), but the
>> results are as good as they claim. I did my panels with this and it
>> came out great! There is s bit of a learning curve at the start, but
>> the kit provides plenty of material. I did use a clear overcoat for
>> additional durability, but it is not necessary in areas of minimum
>> exposure - near switches, yes; general labeling on the main panel, not
>> really.
>>
>> Dick Tasker
>>
>
>
>
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
23:35:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Labeling |
Actually I think they want the higher heat. On mine it has two settings
- one for 3 mil and one for 5 mil mylar. I use the thicker (higher
heat) setting.
Dick
Tim Andres wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Andres"
>
> Thanks Dick. What is the deal with the laminator; do they want a lower heat?
> Thanks again; I'm going to give it a try.
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
> Tasker
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:25 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Panel Labeling
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
>
>
> Yes I used a laminator. When I bought the kit the laminator they sold
> was expensive (still is) so I found one of the recommended ones on eBay
> for a reasonable price. Now Digikey sells the "Personal Laminator"
> which is recommended for the PCB fabrication kit for $69.95
> (182-1030-ND). It is the one with the two position switch which is one
> of the ones recommended for the decal kit.
>
> Well, you don't need "the whole kit", but when you price out what you do
> need, you might as well purchase the whole kit.
>
> Of the six items in the kit, you can get the 3M blue masking tape almost
> anywhere and you really don't need the sample sheets although they allow
> you to experiment with pre-printed things. The selection of color foils
> supplied is gross overkill for our use, but is useful for those few
> places you want a different color. You can purchase the adhesive in
> quite a few locations (at least in the US).
>
> So you have to purchase the toner transfer system, the carrier boards
> and the mylar carrier (for a total of $42). You will also have to
> purchase locally the adhesive and the 3M tape (for around $23). And
> then whatever colors you want to use. The total then becomes $65 plus
> the color foil. That leaves $25 for foil which means just under three
> colors. But you get two toner transfer system packages with the kit
> (which you may not actually need).
>
> I would buy the kit and if I thought that I would use more of one of the
> colors, a roll of that. But keep in mind that each color sheet is 8" x
> 36" long. If you group the decals you make together on one sheet (even
> if they will be far apart on the panel) you can get a LOT of decals from
> one sheet.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> Tim Andres wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim
>>
> Andres"
>
>> So Dick You did not use the laminator at all? Also Do I need the whole kit
>> or just the color foil I want and the transfer foil& adhesive?
>> Tim Andres
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Check out http://www.pulsarprofx.com/
>>>
>>> You do need to find a heat sealer (or buy the one they sell), but the
>>> results are as good as they claim. I did my panels with this and it
>>> came out great! There is s bit of a learning curve at the start, but
>>> the kit provides plenty of material. I did use a clear overcoat for
>>> additional durability, but it is not necessary in areas of minimum
>>> exposure - near switches, yes; general labeling on the main panel, not
>>> really.
>>>
>>> Dick Tasker
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 23:35:00
>
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strobes vs. Nav/Com question |
| From: | "tomcostanza" <Tom(at)CostanzaAndAssociates.com> |
Sam,
Ditto what Tim said. The easiest thing to do would be to borrow a hand-held receiver.
If possible, you might also connect it to the ship's power to see if
the symptoms change. If you only get interference while connected to the ship's
power, it's probably coming in through the power wiring and not the antenna.
My concern was that I would experience the same issue, since I will also be using
Archer wingtip antennas, and the strobe will only be a few inches away. Someone
suggested, and Bob may confirm, that grounding the shield at both ends gives
you an electromagnetic shield (what we want), as opposed to grounding at
only one end (electrostatic shield).
--------
Clear Skies,
Tom Costanza
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301383#301383
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Labeling |
Thanks much for this write-up. I'm going to go down this route for my
panel (that's waiting for paint).
Bill Watson
Richard Tasker wrote:
>
>
> Yes I used a laminator. When I bought the kit the laminator they sold
> was expensive (still is) so I found one of the recommended ones on
> eBay for a reasonable price. Now Digikey sells the "Personal
> Laminator" which is recommended for the PCB fabrication kit for $69.95
> (182-1030-ND). It is the one with the two position switch which is
> one of the ones recommended for the decal kit.
>
> Well, you don't need "the whole kit", but when you price out what you
> do need, you might as well purchase the whole kit.
>
> Of the six items in the kit, you can get the 3M blue masking tape
> almost anywhere and you really don't need the sample sheets although
> they allow you to experiment with pre-printed things. The selection
> of color foils supplied is gross overkill for our use, but is useful
> for those few places you want a different color. You can purchase the
> adhesive in quite a few locations (at least in the US).
>
> So you have to purchase the toner transfer system, the carrier boards
> and the mylar carrier (for a total of $42). You will also have to
> purchase locally the adhesive and the 3M tape (for around $23). And
> then whatever colors you want to use. The total then becomes $65 plus
> the color foil. That leaves $25 for foil which means just under three
> colors. But you get two toner transfer system packages with the kit
> (which you may not actually need).
>
> I would buy the kit and if I thought that I would use more of one of
> the colors, a roll of that. But keep in mind that each color sheet is
> 8" x 36" long. If you group the decals you make together on one sheet
> (even if they will be far apart on the panel) you can get a LOT of
> decals from one sheet.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> Tim Andres wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim
>> Andres"
>>
>> So Dick You did not use the laminator at all? Also Do I need the
>> whole kit
>> or just the color foil I want and the transfer foil& adhesive?
>> Tim Andres
>>
>>
>>
>>> Check out http://www.pulsarprofx.com/
>>>
>>> You do need to find a heat sealer (or buy the one they sell), but the
>>> results are as good as they claim. I did my panels with this and it
>>> came out great! There is s bit of a learning curve at the start, but
>>> the kit provides plenty of material. I did use a clear overcoat for
>>> additional durability, but it is not necessary in areas of minimum
>>> exposure - near switches, yes; general labeling on the main panel, not
>>> really.
>>>
>>> Dick Tasker
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | AEC9024 - Ballpark?? |
| From: | "gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
'lectric Bob
Do you have a ballpark estimate of when the AEC9024 modules might be available
for sale? Do you have a ballpark estimate of what the price might be?
When the AEC9024-20 is used as an O.V. Protect Module, it appears that the 5A.
pullable breaker is not needed. Correct?
Gordon smith
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301414#301414
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobes vs. Nav/Com question |
At 05:40 AM 6/16/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Sam,
>
>Ditto what Tim said. The easiest thing to do would be to borrow a
>hand-held receiver. If possible, you might also connect it to the
>ship's power to see if the symptoms change. If you only get
>interference while connected to the ship's power, it's probably
>coming in through the power wiring and not the antenna.
>
>My concern was that I would experience the same issue, since I will
>also be using Archer wingtip antennas, and the strobe will only be a
>few inches away. Someone suggested, and Bob may confirm, that
>grounding the shield at both ends gives you an electromagnetic
>shield (what we want), as opposed to grounding at only one end
>(electrostatic shield).
What is the nature of the noise? Is it a 'pop' each time
the strobe fires or is it a whine that sweeps in synchronization
with the strobe firing? Is the noise affected by adjusting
volume on the radio? When there is no signal being received
by the radio and the background noise is squelched, can
the noise be heard?
For the most part, shielding of the strobe wiring has little
or zero benefit for noise reduction. The 'pop' phenomenon
is most often associated with radiated noise from the
strobe tube and is generally worse when the victim receiver's
antenna is mounted close to the tube. The whining noise is
usually conducted on the 14v power lines but it can get into
the system via the radio or the external audio processing
like the intercom.
You first need to evaluate the questions above to identify
the mode of propagation and exactly WHICH system is being
victimized.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AEC9024 - Ballpark?? |
At 09:58 AM 6/16/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>'lectric Bob
>
>Do you have a ballpark estimate of when the AEC9024 modules might be
>available for sale? Do you have a ballpark estimate of what the
>price might be?
I've finished the board layout and my software guy
is working on the code. This one is a little trickier
in that there are four sets of software in the device
which can be invoked by the installer to achieve the
desired function.
It will be this summer after I get done with the
"Mother of all garage sales" and we've fully combed
the software for bugs. The target price for this product
is $35.
>When the AEC9024-20 is used as an O.V. Protect Module, it appears
>that the 5A. pullable breaker is not needed. Correct?
Correct. The AEC9024 is a relay controller and functions
to break the power path to the alternator/generator field
or the AC power from the dynamo. It's not a crowbar system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wndwlkr1228(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Labeling |
Why not just let Stein do it for $20.00? They will print one entire sheet
of labels in the color of your choice, if I understand correctly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Labeling |
Printing directly on the painted panel is much neater=2C cleaner and more p
rofessional looking than "labels" in many people's opinion. You can do a ni
ce neat "labelling" job but it's still "labels" whereas printing directly o
n the panel doesn't give the label's background. (even a clear label still
has an outline)
Bob McC
From: Wndwlkr1228(at)aol.com
Date: Wed=2C 16 Jun 2010 11:31:16 -0400
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Panel Labeling
Why not just let Stein do it for $20.00? They will print one entire sheet
of labels in the color of your choice=2C if I understand correctly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Robinson <jbr79r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AEC9024 - Ballpark?? |
Hi Bob
How is this different/better than the OV modules I have on my engine now. Maybe
I got into this thread late
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 8:34:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: AEC9024 - Ballpark??
At 09:58 AM 6/16/2010, you wrote:
>
> 'lectric Bob
>
> Do you have a ballpark estimate of when the AEC9024 modules might be available
for sale? Do you have a ballpark estimate of what the price might be?
I've finished the board layout and my software guy
is working on the code. This one is a little trickier
in that there are four sets of software in the device
which can be invoked by the installer to achieve the
desired function.
It will be this summer after I get done with the
"Mother of all garage sales" and we've fully combed
the software for bugs. The target price for this product
is $35.
> When the AEC9024-20 is used as an O.V. Protect Module, it appears that the 5A.
pullable breaker is not needed. Correct?
Correct. The AEC9024 is a relay controller and functions
to break the power path to the alternator/generator field
or the AC power from the dynamo. It's not a crowbar system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AEC9024 - Ballpark?? |
At 12:02 PM 6/16/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>How is this different/better than the OV modules I have on my engine
>now. Maybe I got into this thread late
Just different. No improvements on functionality.
It's a new product that offers the builder an option
of using it in 4 different functions from a single
product. It also markedly reduces our inventory
requirements to support the product line . . .
one part does 4 things.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strobes vs. Nav/Com question |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
I did that. Still had the strobe noise.
Sam
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
> Sam I would suggest you run the strobes or radio off a separate 12 volt
> source to see it that helps. If it changes for the better then you know the
> problem is in the supply voltage.
>
> Tim Andres
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Hoskins
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:12 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobes vs. Nav/Com question
>
>
> Tom, I have an unresolved strobe noise problem in my composite aircraft.
> For the record, the radio is an ICOM A210 and they are Sky Brite Strobes
> with a Bob Archer antenna.
>
>
> I think the noise is broadcast by the power supply and picked up by the
> antenna.
>
>
> I say unresolved because I haven't bothered to trace it it yet. I did try
> an inline filter to the Strobe +12V supply, which didn't seem to do anything
> but I find all the noise goes away when I have the strobe switch in the OFF
> position.
>
>
> Sam
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:50 AM, tomcostanza
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Has anyone had interference between strobes and Nav/Coms? And if so, did
> you do anything to reduce it?
>
> I ran a seat-of-the-pants experiment by running one strobe on the bench. I
> found a lot of interference on a broadcast AM radio, but almost none with a
> comm radio. The little I did notice seemed to be coming from the power line
> and not the antenna (when I turned the volume down, I still heard it), and
> with the engine running, I doubt I would be able to hear it anyway. I'm
> more concerned about the nav or gps receivers.
>
> I'm asking because I need to run wires and don't know if I need to keep the
> strobe wires away from other wires, and if so, how far. It will complicate
> things if I do (drill more holes in structural members, etc.), so I'd like
> to bundle all the wires together. On the other hand, if I need to keep them
> separate, I'd rather do the work while I'm building, than try to retrofit a
> fix after the plane is built.
>
> --------
> Clear Skies,
> Tom Costanza
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300698#300698
>
>
> ==========
> -List" target="_blank">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> - Release Date: 06/15/10 11:35:00
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Active Notification of Low Voltage |
From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: AeroElectric-List: Active Notification of Low
Voltage
Bob, et. al.,
I'm one of the guilty ones with an electronic EFIS and no warning
light for a low voltage. In a low voltage situation, my EFIS voltmeter
does flash, but I have determined that isn't a sufficient warning.
Thus I would like to install a low voltage warning light. To
complicate matters: however, I have a generic Ford regulator that does
not have a low voltage warning circuit. Is there a simple solution for
this situation?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Active Notification of Low Voltage
At 05:06 PM 6/14/2010, you wrote:
> Many current OBAM aircraft have electronic EFIS and/or EIS systems
> installed in their panels. Most of these systems have the
> capability to monitor various engine and electrical
> parameters. Limits can be programmed so that when a parameter is
> outside of the set limits, this is enunciated via audio and/or
> visual notification (a warning light).
>
> Is the use of these EFIS/EIS systems adequate for proper stand alone
> "Active Notification of Low Voltage"? Or is it recommended that
> additional equipment be employed? This additional equipment would
> be such as AEC9005, AEC9024 (when available), or other such devices
> on the market.
Your choice. The operative word is "active".
If the nature of the warning provided as a
feature of a panel mounted accessory is sufficient
to get your attention within a minute of
onset of LV, then the design goals have been
met.
The B&C LR series regulators are shipped with
a rather obnoxious yellow warning light assembly
that is guaranteed to get your attention.
It's something you can experiment with in
flight. Shut the alternator off. Judge for
yourself if the resulting indication is sufficiently
attention getting.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Active Notification of Low Voltage |
Charlie,
It may sound too simple but just install a low voltage warning light. B
& C, Bob or Eric have simple, low cost jobs to fit the bill. I have a
Dynon that displays internal, bus and master voltages but I still like
to see the idiot light on the panel.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charles Brame
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Active Notification of Low Voltage
From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: AeroElectric-List: Active Notification of Low
Voltage
Bob, et. al.,
I'm one of the guilty ones with an electronic EFIS and no warning light
for a low voltage. In a low voltage situation, my EFIS voltmeter does
flash, but I have determined that isn't a sufficient warning.
Thus I would like to install a low voltage warning light. To complicate
matters: however, I have a generic Ford regulator that does not have a
low voltage warning circuit. Is there a simple solution for this
situation?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Active Notification of Low Voltage
At 05:06 PM 6/14/2010, you wrote:
> Many current OBAM aircraft have electronic EFIS and/or EIS systems
> installed in their panels. Most of these systems have the capability
> to monitor various engine and electrical parameters. Limits can be
> programmed so that when a parameter is outside of the set limits, this
> is enunciated via audio and/or visual notification (a warning light).
>
> Is the use of these EFIS/EIS systems adequate for proper stand alone
> "Active Notification of Low Voltage"? Or is it recommended that
> additional equipment be employed? This additional equipment would be
> such as AEC9005, AEC9024 (when available), or other such devices on
> the market.
Your choice. The operative word is "active".
If the nature of the warning provided as a
feature of a panel mounted accessory is sufficient
to get your attention within a minute of
onset of LV, then the design goals have been
met.
The B&C LR series regulators are shipped with
a rather obnoxious yellow warning light assembly
that is guaranteed to get your attention.
It's something you can experiment with in
flight. Shut the alternator off. Judge for
yourself if the resulting indication is sufficiently
attention getting.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobes vs. Nav/Com question |
At 05:40 AM 6/16/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Sam,
>
>Ditto what Tim said. The easiest thing to do would be to borrow a
>hand-held receiver. If possible, you might also connect it to the
>ship's power to see if the symptoms change. If you only get
>interference while connected to the ship's power, it's probably
>coming in through the power wiring and not the antenna.
>
>My concern was that I would experience the same issue, since I will
>also be using Archer wingtip antennas, and the strobe will only be a
>few inches away. Someone suggested, and Bob may confirm, that
>grounding the shield at both ends gives you an electromagnetic
>shield (what we want), as opposed to grounding at only one end
>(electrostatic shield).
What is the nature of the noise? Is it a 'pop' each time
the strobe fires or is it a whine that sweeps in synchronization
with the strobe firing? Is the noise affected by adjusting
volume on the radio? When there is no signal being received
by the radio and the background noise is squelched, can
the noise be heard?
For the most part, shielding of the strobe wiring has little
or zero benefit for noise reduction. The 'pop' phenomenon
is most often associated with radiated noise from the
strobe tube and is generally worse when the victim receiver's
antenna is mounted close to the tube. The whining noise is
usually conducted on the 14v power lines but it can get into
the system via the radio or the external audio processing
like the intercom.
You first need to evaluate the questions above to identify
the mode of propagation and exactly WHICH system is being
victimized.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Active Notification of Low Voltage |
At 09:05 AM 6/17/2010, you wrote:
>
>Charlie,
>
>It may sound too simple but just install a low voltage warning light. B
>& C, Bob or Eric have simple, low cost jobs to fit the bill. I have a
>Dynon that displays internal, bus and master voltages but I still like
>to see the idiot light on the panel.
I'll re-enforce Glen's suggestion by offering the simple-
ideas that have driven my design goals for active notification
of low voltage for over 30 years . . .
Most low voltage notification systems built into glass
screens and alternator regulators are not stand-alone,
attention getting, auto-preflight tested systems.
Every low voltage warning device I've crafted has
no other function nor does it depend on functional
integrity of any other device in the airplane.
The recommended indicator lamp is bright. Installation
instructions call for putting it right in front of the pilot.
When we flash it, a rate of 2.5 to 3 times per second
is the targeted rate shown to be the most attention
getting. Installers are encouraged to test the
installation for sun-light view ability.
By installing active notification of low voltage
right on the main bus, it's the first thing that
comes on with the master switch and it stays on
until the alternator comes on line. I.e., you get
a pre-flight test of functionality whether or not
it's am item on your checklist.
Having said all this, folks tend to gravitate toward
the notion that loss of an alternator is somehow
an emergency that should be annunciated with lots
of sirens, bells, flashing lights and waving
flags.
NOT SO.
The whole purpose for active notification of low
voltage is to PREVENT loss of an alternator from
becoming an emergency. This is accomplished by
offering the pilot timely encouragement to implement
plan-B. No more, no less.
Once plan-B is in effect, the well crafted and
maintained system offers a no-sweat alternative
for return to earth.
A thread common to many loss-of-alternator
scenarios in the library of dark-n-stormy-night
stories is LACK OF AWARENESS about alternator
functionality combined with LACK OF AWARENESS
of system condition and capability. I.e., not
knowing the condition of the ship's battery and
a complete WAG as to how long needful things will
run on the battery's contained energy.
It's the classic case of what you don't know is
that which might become a disappointing surprise.
Indeed, many of the dark-n-stormy-night narratives
illustrate the fact that the pilot didn't know
the alternator wasn't working until the
panel went black and options for battery
load shedding were already expended.
That little yellow light is not the end-all,
be-all of electrical system warning gadgets.
It is but one link in the chain of thoughtful
set of design goals for crafting a FAILURE
TOLERANT system. Like all chains, the design
is no stronger than the weakest link which
can manifest in poor architecture, poor battery
maintenance, poor testing of failure hypothesis,
AND warnings that are too benign to get one's
attention in the cockpit under all flight
conditions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wire size calculator and gauge totalizer |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Digging around in saved files, I found this handy wire calculator from Andy Plunkett
that also totals length by gauge for putting together a shopping list.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301594#301594
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/andy_plunkett_wire_size_165.xls
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Active Notification of Low Voltage |
6/18/2010
Hello Glenn, There is definetely more to this than just simply installing a
(low cost?) light. What is to activate the light?
Is this some of the hardware that you have in mind? Thanks.
http://www.periheliondesign.com/lvwaabm.htm
http://www.bandc.biz/primary-regulators.aspx
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
=======================================================
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Active Notification of Low Voltage
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Charlie,
It may sound too simple but just install a low voltage warning light. B
& C, Bob or Eric have simple, low cost jobs to fit the bill. I have a
Dynon that displays internal, bus and master voltages but I still like
to see the idiot light on the panel.
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OT: Temperature Control Relay |
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
=0AHi all,=0A =0AVery off topic. =0A =0AI am looking for a small 12 VDC t
emperature control relay. I want to enable the relay at ~120 degrees F. an
d disable it at 100 degrees F. The maximum relay capacity can be quite sma
ll (I can add a larger relay if required).=0A =0AMy searches are overwhelme
d with AC versions and very expensive versions. This seems like something
that should be available for about $10.=0A =0AThanks very much!=0A =0AJon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OT: Temperature Control Relay |
At 05:02 PM 6/19/2010, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Very off topic.
>
>I am looking for a small 12 VDC temperature control relay. I want
>to enable the relay at ~120 degrees F. and disable it at 100 degrees
>F. The maximum relay capacity can be quite small (I can add a
>larger relay if required).
>
>My searches are overwhelmed with AC versions and very expensive
>versions. This seems like something that should be available for about $10.
What you're looking for (I think) is a thermostat
that closes on temperature rise at 120 and does not
open until the temperature falls below 100F.
Here's a part for clothes dryers.
http://tinyurl.com/25ksfkq
It's SKU number is 39076 on this page
http://tinyurl.com/2gy4tma
My local washer repair parts store
shows it as an LD120 for $5 net/$11 list.
It's a single pole, double throw device
so you can use it for open or close on
temperature rise.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | OT: Temperature Control Relay |
Hi Bob,
Very, very close!
This is to operate a pump that circulates solar heated water thru my hot
tub. What you found is functionally correct, my only additional requirement
is that I can mount the sensor in water (in the solar tubes). Since I am
learning, it might be good for the set points to be adjustable. However; I
am after cheap so that is certainly not a requirement.
Thanks!
Jon
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, June 19, 2010 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OT: Temperature Control Relay
At 05:02 PM 6/19/2010, you wrote:
Hi all,
Very off topic.
I am looking for a small 12 VDC temperature control relay. I want to enable
the relay at ~120 degrees F. and disable it at 100 degrees F. The maximum
relay capacity can be quite small (I can add a larger relay if required).
My searches are overwhelmed with AC versions and very expensive versions.
This seems like something that should be available for about $10.
What you're looking for (I think) is a thermostat
that closes on temperature rise at 120 and does not
open until the temperature falls below 100F.
Here's a part for clothes dryers.
http://tinyurl.com/25ksfkq
It's SKU number is 39076 on this page
http://tinyurl.com/2gy4tma
My local washer repair parts store
shows it as an LD120 for $5 net/$11 list.
It's a single pole, double throw device
so you can use it for open or close on
temperature rise.
Bob . . .
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06:35:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | OT: Temperature Control Relay |
Jon;
Assuming your circulation system is plastic pipe, can you put a short piece
of thin wall metal (copper or aluminium) tube in the water loop at a
convenient location and clamp the thermostat offered by Bob to its exterior
wall??? The temperature differential through the tube wall would be
insignificant and you would then have a readily accessible part which
wouldn't require breaking into the water system to replace or experiment
with different values should your initial estimation require changes. If
your loop system is already metal pipe, just clamp the thermostat offered to
the tube wall. Wrapping the assembly in insulation would further ensure
virtually no differential between the water temperature and the thermostat's
reading.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon
Finley
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:47 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: OT: Temperature Control Relay
Hi Bob,
Very, very close!
This is to operate a pump that circulates solar heated water thru my hot
tub. What you found is functionally correct, my only additional requirement
is that I can mount the sensor in water (in the solar tubes). Since I am
learning, it might be good for the set points to be adjustable. However; I
am after cheap so that is certainly not a requirement.
Thanks!
Jon
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, June 19, 2010 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OT: Temperature Control Relay
At 05:02 PM 6/19/2010, you wrote:
Hi all,
Very off topic.
I am looking for a small 12 VDC temperature control relay. I want to enable
the relay at ~120 degrees F. and disable it at 100 degrees F. The maximum
relay capacity can be quite small (I can add a larger relay if required).
My searches are overwhelmed with AC versions and very expensive versions.
This seems like something that should be available for about $10.
What you're looking for (I think) is a thermostat
that closes on temperature rise at 120 and does not
open until the temperature falls below 100F.
Here's a part for clothes dryers.
http://tinyurl.com/25ksfkq
It's SKU number is 39076 on this page
http://tinyurl.com/2gy4tma
My local washer repair parts store
shows it as an LD120 for $5 net/$11 list.
It's a single pole, double throw device
so you can use it for open or close on
temperature rise.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06:35:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | OT: Temperature Control Relay |
YES! Very good ideas Bob - I will pursue!
Thanks for everyone's help!!
Jon
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
McCallum
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: OT: Temperature Control Relay
Jon;
Assuming your circulation system is plastic pipe, can you put a short piece
of thin wall metal (copper or aluminium) tube in the water loop at a
convenient location and clamp the thermostat offered by Bob to its exterior
wall??? The temperature differential through the tube wall would be
insignificant and you would then have a readily accessible part which
wouldn't require breaking into the water system to replace or experiment
with different values should your initial estimation require changes. If
your loop system is already metal pipe, just clamp the thermostat offered to
the tube wall. Wrapping the assembly in insulation would further ensure
virtually no differential between the water temperature and the thermostat's
reading.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon
Finley
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:47 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: OT: Temperature Control Relay
Hi Bob,
Very, very close!
This is to operate a pump that circulates solar heated water thru my hot
tub. What you found is functionally correct, my only additional requirement
is that I can mount the sensor in water (in the solar tubes). Since I am
learning, it might be good for the set points to be adjustable. However; I
am after cheap so that is certainly not a requirement.
Thanks!
Jon
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, June 19, 2010 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OT: Temperature Control Relay
At 05:02 PM 6/19/2010, you wrote:
Hi all,
Very off topic.
I am looking for a small 12 VDC temperature control relay. I want to enable
the relay at ~120 degrees F. and disable it at 100 degrees F. The maximum
relay capacity can be quite small (I can add a larger relay if required).
My searches are overwhelmed with AC versions and very expensive versions.
This seems like something that should be available for about $10.
What you're looking for (I think) is a thermostat
that closes on temperature rise at 120 and does not
open until the temperature falls below 100F.
Here's a part for clothes dryers.
http://tinyurl.com/25ksfkq
It's SKU number is 39076 on this page
http://tinyurl.com/2gy4tma
My local washer repair parts store
shows it as an LD120 for $5 net/$11 list.
It's a single pole, double throw device
so you can use it for open or close on
temperature rise.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06:35:00
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
17:50:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Smith" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Z Figure Inconsistencies |
I find some inconsistencies regarding E-Bus feeds and I can't understand the
physics that might drive the decision for these differences. Or are they
just items that need to be updated in the future?
1. The wire from the E-Bus Alternate Feed Switch (or relay) to the
E-Bus:
In most cases this wire connects to the E-Bus directly at the bolt, with no
protection between the E-Bus bolt and the other end. In two cases it is
different. In Z10-8 it connects at the E-Bus through a fuse on the E-Bus.
In Z13-8 it connects to the E-Bus bolt through a Fuselink at the bolt. It
seems to me that this wire will likely be more than 6 inches (especially
when coming from a panel mounted switch). It seems to me that this wire
should be protected at the E-Bus when the E-Bus is hot from the Main Bus
Feed and the E-Bus Alternate Feed is open. However, I don't know which is
the favored method (Fuse or Fuselink).
2. The wire from the Main Bus to the E-Bus main feed Diode:
In all cases except one this wire comes directly from the Main Bus Bolt to
the Diode, with no protection (in most cases it is marked to be less than 6
inches). In the Z19 figures, this wire comes from the Main Bus through a
fuse on the Main Bus and then to the main feed Diode. Is this because it is
assumed that this wire will likely be longer than 6 inches? If the E-Bus
and Main Bus could be close to each other and the Diode could this wire be
as in the other Z figures?
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
hi bob,
i am labeling my panel and have a somewhat dumb question........what to
label the warning light that goes on if the ov s tripped? low voltage?
alternator off line?
i guess i am not sure what to label the 20 amp breaker in this system that
takes the alt. off line.
thanks, bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:49 PM 6/22/2010, you wrote:
>hi bob,
> i am labeling my panel and have a somewhat dumb
> question........what to label the warning light that goes on if the
> ov s tripped? low voltage? alternator off line?
LO VOLTS
Doesn't matter why it's on, it can turn
on for a variety of reasons including an
ov trip.
> i guess i am not sure what to label the 20 amp breaker in this
> system that takes the alt. off line.
> thanks, bob noffs
?? 20A ??? which breaker is this ??
Is this the b-lead breaker for a PM alternator?
If so, label it
ALT
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
yes bob, it is the breaker that the ov mod opens. thanks for the replys, bob
noffs
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> At 12:49 PM 6/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>> hi bob,
>> i am labeling my panel and have a somewhat dumb question........what to
>> label the warning light that goes on if the ov s tripped? low voltage?
>> alternator off line?
>>
>
> LO VOLTS
>
> Doesn't matter why it's on, it can turn
> on for a variety of reasons including an
> ov trip.
>
>
> i guess i am not sure what to label the 20 amp breaker in this system that
>> takes the alt. off line.
>> thanks, bob noffs
>>
>
> ?? 20A ??? which breaker is this ??
>
> Is this the b-lead breaker for a PM alternator?
> If so, label it
>
> ALT
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 06:40 PM 6/22/2010, you wrote:
>yes bob, it is the breaker that the ov mod opens. thanks for the
>replys, bob noffs
I'm not sure what this breaker is. There are no AeroElectric
drawings that show a breaker greater than 5A associated with
a crowbar ov protection system.
Are you using a Z-figure? What kind of alternator.
Where is the breaker located in the system?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-13 Alternator & Starter Wire Size |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
After looking at a copper wire resistance chart and playing with V=DIR, it seems
as if the 4AWG callout on Z-13 for the B lead is overkill for a 60 amp alternator
and even for the start circuit.
For the alternator, wouldn't 10AWG be sufficient for a 1' run to the starter contactor?
Voltage drop= 1' x 60a x .00118, or .07v
And could the 2'start circuit for my 1.5kw starter (125a @ 12v) be comfortable
with losing .12v using 6awg .12v=1' x 125a x .000465?
Just checking with you all to make sure that I'm not overlooking something in trying
to keep my plane on a diet.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302139#302139
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13 Alternator & Starter Wire Size |
At 09:53 PM 6/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>After looking at a copper wire resistance chart and playing with
>V=DIR, it seems as if the 4AWG callout on Z-13 for the B lead is
>overkill for a 60 amp alternator and even for the start circuit.
>
>For the alternator, wouldn't 10AWG be sufficient for a 1' run to
>the starter contactor? Voltage drop= 1' x 60a x .00118, or .07v
>
>And could the 2'start circuit for my 1.5kw starter (125a @ 12v) be
>comfortable with losing .12v using 6awg .12v=1' x 125a x .000465?
>
>Just checking with you all to make sure that I'm not overlooking
>something in trying to keep my plane on a diet.
Your doing just fine for a design goal that
has weight very high up on the list of priorities . . .
Having offered that, total weight savings is
pretty small. If I were building an airplane
where the battery, alternator and starter were
all within say 3 feet of each other, I'd wire
with 4AWG for all the fat wires and exploit
the single source of inexpensive wire.
Keep in mind too, temperature rise. THATS what
really limits the wire's current carrying
abilities . . .it's the insulation that dies
first, the copper is good for a whole lot more.
That 4AWG welding cable is pretty attractive.
For the few ounces of difference I'd probably
be better off cutting back a tad on the Big Macs.
But that's just me . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
On 06/05/2010 05:06 PM, James Kilford wrote:
>
> Gents,
>
> I had been wondering, for some time, what to do about the PolyFiber
> PolySpray coats. PolySpray is a metal-loaded paint that is used to
> protect PolyFiber fabric from UV damage.
>
> I'd wanted to put all the aerials inside my fuselage, but was
> concerned that the PolySpray would attenuate radio signals to/from
> COM, NAV, GPS (especially) and XPNDR. PolyFiber's own advice was to
> put the aerials outside the fuselage, and to definitely use the
> PolySpray coating, to ensure longevity of fabric (apparently the
> PolySpray increases the fabric's life 4-fold!).
>
> To cut a long story short, I decided to chance it -- with PolySpray
> and internal aerials -- and see what happened, figuring that I could
> move the aerials outside the fuselage if necessary.
>
> Today, I did tests to see if the aerials function as I would wish, and
> they did. The PolySpray coats appear to have made no difference to
> the signals -- even the presumably very small GPS signal. I don't
> have anything in the way of scientific instruments, just the signal
> strength shown on the GPS and hand-held radio, but using the
> fuselage-mounted aerials makes no discernible difference to the signal
> strength compared to the equipment's own aerials. I've yet to test
> the NAV / XPNDR aerials, but I assume the same will hold true for
> those too.
>
> FWIW!
>
> James
>
This is very interesting because a fellow in our RC airplane club
covered a model with polyspray and he couldn't get his airplane to pass
radio check and crashed two other models.
He tried both 72mhz and 2.4ghz radios, but gave up because it just
wasn't reliable. He went back to using plastic film.
schu
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
| From: | "gordon" <gptailwind(at)msn.com> |
Several weeks ago you gave me some good info in that the ICOM A-210 and the Flight
Com 403 are compatable.
I have it installed and with much adjusting ect everything except volume adjustment
are fine.
I have called 2 times to Icom Tec and get no satisfaction. The way it is, You
can only have a volumn control is
to go into Menu..The first item that comes up is HP LEVEL which is headphone level.
This is the same as (Vol).
These are the 3 options I have.
AF gain: The output level is the same as (Vol).
Off (0) While muting the headphone.
01-80 Setting audio level from 1 to 80.
So according to ICOM Tec supportthey recommend (and I am already using this method)
is to put he Vol as high
as needed and then control it with the volume controls on my Lightspeed headsets.
If I try to use the normal Volume control like I normally would, just reach over
and adjust ., Nothing happens
The scale shows up on the front, you know it goes up and down as you turn the
knob but nothing happens.
So according to Icom that seems to be the only way it can be done unless I put
in audio panel.
I dont have the room and dont want to do it.
Have flown with it this way and the com works fine. Doesnt pick up the loud noise.
And am able to communicate fine.
The transceiver works fine also.
Its just the Idea that if you want more volume if I dont have enough thru the
headset controls, I have to go into menu and
dial in more.
Does any one have any suggestions or has anyone had this problem . Thanks
Gordon
[/list]
--------
tailwind10
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302171#302171
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
bob,
ok,
i wlll have to check out the wiring. it has been several years since i
wired. i have to do two 12 hrs shifts today and tomorrow. i will get back on
friday. it is on a jab 3300 and i pretty much followed a z drawing.
bob noffs
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 06:40 PM 6/22/2010, you wrote:
>
>> yes bob, it is the breaker that the ov mod opens. thanks for the replys,
>> bob noffs
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure what this breaker is. There are no AeroElectric
> drawings that show a breaker greater than 5A associated with
> a crowbar ov protection system.
>
> Are you using a Z-figure? What kind of alternator.
> Where is the breaker located in the system?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
Hi Guys
Most if not all radios have built in intercoms, so why do we need a seperate
intercom
Best regards: John (RV9a wings - long way to go before fitting radios)
----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon" <gptailwind(at)msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:29 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom
>
> Several weeks ago you gave me some good info in that the ICOM A-210 and
> the Flight Com 403 are compatable.
> I have it installed and with much adjusting ect everything except volume
> adjustment are fine.
> I have called 2 times to Icom Tec and get no satisfaction. The way it
> is, You can only have a volumn control is
> to go into Menu..The first item that comes up is ?oHP LEVEL? which is
> headphone level. This is the same as (Vol).
>
> These are the 3 options I have.
>
> AF gain: The output level is the same as (Vol).
> Off (0) While muting the headphone.
> 01-80 Setting audio level from 1 to 80.
>
> So according to ICOM Tec support?"they recommend (and I am already using
> this method) is to put he Vol as high
> as needed and then control it with the volume controls on my Lightspeed
> headsets.
> If I try to use the normal Volume control like I normally would, just
> reach over and adjust ., Nothing happens
> The scale shows up on the front, you know it goes up and down as you turn
> the knob but nothing happens.
>
> So according to Icom that seems to be the only way it can be done unless I
> put in audio panel.
> I don?Tt have the room and don?Tt want to do it.
>
> Have flown with it this way and the com works fine. Doesn?Tt pick up the
> loud noise. And am able to communicate fine.
> The transceiver works fine also.
> Its just the Idea that if you want more volume if I don?Tt have enough
> thru the headset controls, I have to go into menu and
> dial in more.
> Does any one have any suggestions or has anyone had this problem .
> Thanks Gordon
> [/list]
>
> --------
> tailwind10
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302171#302171
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
At 05:14 AM 6/23/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Guys
>
>Most if not all radios have built in intercoms, so why do we need a seperate
>intercom
>
>Best regards: John (RV9a wings - long way to go before fitting radios)\
Two possible reasons I can think of . . .
The only built-in intercoms I've had personal experience
with were the "hot mic" variety that required a user operated
push-to-talk button and did not feature an effective voice/
noise discriminating, voice activated switching system.
Further, built in intercoms are less likely to have
features for adding entertainment such as a stereo
music input.
Not all "aircraft audio systems" are the same. If
you have some desires that go beyond those which
might have satisfied your grandpa . . . its a good idea
to dig through the installation/operating manuals
for the radio/intercom pair you're considering.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 05:01 AM 6/23/2010, you wrote:
>bob,
> ok,
> i wlll have to check out the wiring. it has been several years
> since i wired. i have to do two 12 hrs shifts today and tomorrow. i
> will get back on friday. it is on a jab 3300 and i pretty much
> followed a z drawing.
> bob noffs
Understand. The only Jab drawing I've published
is
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z20L.pdf
which shows suggested labels and sizes for the
components you've asked about. But don't hurry,
you're going to need some SLEEP after taking care
of the tasks for today . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
| From: | Iberplanes IGD - Alberto Martin <iberplanes(at)gmail.com> |
Hi guys,
The Icom brochure says it has a built in intercom and VOX capable, as
mentioned before, why should one install an intercom then?
That=B4s the radio I=B4ve bought but have not installed yet, so some
clarification would be fantastic.
thanks !
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Started
Engine: Jabiru 3300
Un ingles a Tom Lucero en la guerra de Malvinas: "=A1Piloto argentino mejor
aqu=ED con nosotros en camilla. Muy peligroso arriba, en su avi=F3n!=97".
Un pasaje del libro "Dios y Los Halcones" del Com. Pablo M. Carballo
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
| From: | Matt Prather <mapratherid(at)gmail.com> |
In your Zodiac, the Icom's included intercom probably could suffice.
However, it appears that intercom doesn't support more than two seats
(pilot + copilot). Some airplanes have a few more seats than that..
;) In those cases, an intercom that supports more seats
(headphones/mics) might be worth having.
Regards,
Matt-
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Iberplanes IGD - Alberto Martin
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> The Icom brochure says it has a built in intercom and VOX capable, as
> mentioned before, why should one install an intercom then?
>
> Thats the radio Ive bought but have not installed yet, so some
> clarification would be fantastic.
>
> thanks !
>
> Alberto Martin
> www.iberplanes.es
> Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Zodiac 601 XL Builder
> Serial: 6-7011
>
> Tail Kit: Finished
> Wings: Not Started
> Fuselage: Started
> Engine: Jabiru 3300
>
>
> Un ingles a Tom Lucero en la guerra de Malvinas: "Piloto argentino mejor
> aqu con nosotros en camilla. Muy peligroso arriba, en su avin!".
>
> Un pasaje del libro "Dios y Los Halcones" del Com. Pablo M. Carballo
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13 Alternator & Starter Wire Size |
>But somewhere a long time ago when I started this project, I read
>(and was never able to shake it) the maxim re building planes: "
>During the building journey, if one takes care to eliminate extra
>ounces, the extra pounds will take care of themselves at completion"
yeah . . . sort of. When Burt Rutan did the Voyager
project, he had an airplane that grossed about 12000
pounds at takeoff. It took about 5 pounds of fuel
to carry 1 pound of airplane around the world. Needless
to say, paying attention to empty weight was mission
critical.
I think most of us fly for fun. We pile 'stuff' into
the airplane including our bods that varies from
mission to mission . . . and few of us figure fuel
endurance down to the last gallon. Further, the
average use of a light aircraft in the US is 50
or so hours per year. If it were a revenue generating
hauler that flew 50 hours a month, then one MIGHT
be able to make a case for fine-tuning the ship's
empty weight.
My feeling is that time would be better spent
on the craftsmanship of the assembly than on
bean-counting (or ounce-counting).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ICOM A 210 matched with a Flightcom 403 intercom |
| From: | Iberplanes IGD - Alberto Martin <iberplanes(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Matt !!!
2010/6/23 Matt Prather
> mapratherid(at)gmail.com>
>
> In your Zodiac, the Icom's included intercom probably could suffice.
> However, it appears that intercom doesn't support more than two seats
> (pilot + copilot). Some airplanes have a few more seats than that..
> ;) In those cases, an intercom that supports more seats
> (headphones/mics) might be worth having.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Iberplanes IGD - Alberto Martin
> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > The Icom brochure says it has a built in intercom and VOX capable, as
> > mentioned before, why should one install an intercom then?
> >
> > That=B4s the radio I=B4ve bought but have not installed yet, so some
> > clarification would be fantastic.
> >
> > thanks !
> >
> > Alberto Martin
> > www.iberplanes.es
> > Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > Zodiac 601 XL Builder
> > Serial: 6-7011
> >
> > Tail Kit: Finished
> > Wings: Not Started
> > Fuselage: Started
> > Engine: Jabiru 3300
> >
> >
> > Un ingles a Tom Lucero en la guerra de Malvinas: "=A1Piloto argentino m
ejor
> > aqu=ED con nosotros en camilla. Muy peligroso arriba, en su avi=F3n!=97
".
> >
> > Un pasaje del libro "Dios y Los Halcones" del Com. Pablo M. Carballo
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Started
Engine: Jabiru 3300
Un ingles a Tom Lucero en la guerra de Malvinas: "=A1Piloto argentino mejor
aqu=ED con nosotros en camilla. Muy peligroso arriba, en su avi=F3n!=97".
Un pasaje del libro "Dios y Los Halcones" del Com. Pablo M. Carballo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Audio system design |
I have been thinking about the audio system for my 2 place IFR airplane.
Have looked at the audio info presented in Bob's book and am not sure
if the systems depicted will satisfy my needs/wants. The aircraft will
have 2 NAVs, 2 COMs, Glass panel (GRT EFIS), and GPS, along with a music
channel input.
1. I would like some elaboration on Bob's system, as to advantages and
disadvantages.
2. Does anyone have any experience with the RST unit?
Comments, suggestions, helpful hints requested.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
If your music is planned to be in stereo - that might impact your audio panel selection.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
>Sent: Jun 23, 2010 3:51 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Audio system design
>
>I have been thinking about the audio system for my 2 place IFR airplane. Have
looked at the audio info presented in Bob's book and am not sure if the systems
depicted will satisfy my needs/wants. The aircraft will have 2 NAVs, 2 COMs,
Glass panel (GRT EFIS), and GPS, along with a music channel input.
>
>1. I would like some elaboration on Bob's system, as to advantages and disadvantages.
>
>2. Does anyone have any experience with the RST unit?
>
>Comments, suggestions, helpful hints requested.
>
>Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Voltmeter Needs Independent Power Supply |
Greetings,
I'm adding a digital voltmeter to a 12 volt system. It's not an
airplane, but I think my question also applies to airplanes. The system
is a single cylinder engine with a 12 volt starter, alternator, and
battery. I don't really need a voltmeter on it, but I wanted to play
with a cheap digital voltmeter for the educational value and this seemed
like as good an application as any.
I bought this voltmeter: Model XL3-20V, about two-thirds of the way
down the following page:
http://www.futurlec.com/Panel_Meters.shtml
The instructions that came with the meter say, "Power Source: DC 12V,
must have separate power supply."
It has four terminals. One pair is for 12 volts DC positive and
negative power supply and the other pair of positive and negative for
the DC input signal. I wanted to connect both pairs to the 12 volt
starting battery that I want to measure. But the note that the meter
requires a separate power supply sounds like that won't work.
I have a general question: Why would a digital voltmeter need a
separate power supply?
I have a specific question: Is there a simple workaround, like putting
resistors or diodes in the power supply wires? I know that I can always
go with a relay and flashlight batteries, but I'm hoping for a more
elegant solution.
Thanks,
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13 Alternator & Starter Wire Size |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> ... then one MIGHT
> be able to make a case for fine-tuning the ship's
> empty weight.
>
> My feeling is that time would be better spent
> on the craftsmanship of the assembly than on
> bean-counting (or ounce-counting).
>
>
> Bob . . .
My thrust in this project has been to try something a little different to get a
better result. Glasairs, with a high wing loading, are pretty weight sensitive
and, to boot, I stuck a bigger engine than normal in mine. I figured with a
composite prop(-30#) and losing the nose gear(-30#), I could compensate for a
little more engine weight (and hp). Knowing that I'd handicapped myself with the
engine, I've tried to save weight everywhere I can. That drove the decision
for an aux alternator over an aux battery for a 5# wt. saving.
But in the end, I want a daily flyer (or weekly) that is finely crafted, that
I don't have to tinker with constantly, is a blast to fly and that my wife finds
comfortable (well, me too). So it's easy to go with a few extra ounces of
copper if it means that my starter has an easy life, my ground power circuit will
happily start my engine after I've left the master on, and generally that
the electrons in my system find the race track empty and cool all the time.
Through the AEL and your thoughtful advice, I think I am well on my way to accomplishing
my goal.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302268#302268
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltmeter Needs Independent Power Supply |
Some of these meters are designed such that they will not work properly
unless the supply is isolated from the voltage being read. I would
guess that they can get away with a cheaper solution that way. It is
probably that the grounds cannot be connected but I don't know exactly
what the circuits are. Unfortunately, there is no work-around - simple
or otherwise. The power source MUST be totally isolated from the
voltage to be measured. Either use batteries or use an isolated DC-DC
converter.
If it is possible, I would try to exchange it for one where the power
supply does not have to be isolated, such as the PM1029B or the LCD
versions CX101B or PM128E. Of course, all of these require a 5V supply
so you have that to deal with, but at least it can be derived from the
12V you have with a simple regulator (LM7805) and a couple of capacitors.
If you really want to eliminate all the hassle (but pay more) try the
Lascar Electronics EMV 1200-40 at
http://www.alliedelec.com/search/productdetail.aspx?SKU=5720050#tab=Specs
This is a self-powered meter. Just connect it to a voltage between 4
and 40 volts and it reads the voltage - no power supply required. The
current consumption spec says 3 mA, but I have two of them for my two
batteries and the actual consumption is less than 1mA.
Some of the other meters that Lascar make can run from the 12V you have
available and read whatever voltage you want to (non-isolated supply).
Dick Tasker
Dennis Johnson wrote:
> Greetings,
> I'm adding a digital voltmeter to a 12 volt system. It's not an
> airplane, but I think my question also applies to airplanes. The
> system is a single cylinder engine with a 12 volt starter,
> alternator, and battery. I don't really need a voltmeter on it, but I
> wanted to play with a cheap digital voltmeter for the educational
> value and this seemed like as good an application as any.
> I bought this voltmeter: Model XL3-20V, about two-thirds of the way
> down the following page:
> http://www.futurlec.com/Panel_Meters.shtml
> The instructions that came with the meter say, "Power Source: DC 12V,
> must have separate power supply."
> It has four terminals. One pair is for 12 volts DC positive and
> negative power supply and the other pair of positive and negative for
> the DC input signal. I wanted to connect both pairs to the 12 volt
> starting battery that I want to measure. But the note that the meter
> requires a separate power supply sounds like that won't work.
> I have a general question: Why would a digital voltmeter need a
> separate power supply?
> I have a specific question: Is there a simple workaround, like
> putting resistors or diodes in the power supply wires? I know that I
> can always go with a relay and flashlight batteries, but I'm hoping
> for a more elegant solution.
> Thanks,
> Dennis
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13 Alternator & Starter Wire Size |
I like that Bob. I am going to quit feeling guilty for adding all those
gadgets that I think I will enjoy. Those seat heaters, O2, etc., will feel
just right at 16,000 feet as I fly over the Rockies on my way around the
Western US.
Allen Fulmer
RV7 Turbo Normalized Subaru
3 screen GRT EFIS, autopilot, etc.
Alexander City, AL
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13 Alternator & Starter Wire Size
>But somewhere a long time ago when I started this project, I read
>(and was never able to shake it) the maxim re building planes: "
>During the building journey, if one takes care to eliminate extra
>ounces, the extra pounds will take care of themselves at completion"
yeah . . . sort of. When Burt Rutan did the Voyager
project, he had an airplane that grossed about 12000
pounds at takeoff. It took about 5 pounds of fuel
to carry 1 pound of airplane around the world. Needless
to say, paying attention to empty weight was mission
critical.
I think most of us fly for fun. We pile 'stuff' into
the airplane including our bods that varies from
mission to mission . . . and few of us figure fuel
endurance down to the last gallon. Further, the
average use of a light aircraft in the US is 50
or so hours per year. If it were a revenue generating
hauler that flew 50 hours a month, then one MIGHT
be able to make a case for fine-tuning the ship's
empty weight.
My feeling is that time would be better spent
on the craftsmanship of the assembly than on
bean-counting (or ounce-counting).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13 Alternator & Starter Wire Size |
Good Evening Allen and 'Lectric Bob,
I tend to agree with the thought that we should always remain weight
conscious.
If you want seat heaters, put them in, but make sure they are efficient and
light weight. An ounce here and an ounce there may not seem like much, but
each ounce should be serving a purpose.
No doubt that cost is always going to be a factor.
I like the phrase quoted. ---- "During the building journey, if one takes
care to eliminate extra
ounces, the extra pounds will take care of themselves at completion"
I am an avowed Bonanza nut. The main reason the early Bonanza did as well
as it did was due to the "save an ounce everywhere you can" spirit with
which the straight 35 was built. It way out performed everything else of the
era because it was a couple of hundred pounds lighter.
The effort does pay off.
Enjoy all the comforts you want, but don't waste any weight on something
you don't need.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 6/23/2010 9:27:30 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
afulmer(at)charter.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allen Fulmer"
I like that Bob. I am going to quit feeling guilty for adding all those
gadgets that I think I will enjoy. Those seat heaters, O2, etc., will feel
just right at 16,000 feet as I fly over the Rockies on my way around the
Western US.
Allen Fulmer
RV7 Turbo Normalized Subaru
3 screen GRT EFIS, autopilot, etc.
Alexander City, AL
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13 Alternator & Starter Wire Size
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>But somewhere a long time ago when I started this project, I read
>(and was never able to shake it) the maxim re building planes: "
>During the building journey, if one takes care to eliminate extra
>ounces, the extra pounds will take care of themselves at completion"
yeah . . . sort of. When Burt Rutan did the Voyager
project, he had an airplane that grossed about 12000
pounds at takeoff. It took about 5 pounds of fuel
to carry 1 pound of airplane around the world. Needless
to say, paying attention to empty weight was mission
critical.
I think most of us fly for fun. We pile 'stuff' into
the airplane including our bods that varies from
mission to mission . . . and few of us figure fuel
endurance down to the last gallon. Further, the
average use of a light aircraft in the US is 50
or so hours per year. If it were a revenue generating
hauler that flew 50 hours a month, then one MIGHT
be able to make a case for fine-tuning the ship's
empty weight.
My feeling is that time would be better spent
on the craftsmanship of the assembly than on
bean-counting (or ounce-counting).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
At 02:51 PM 6/23/2010, you wrote:
>I have been thinking about the audio system for my 2 place IFR
>airplane. Have looked at the audio info presented in Bob's book and
>am not sure if the systems depicted will satisfy my
>needs/wants. The aircraft will have 2 NAVs, 2 COMs, Glass panel
>(GRT EFIS), and GPS, along with a music channel input.
>
>1. I would like some elaboration on Bob's system, as to advantages
>and disadvantages.
>
>2. Does anyone have any experience with the RST unit?
>
>Comments, suggestions, helpful hints requested.
I'm not sure what you're referring to as a 'system'.
I've described a variety of ways in the book and
in the instructions for the DIY audio isolation
amplifier that offers a wide range of options.
Those options will range from one radio and no
intercom to a panel full of radios, stereo
entertainment . . . and if the companion
intercom is so fitted, up to 4 seats.
What are YOUR requirements? How many different
audio sources do you anticipate? If there are
warning signals from the efis and gps systems,
then you may need to mix up to 6 different
sources with stereo entertainment on top of
that.
You can add more inputs to the device I've
described and it will handle stereo music.
There are sources for audio isolation amplifiers
that have more inputs also. Which intercom
are you looking at? It may have stereo mixing
features too and you then may only need a
mono-version of the audio isolation amplifier
which would provide all the inputs you'll need.
So it's not "bob's system" that has advantages/
disadvantages, it's YOUR system that describes
design goals that must be met whether you use
any data from the 'Connection or any other
source.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z Figure Inconsistencies |
At 10:15 AM 6/21/2010, you wrote:
>I find some inconsistencies regarding E-Bus feeds and I can't
>understand the physics that might drive the decision for these
>differences. Or are they just items that need to be updated in the future?
>
Gordon, the answer to your question will take some time
and I'm up to my eyeballs in garage sale management for
the next three days. I've got your query on the list of
things to do.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Smith" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Z Figure Inconsistencies |
RESEND - Originally sent on 21 June.
I find some inconsistencies regarding E-Bus feeds and I can't understand the
physics that might drive the decision for these differences. Or are they
just items that need to be updated in the future?
1. The wire from the E-Bus Alternate Feed Switch (or relay) to the
E-Bus:
In most cases this wire connects to the E-Bus directly at the bolt, with no
protection between the E-Bus bolt and the other end. In two cases it is
different. In Z10-8 it connects at the E-Bus through a fuse on the E-Bus.
In Z13-8 it connects to the E-Bus bolt through a Fuselink at the bolt. It
seems to me that this wire will likely be more than 6 inches (especially
when coming from a panel mounted switch). It seems to me that this wire
should be protected at the E-Bus when the E-Bus is hot from the Main Bus
Feed and the E-Bus Alternate Feed is open. However, I don't know which is
the favored method (Fuse or Fuselink).
2. The wire from the Main Bus to the E-Bus main feed Diode:
In all cases except one this wire comes directly from the Main Bus Bolt to
the Diode, with no protection (in most cases it is marked to be less than 6
inches). In the Z19 figures, this wire comes from the Main Bus through a
fuse on the Main Bus and then to the main feed Diode. Is this because it is
assumed that this wire will likely be longer than 6 inches? If the E-Bus
and Main Bus could be close to each other and the Diode could this wire be
as in the other Z figures?
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Voltmeter Needs Independent Power Supply |
| From: | "user9253" <fran4sew(at)banyanol.com> |
I searched the internet for XL3-20V and found a posting that says it is OK for that meter to share a common ground for the power supply and the input signal. http://tinyurl.com/2eul2xf
I would go ahead and connect the power and input pins in parallel and try it out.
Even if it smokes, you do not have much to lose. If Futurlec accepts returns,
it might not be worth your time and shipping expense to return it.
I am guessing that the instructions "must have separate power supply" mean that
the meter requires 12 volts to operate, as opposed to some meters that are
powered by the input signal.
Joe[/quote]
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302379#302379
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Smith" <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | John Deere AM101406 |
I wanted to purchase a JD AM101406 for use as a Voltage Regulator controller
for a 20A. PM alternator installation. It has been touted as a "Robust"
option for replacement of other regulator units.
I made a purchase over the internet and received a unit Identified only as
VR-150 Made In China. It has very little cooling fin area as compared to
the pictured Stens 435-159 version of the AM101406. Please see attached
photos of both units.
Should the generic VR-150 be considered an adequate substitute for the
robust Stens 435-159 unit?
I found that there are many internet sources for the Stens unit that are out
of stock and will not be reordering, just no longer available. I don't know
what this means.
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Dabney <jdabney(at)rice.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: John Deere AM101406 |
Gordon,
I bought an aftermarket regulator that also seemed a bit flimsy. It
couldn't handle the current. The result is attached. When it melted, the
stench was terrible.
I did find in Houston a source (a tractor parts company) for the genuine
Kubota part identical to the regulator that came with my Jabiru 2200.
Also, I installed a 1" tube coming from the Jabiru cylinder head duct
blowing directly on the regulator, and haven't had any more trouble.
Jim Dabney
Gordon Smith wrote:
>
> I wanted to purchase a JD AM101406 for use as a Voltage Regulator
> controller for a 20A. PM alternator installation. It has been touted
> as a Robust option for replacement of other regulator units.
>
> I made a purchase over the internet and received a unit Identified
> only as VR-150 Made In China. It has very little cooling fin area as
> compared to the pictured Stens 435-159 version of the AM101406. Please
> see attached photos of both units.
>
> Should the generic VR-150 be considered an adequate substitute for the
> robust Stens 435-159 unit?
>
> I found that there are many internet sources for the Stens unit that
> are out of stock and will not be reordering, just no longer available.
> I dont know what this means.
>
> Gordon Smith
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
You might also consider one of the pre-built, inexpensive, Audio mixers made for
aviation use. I purchased a CS-408 unit (aprox. $100) from Precision Instrument
& Control, Inc. (Ft Worth, TX). I needed to mix my Nav, coms, and various
warning audio signals in my LongEz. Frankly, I have not yet tested the installation.
However, the unit seems perfect for me. It is very small, well built,
and can mix/equalize up to 8 channels.
I think there are a couple of other similar products out there, but can't remember
the sources.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302465#302465
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
Where can one actually find and purchase this unit???
Dick Tasker
Radioflyer wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Radioflyer"
>
> You might also consider one of the pre-built, inexpensive, Audio mixers made
for aviation use. I purchased a CS-408 unit (aprox. $100) from Precision Instrument&
Control, Inc. (Ft Worth, TX). I needed to mix my Nav, coms, and various
warning audio signals in my LongEz. Frankly, I have not yet tested the installation.
However, the unit seems perfect for me. It is very small, well built,
and can mix/equalize up to 8 channels.
>
> I think there are a couple of other similar products out there, but can't remember
the sources.
> --Jose
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302465#302465
>
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Heat shrink with RG400 |
| From: | "Barry" <blalmarz(at)embarqmail.com> |
Can one use heat shrink with RG400 coax/ Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302473#302473
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
At 08:58 AM 6/25/2010, you wrote:
>
>You might also consider one of the pre-built, inexpensive, Audio
>mixers made for aviation use. I purchased a CS-408 unit (aprox.
>$100) from Precision Instrument & Control, Inc. (Ft Worth, TX). I
>needed to mix my Nav, coms, and various warning audio signals in my
>LongEz. Frankly, I have not yet tested the installation. However,
>the unit seems perfect for me. It is very small, well built, and can
>mix/equalize up to 8 channels.
>
>I think there are a couple of other similar products out there, but
>can't remember the sources.
There's a List member who offers a multi-channel
mixer and as I recall he offered channel-by-channel
gain potentiometers too. See:
http://www.vx-aviation.com/page_2.html#AMX-2A_more
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
Hello Dick
I do not know about this unit, but I purchased and installed the Audio Mixer
AMX-2A <http://www.vx-aviation.com/page_2.html#AMX-2A_more> from Vern
Little, and it works as advertised.
It is small, light, and perfectly suitable for the job. Nowadays (not when I
bought it) it is not cheap though.
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard E. Tasker
> Sent: sexta-feira, 25 de Junho de 2010 15:44
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio system design
>
>
>
> Where can one actually find and purchase this unit???
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> Radioflyer wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
"Radioflyer"
> >
> > You might also consider one of the pre-built, inexpensive, Audio mixers
made for
> aviation use. I purchased a CS-408 unit (aprox. $100) from Precision
Instrument&
> Control, Inc. (Ft Worth, TX). I needed to mix my Nav, coms, and various
warning
> audio signals in my LongEz. Frankly, I have not yet tested the
installation.
> However, the unit seems perfect for me. It is very small, well built, and
can
> mix/equalize up to 8 channels.
> >
> > I think there are a couple of other similar products out there, but
can't remember
> the sources.
> > --Jose
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302465#302465
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Please Note:
> No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede,
> however,
> that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily
inconvenienced.
> --
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
Have a look at http://vx-aviation.com/.
The AMX-2A supports 10 channels, with volume control for four channels.
Works with any intercom or comms radio without additional components and is
very small and light. We take PayPal and shipped from stock, free shipping
anywhere in the world. Similarly packaged gizmos support music players and
cell phones (or both).
Thanks, Vern Little
RV-9A, HR-II (in gestation)
www.vx-aviation.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio system design
>
>
> Where can one actually find and purchase this unit???
>
> Dick Tasker
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
Thanks to all who responded. Unfortunately, I do not need a 10 channel
mixer and certainly can't see spending $160 for about six channels more
than I need.
I am perfectly capable of designing and building my own but I was hoping
to find a simple, cheap solution.
Dick Tasker
Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> Hello Dick
>
> I do not know about this unit, but I purchased and installed the Audio
> Mixer AMX-2A from Vern Little
> <http://www.vx-aviation.com/page_2.html#AMX-2A_more>, and it works as
> advertised.
>
> It is small, light, and perfectly suitable for the job. Nowadays (not
> when I bought it) it is not cheap though.
>
> Carlos
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
>
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard E. Tasker
>
> > Sent: sexta-feira, 25 de Junho de 2010 15:44
>
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio system design
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Where can one actually find and purchase this unit???
>
> >
>
> > Dick Tasker
>
> >
>
> > Radioflyer wrote:
>
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> "Radioflyer"
>
> > >
>
> > > You might also consider one of the pre-built, inexpensive, Audio
> mixers made for
>
> > aviation use. I purchased a CS-408 unit (aprox. $100) from Precision
> Instrument&
>
> > Control, Inc. (Ft Worth, TX). I needed to mix my Nav, coms, and
> various warning
>
> > audio signals in my LongEz. Frankly, I have not yet tested the
> installation.
>
> > However, the unit seems perfect for me. It is very small, well built,
> and can
>
> > mix/equalize up to 8 channels.
>
> > >
>
> > > I think there are a couple of other similar products out there, but
> can't remember
>
> > the sources.
>
> > > --Jose
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Read this topic online here:
>
> > >
>
> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302465#302465
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Please Note:
>
> > No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede,
>
> > however,
>
> > that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily
> inconvenienced.
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ==========
>
> > AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
>
> > browse
>
> > Un/Subscription,
>
> > FAQ,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> >
>
> > ==========
>
> > bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>
> > Forums!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ==========
>
> > bsp; - List Contribution Web Site -
>
> >
>
> > bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> > ==========
>
> >
>
> >
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
hi bob,
i mailed you a few days ago about how to label the warning light and 20amp
breaker in my ov module.
this is on a jab 3300. i am looking at b and c diagrahm and for some
reason when i ordered the parts from them a 20 amp breaker was substituted
for a 10 or 15 amp breaker and a 1 amp was substituted for the 2 amp. you
had questioned what a 20 amp breaker was doing in there. my answer to that
is i have no idea. will the system work with the 20 amp and the 1 amp?
i have a toggle for ''master on ''but no separate switch for the
alternator.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
At 01:49 PM 6/25/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Thanks to all who responded. Unfortunately, I do not need a 10
>channel mixer and certainly can't see spending $160 for about six
>channels more than I need.
>
>I am perfectly capable of designing and building my own but I was
>hoping to find a simple, cheap solution.
>
>Dick Tasker
We still offer boards for this DIY
audio isolation amplifier that can
be fabricated in both mono and stereo
versions. We've sold about 50 boards
over the past 10 years and have received
no reports of difficulties getting it
assembled and integrated into the
builder's project.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700L.pdf
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> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat shrink with RG400 |
At 10:35 AM 6/25/2010, you wrote:
>
>Can one use heat shrink with RG400 coax/ Thanks
Sure . . . in fact, you CAN'T use heat shrink
on RG-58 except VERY carefully. 400 is modern,
high temp materials.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
Bob
The link(below) won't work for me, neither does accessing your catalog at
your AeroElectric web site
Can you steer me in the right direction
Thanks
Dick
In a message dated 6/25/2010 7:33:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700L.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
Dick;
Both the website catalogue and the provided link work fine for me. Must be
something with your computer or e-mail programme, it's not Bob's documents.
Here's the link pasted from my computer. See if it works better than the
original.
Bob McC
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700L.pdf
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
RGent1224(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Audio system design
Bob
The link(below) won't work for me, neither does accessing your catalog at
your AeroElectric web site
Can you steer me in the right direction
Thanks
Dick
In a message dated 6/25/2010 7:33:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700L.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
At 08:49 PM 6/25/2010, you wrote:
>Bob
>The link(below) won't work for me, neither does accessing your
>catalog at your AeroElectric web site
>Can you steer me in the right direction
>Thanks
>Dick
>
>In a message dated 6/25/2010 7:33:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700L.pdf
>
>
Try starting with the front page at http://aeroelectric.com
and navigate through the various index pages.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 06:27 PM 6/25/2010, you wrote:
> hi bob,
> i mailed you a few days ago about how to label the warning light
> and 20amp breaker in my ov module.
> this is on a jab 3300. i am looking at b and c diagrahm and for
> some reason when i ordered the parts from them a 20 amp breaker was
> substituted for a 10 or 15 amp breaker and a 1 amp was substituted
> for the 2 amp. you had questioned what a 20 amp breaker was doing
> in there. my answer to that is i have no idea. will the system work
> with the 20 amp and the 1 amp?
> i have a toggle for ''master on ''but no separate switch for the
> alternator.
I'm not familiar with B&C's diagram for wiring a Jab.
Can you point me to a download link for it or send
me an electronic copy if it's already in .pdf?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
Bob
Tried that last night and it didn't work but lo and behold today it works -
Just the wonders of this age of communication.
Thanks
Dick
In a message dated 6/26/2010 6:51:36 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 08:49 PM 6/25/2010, you wrote:
Bob
The link(below) won't work for me, neither does accessing your catalog at
your AeroElectric web site
Can you steer me in the right direction
Thanks
Dick
In a message dated 6/25/2010 7:33:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700L.pdf_
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700L.pdf)
Try starting with the front page at _http://aeroelectric.com
_ (http://aeroelectric.com/) and navigate through the various index pages.
Bob . . .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Voltmeter Needs Independent Power Supply |
Greetings,
Thanks, guys, for the helpful answers to my problems with cheap digital
voltmeters that require a power supply independent of the electrical
system I want to measure. For my application, which isn't far from a
120 volt AC power outlet, I'll use a 120 VAC to 12 VDC transformer to
power the instruments. Of course, that would require an unusually long
extension cord if this were an airplane.
If other people are looking for cheap digital voltmeters, ammeters, etc.
you might want to first verify if they need an independent power supply
or not. Some of the ones I looked at do, and some don't, and it doesn't
seem to be a matter of price.
Thanks,
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
bob, here is the schematic.
bob noffs
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Jones <greg(at)bandc.biz>
Date: Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Subject: B&C dgm
http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/504-500_Rev_F.pdf
*Greg Jones***
* *
*Greg Jones***
*Sales/Customer Service*
* *
*B&C Specialty Products, Inc.*
*123 East 4th Street*
*POB B*
*Newton**, Kansas 67114 USA***
*Phone (316) 283-8000*
*Fax (316) 283-7400*
*Email greg(at)bandc.biz***
*Website www.bandc.biz*
* *
**
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle Speed Brakes? |
Hello,
I've searched the archives but can't find help on this. I'd like to use one
of my joy stick grip buttons to control the Precise Flight speed brakes.
The button is a simple push button normally open. The Precise Flight
Control Unit needs a voltage on one of two pins to control whether they are
up or down.
How can I use a push button to switch the voltage a between two lines?
Here's a screen shot of my wiring diagram in work. Note I'd also like it to
work with the toggle switch on the panel.
Thanks,
Valin
Lancair Legacy Project
Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle Speed Brakes? |
Forget the push button on the stick and replace it with a three position
toggle ((up)-off-down). The toggle should be spring loaded to off from
the up position only. Run your single point ground for the speed brakes
through a two position toggle in a convenient location to control the
ground for the pilot/copilot control authority.
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 Valin
& Allyson Thorn
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:01 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle Speed
Brakes?
Hello,
I've searched the archives but can't find help on this. I'd like to use
one of my joy stick grip buttons to control the Precise Flight speed
brakes. The button is a simple push button normally open. The Precise
Flight Control Unit needs a voltage on one of two pins to control
whether they are up or down.
How can I use a push button to switch the voltage a between two lines?
Here's a screen shot of my wiring diagram in work. Note I'd also like
it to work with the toggle switch on the panel.
Thanks,
Valin
Lancair Legacy Project
Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle Speed Brakes? |
| From: | "Valin" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
Thanks for the advice Bruce. I'd assume you mean replace the button switch with
a toggle switch as one can on the Infinity grips. You can't do that with the
Tosten grips. Not sure if you could see the image -- but, the Precise Flight
Control Unit requires a positive voltage across either pin 6 or 7 to move the
speed brakes up or down, respectively.
I'd really like to use the push button on the grip to just toggle the speed brakes
up or down if it's not too complicated. I'm hoping there's a special relay
that will handle that easily...
Anyone know of the best way to accomplish this?
Thanks again,
Valin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302618#302618
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle Speed |
Brakes?
Gosh that would be confusing to fly. That means that if you have partial
speed brakes deployed, it would take 2 button presses to go to full
deployment. You would have to watch the brakes to see which way they
moved when you pressed the button to see if another press was needed.
Not good if you're on short final.
Does the SB control box have logic to control the end point or does it
continue power if the brakes are fully up/down?
I still thing a 3 position toggle is the only solution, unless you want
to fiddle with a button and only want full up/down on your brakes.
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 Valin
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle
Speed Brakes?
Thanks for the advice Bruce. I'd assume you mean replace the button
switch with a toggle switch as one can on the Infinity grips. You can't
do that with the Tosten grips. Not sure if you could see the image --
but, the Precise Flight Control Unit requires a positive voltage across
either pin 6 or 7 to move the speed brakes up or down, respectively.
I'd really like to use the push button on the grip to just toggle the
speed brakes up or down if it's not too complicated. I'm hoping there's
a special relay that will handle that easily...
Anyone know of the best way to accomplish this?
Thanks again,
Valin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302618#302618
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle Speed Brakes? |
| From: | "Valin" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
The Precise Flight Speed Brakes are either up or down -- no partial deployment.
There are lights on the panel for when they are deployed and you can hear and
feel the vibration from the turbulent air. I can see how you'd want what you
described if there were an in between setting rather than just deployed or not.
With just binary up or down, the push button toggle seems pretty simple operationally
to me.
Thanks,
Valin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302620#302620
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle Speed |
Brakes?
Does the switch have to be on for the whole time the brakes are
deploying or just a momentary on and then the control box takes care of it?
Dick Tasker
Valin wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valin"
>
> The Precise Flight Speed Brakes are either up or down -- no partial deployment.
There are lights on the panel for when they are deployed and you can hear
and feel the vibration from the turbulent air. I can see how you'd want what
you described if there were an in between setting rather than just deployed or
not.
>
> With just binary up or down, the push button toggle seems pretty simple operationally
to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Valin
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302620#302620
>
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bgray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle Speed |
Brakes?
I have the earlier model that allows partial settings. I would still go
for a pilot/copilot command switch. You don't want a passenger putting
on the brakes at the wrong time.
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 Valin
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 7:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle
Speed Brakes?
The Precise Flight Speed Brakes are either up or down -- no partial
deployment. There are lights on the panel for when they are deployed
and you can hear and feel the vibration from the turbulent air. I can
see how you'd want what you described if there were an in between
setting rather than just deployed or not.
With just binary up or down, the push button toggle seems pretty simple
operationally to me.
Thanks,
Valin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302620#302620
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle Speed |
Brakes?
I think it has to have a voltage applied at pin 7 continuously to keep the
speed brakes up. It's designed so that if the unit loses power they fail to
the retracted position.
Valin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
E. Tasker
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button on Joystick Grip to Toggle
Speed Brakes?
Does the switch have to be on for the whole time the brakes are
deploying or just a momentary on and then the control box takes care of it?
Dick Tasker
Valin wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valin"
>
> The Precise Flight Speed Brakes are either up or down -- no partial
deployment. There are lights on the panel for when they are deployed and
you can hear and feel the vibration from the turbulent air. I can see how
you'd want what you described if there were an in between setting rather
than just deployed or not.
>
> With just binary up or down, the push button toggle seems pretty simple
operationally to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Valin
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302620#302620
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede,
however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily
inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: B&C dgm |
At 10:48 AM 6/26/2010, you wrote:
>bob, here is the schematic.
> bob noffs
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Greg Jones <<mailto:greg(at)bandc.biz>greg(at)bandc.biz>
>Date: Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:05 PM
>Subject: B&C dgm
>To: icubob(at)gmail.com
>
>
>http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/504-500_Rev_F.pdf
Okay, the 20A breaker is a non-traditional
configuration of battery hot-wire protection.
I'm not sure why this was incorporated
there. If you have installed it, it should
be right at the battery . . . but it would
be better that NO breaker be installed there
and an S704-1 Battery Relay installed as a
sort of mini-battery-contactor.
In fact, if you would rather NOT installing
a battery master relay at the battery, put
a 20A inline fuse there instead. It will serve
the same purpose as a breaker located there . . .
but be 10 times faster in clearing a fault.
Use one of these from the car parts store
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuse_Holders/ifh-2.jpg
Substituting a 1A breaker for the 2A breaker is
fine . . . but both are considerably more expensive
than a 5A breaker which would be fine too. This
breaker would be labeled ALT CTRL. The 10A/15A
breaker in the alternator output line would be
simply labeled ALT.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"? |
At 08:24 PM 6/26/2010, you wrote:
>I think it has to have a voltage applied at pin 7 continuously to
>keep the speed brakes up. It's designed so that if the unit loses
>power they fail to the retracted position.
This is an excellent topic for discussions of failure
mode effects analysis =AND= understand the simple-ideas
behind the system design goals.
A really important side note concerning the Precise Flight
product is that it's not a "speed brake" in the aerodynamic
sense of the phrase . . .
A speed brake is a means by which aerodynamic DRAG is
added to the mix of thrust-lift-mass-drag combination
that dictates airframe behavior/performance. Drag can
be and most often is added to the performance mix by
throwing large surface areas out into the slipstream.
I've participated in programs that crafted special
actuators to extend large panels out of aft
locations on the airplane where design goals called for
an increase in the airframe's total drag component
while having little or no effect on lift.
Large air transport aircraft will lift rather large
areas of aluminum from the top surface of the wing.
In cruising flight, only the outboard panels will
occasionally lift during roll control maneuvers. In
this mode, the panels are SPOILERS that reduce lift
on one wing at a time. Loss of lift augments rolling
moment offered by the ailerons.
However, during landing roll-out, one often sees
every square foot of aluminum through out into
the breeze with the obvious intent of making the
whole machine a very draggy aerodynamic shape where
flying efficiency is not important while slowing
down is most important.
The space shuttle has a bifurcated rudder that can
be simultaneously extend both to the right and left
of the vertical fin for the purpose of throwing out
some aerodynamic drag.
The Precise Flight product is the brainchild of on
Bill Thompson who was chief of flight test at Cessna
single engine division while I was a tech writer.
Bill was directly responsible for introducing me to
Ken Razak, former dean of engineering at Wichita
State who became my second most revered mentor,
business partner and friend with more than 40 years
of collaboration on interesting things. But that's
another story.
Bill's product first evolved on the Cessna 210
and was later approved for installation on a host
of TC aircraft. I was introduced to the device
in Kerrville, TX by a Mooney test pilot and later
on another Mooney by George Masey.
It was then that I was given to understand that
the Precise flight product is NOT A SPEED BRAKE.
It's a SPOILER. Design goals for this device call
for reducing lift on the wing while having very
little effect on total drag. The artfully installed
blades can be extended during a stabilized approach
to offer a profound effect on rate of descent
while having little effect on pitch angle or
indicated airspeed.
There are similar devices on the top of the wing
in a Beechjet that offer augmentation of tiny
ailerons for roll control in fight -OR- an increased
rate of descent when fully extended on both sides.
These also are NOT SPEED BRAKES. They might be extended
during a roll out for the purpose of killing lift
to increase weight on wheels and improve braking
by the tires . . . but their effect as aerodynamic
speed brakes is nil.
The reason why this distinction is important has
to do with proper and useful deployment of SPOILERS.
I'm working an accident case where a pilot reports
having extended his Precise Flight "speed brakes"
a few seconds before an off-airport landing. He
was under the mistaken understanding that they
would help slow things down before an un-planned
contact with the ground. In fact, the impact forces
were probably GREATER than if he had not extended
the SPOILERS at all. The net effect of extending the
Precise Flight paddles on top of the wing was to
INCREASE rate of descent to the ground.
So after understanding what these things are designed
to do for you, I'll suggest that its a really good
thing to make sure that under no circumstances
can they can extend when you don't want them to
and that they can always be retracted when they're
not needed . . . or their extension would increase
risks of bent airplanes or broken people.
When considering departures from the manufacture's
instructions, make sure that you're not crafting
a situation that increases risk of unintended
extension or loss of pilot control for that
extension. The system should probably include an
easily accessed power switch. Removal of power
from the system insures positive retraction
irrespective of what other switch becomes
stuck.
Itty-bitty switches on stick-grips are not renowned
for their robustness. Take care that your quest
for convenience does not increase risks for
un-intended consequences.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Someone asked where to get the unit I suggested. The CS-408 unit is from Precision
Instrument & Control, Inc. (Ft Worth, TX). The company sells these directly.
They are an electronics OEM for several aircraft manufacturers. I'm away from
my files so can't provide the phone number, but they are probably listed in
the phonebooks. Harvey is the main contact there for this product. Between the
CS-408, the VX unit, and the Aerolectric unit, there is no longer any excuse
for not having an almost invisible "audio panel".
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302661#302661
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio system design |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
Is this it?
http://maps.google.com/places/us/tx/haslet/aviator-dr/512/-precision-instrument-&-control?hl=en&gl=us
--Daniel
On Jun 27, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Radioflyer wrote:
>
> Someone asked where to get the unit I suggested. The CS-408 unit is from Precision
Instrument & Control, Inc. (Ft Worth, TX). The company sells these directly.
They are an electronics OEM for several aircraft manufacturers. I'm away
from my files so can't provide the phone number, but they are probably listed
in the phonebooks. Harvey is the main contact there for this product. Between
the CS-408, the VX unit, and the Aerolectric unit, there is no longer any excuse
for not having an almost invisible "audio panel".
> --Jose
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302661#302661
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn(at)starflight.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"? |
Hi Bob and everyone,
Thanks for the history of the Precise Flight Speedbrakes/Spoilers. Since
they brand them "speed brakes" I've been using that term even though I know
they are really spoilers. The accident scenario you described really brings
to light how someone without a clear understanding of what they actually do
could call for them at a bad time.
I think they can be easily misunderstood since even spoilers can perform as
speed brakes. I like to think of them as lift/drag ratio reducers. As you
point out, an aircraft designer can go after bumping up the drag side or
lowering the lift side to give the pilot more aircraft control when high on
energy and wanting less altitude and/or airspeed. Even as spoilers they can
act like speed brakes since when deployed, lowering lift, one can increase
the wing angle of attack to keep the same lift (hold same altitude rate)
while getting higher drag at the new higher AOA, slowing the airplane down.
Anyway, your accident example has convinced me to label them as spoilers and
not speed brakes.
The discussion has me reconsidering my decision to add the spoiler control
to the joystick grips. But, let me summarize my rules for picking what's on
the stick.
1. Actions required frequently
2. Functions needed while it's very inconvenient to remove hand from
throttle
3. No functions that if accidentally activated would create a safety
of flight issue
So these are my basic criteria for selecting what's switches are on the
joystick. Based on this, I've tentatively made these assignments:
THORN Legacy Joystick Button Assignments.jpg
For those who can't see the graphic, I have:
Hat Switch: Pitch & Yaw Trim
Trigger: Radio Transmit
Lower Button: Alarm Mute
Upper Right Button: Autopilot On/Off Toggle
Upper Left Button: Spoilers Up/Down Toggle
I did not put flaps or gear on the stick since one usually only activates
them twice during a typical cross country flight and if they were to be
accidentally deployed when flying too fast it would damage the aircraft -
violating strategy rule 3 above.
I'm thinking having the spoilers on the stick is a good option because the
Lancair Legacy is a very low drag airframe making them very useful for
descents, the Legacy can be easily landed with them deployed, and there is
no speed limit on their deployment. With this discussion ongoing I have
heard from a Legacy flyer with a spoiler switch on his throttle control and
that he wishes he had a guard on it because it has been accidentally
activated a few times. The good news from his experiences is that he'd even
landed without realizing they were deployed and it was not an issue. I'm
also checking with another Legacy flyer who has the control on his joystick
to see if it's been a problem for him or if he'd do it again. From earlier
discussion with him he said he did it because the Mooney he used to fly had
it that way and it was very convenient to toggle them when needed on
descents.
Anyway, I appreciate and encourage the discussion about the best way to
design all this with aircraft operations and human factors in mind.
Even if I don't do it this way, I'd still like to know the best way to
design a circuit to toggle back and forth between two poles with a push
button switch. J Anyone have any advice on that question?
Thanks,
Valin
-----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, June 26, 2010 11:45 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?
At 08:24 PM 6/26/2010, you wrote:
>I think it has to have a voltage applied at pin 7 continuously to
>keep the speed brakes up. It's designed so that if the unit loses
>power they fail to the retracted position.
This is an excellent topic for discussions of failure
mode effects analysis =AND= understand the simple-ideas
behind the system design goals.
A really important side note concerning the Precise Flight
product is that it's not a "speed brake" in the aerodynamic
sense of the phrase . . .
A speed brake is a means by which aerodynamic DRAG is
added to the mix of thrust-lift-mass-drag combination
that dictates airframe behavior/performance. Drag can
be and most often is added to the performance mix by
throwing large surface areas out into the slipstream.
I've participated in programs that crafted special
actuators to extend large panels out of aft
locations on the airplane where design goals called for
an increase in the airframe's total drag component
while having little or no effect on lift.
Large air transport aircraft will lift rather large
areas of aluminum from the top surface of the wing.
In cruising flight, only the outboard panels will
occasionally lift during roll control maneuvers. In
this mode, the panels are SPOILERS that reduce lift
on one wing at a time. Loss of lift augments rolling
moment offered by the ailerons.
However, during landing roll-out, one often sees
every square foot of aluminum through out into
the breeze with the obvious intent of making the
whole machine a very draggy aerodynamic shape where
flying efficiency is not important while slowing
down is most important.
The space shuttle has a bifurcated rudder that can
be simultaneously extend both to the right and left
of the vertical fin for the purpose of throwing out
some aerodynamic drag.
The Precise Flight product is the brainchild of on
Bill Thompson who was chief of flight test at Cessna
single engine division while I was a tech writer.
Bill was directly responsible for introducing me to
Ken Razak, former dean of engineering at Wichita
State who became my second most revered mentor,
business partner and friend with more than 40 years
of collaboration on interesting things. But that's
another story.
Bill's product first evolved on the Cessna 210
and was later approved for installation on a host
of TC aircraft. I was introduced to the device
in Kerrville, TX by a Mooney test pilot and later
on another Mooney by George Masey.
It was then that I was given to understand that
the Precise flight product is NOT A SPEED BRAKE.
It's a SPOILER. Design goals for this device call
for reducing lift on the wing while having very
little effect on total drag. The artfully installed
blades can be extended during a stabilized approach
to offer a profound effect on rate of descent
while having little effect on pitch angle or
indicated airspeed.
There are similar devices on the top of the wing
in a Beechjet that offer augmentation of tiny
ailerons for roll control in fight -OR- an increased
rate of descent when fully extended on both sides.
These also are NOT SPEED BRAKES. They might be extended
during a roll out for the purpose of killing lift
to increase weight on wheels and improve braking
by the tires . . . but their effect as aerodynamic
speed brakes is nil.
The reason why this distinction is important has
to do with proper and useful deployment of SPOILERS.
I'm working an accident case where a pilot reports
having extended his Precise Flight "speed brakes"
a few seconds before an off-airport landing. He
was under the mistaken understanding that they
would help slow things down before an un-planned
contact with the ground. In fact, the impact forces
were probably GREATER than if he had not extended
the SPOILERS at all. The net effect of extending the
Precise Flight paddles on top of the wing was to
INCREASE rate of descent to the ground.
So after understanding what these things are designed
to do for you, I'll suggest that its a really good
thing to make sure that under no circumstances
can they can extend when you don't want them to
and that they can always be retracted when they're
not needed . . . or their extension would increase
risks of bent airplanes or broken people.
When considering departures from the manufacture's
instructions, make sure that you're not crafting
a situation that increases risk of unintended
extension or loss of pilot control for that
extension. The system should probably include an
easily accessed power switch. Removal of power
from the system insures positive retraction
irrespective of what other switch becomes
stuck.
Itty-bitty switches on stick-grips are not renowned
for their robustness. Take care that your quest
for convenience does not increase risks for
un-intended consequences.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"? |
At 11:44 PM 6/26/2010, you wrote:
>
My late-night contribution to this thread was hammered out
too quickly and after the 3rd straight, 14-hour day working
one of Dr. Dee's "mother of all garage sales". The organization,
syntax and typos in the posting left much to be desired.
Here's an updated version of the posting which is in much
better shape.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Speed_Brakes_vs_Spoilers.pdf
As always, comments and corrections welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"? |
Hi Valin,=0A=0A I would suggest putting them on the throttle. That is whe
re they were on military aircraft I flew. The beauty of having them there
is it is extremely easy to develop a habit pattern of activating the spoile
rs to retract WHENEVER you ask for full power. There are thumb switches th
at have existed for these production aircraft so I would think they would b
e available. See if you can find pictures of military aircraft like the A-
4 whose throttle had that setup. As the throttle is advanced the thumb pus
hes the thumb switch forward to retract the spoilers and vice versa when lo
w thrust high drag is needed. Good luck.=0A=0A=0A =0A=0ASent from my iPhon
e=0A=0AOn Jun 28, 2010, at 2:34, "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn@starflight.
aero> wrote:=0A=0AHi Bob and everyone,=0A=0A =0A=0AThanks for the history o
f the Precise Flight Speedbrakes/Spoilers. Since they brand them =9C
speed brakes=9D I=99ve been using that term even though I know
they are really spoilers. The accident scenario you described really bring
s to light how someone without a clear understanding of what they actually
do could call for them at a bad time. =0A=0A =0A=0AI think they can be easi
ly misunderstood since even spoilers can perform as speed brakes. I like t
o think of them as lift/drag ratio reducers. As you point out, an aircraft
designer can go after bumping up the drag side or lowering the lift side t
o give the pilot more aircraft control when high on energy and wanting less
altitude and/or airspeed. Even as spoilers they can act like speed brakes
since when deployed, lowering lift, one can increase the wing angle of att
ack to keep the same lift (hold same altitude rate) while getting higher dr
ag at the new higher AOA, slowing the airplane down=0A=0A =0A=0AAn
yway, your accident example has convinced me to label them as spoilers and
not speed brakes.=0A=0A =0A=0AThe discussion has me reconsidering my decisi
on to add the spoiler control to the joystick grips. But, let me summarize
my rules for picking what=99s on the stick.=0A=0A =0A=0A1. Ac
tions required frequently=0A=0A2. Functions needed while it=99s
very inconvenient to remove hand from throttle=0A=0A3. No functions
that if accidentally activated would create a safety of flight issue=0A=0A
=0A=0ASo these are my basic criteria for selecting what=99s switches
are on the joystick. Based on this, I=99ve tentatively made these as
signments:=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0AFor those who can=99t see
the graphic, I have:=0A=0A =0A=0AHat Switch: Pitch & Yaw Trim=0A=0ATrigger
: Radio Transmit=0A=0ALower Button: Alarm Mute=0A=0AUpper Right Button: Au
topilot On/Off Toggle=0A=0AUpper Left Button: Spoilers Up/Down Toggle=0A=0A
=0A=0AI did not put flaps or gear on the stick since one usually only acti
vates them twice during a typical cross country flight and if they were to
be accidentally deployed when flying too fast it would damage the aircraft
=93 violating strategy rule 3 above.=0A=0A =0A=0AI=99m thinking
having the spoilers on the stick is a good option because the Lancair Lega
cy is a very low drag airframe making them very useful for descents, the Le
gacy can be easily landed with them deployed, and there is no speed limit o
n their deployment. With this discussion ongoing I have heard from a Legac
y flyer with a spoiler switch on his throttle control and that he wishes he
had a guard on it because it has been accidentally activated a few times.
The good news from his experiences is that he=99d even landed withou
t realizing they were deployed and it was not an issue. I=99m also c
hecking with another Legacy flyer who has the control on his joystick to se
e if it=99s been a problem for him or if he=99d do it again. F
rom earlier discussion with him he said he did it because the Mooney he use
d to fly had it that way and it was very convenient to toggle them when nee
ded on descents.=0A=0A =0A=0AAnyway, I appreciate and encourage the discuss
ion about the best way to design all this with aircraft operations and huma
n factors in mind. =0A=0A =0A=0AEven if I don=99t do it this way, I
=99d still like to know the best way to design a circuit to toggle ba
ck and forth between two poles with a push button switch J Anyone
have any advice on that question?=0A=0A =0A=0AThanks,=0A=0A =0A=0AValin=0A
=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: owner-aer
oelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III=0ASent: Saturday, June
26, 2010 11:45 PM=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: AeroElec
tric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?=0A=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-Lis
t message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A=0A =0A=0AAt 08:24 PM 6/26/2010, you wrote:=0A=0A>I think it has to h
ave a voltage applied at pin 7 continuously to=0A=0A>keep the speed brakes
up. It's designed so that if the unit loses=0A=0A>power they fail to the r
etracted position.=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A This is an excellent topic for dis
cussions of failure=0A=0A mode effects analysis =AND= understand the
simple-ideas=0A=0A behind the system design goals.=0A=0A =0A=0A A reall
y important side note concerning the Precise Flight=0A=0A product is that
it's not a "speed brake" in the aerodynamic=0A=0A sense of the phrase .
. .=0A=0A =0A=0A A speed brake is a means by which aerodynamic DRAG is=0A
=0A added to the mix of thrust-lift-mass-drag combination=0A=0A that di
ctates airframe behavior/performance. Drag can=0A=0A be and most often is
added to the performance mix by=0A=0A throwing large surface areas out i
nto the slipstream.=0A=0A =0A=0A I've participated in programs that craft
ed special=0A=0A actuators to extend large panels out of aft=0A=0A loca
tions on the airplane where design goals called for=0A=0A an increase in
the airframe's total drag component=0A=0A while having little or no effe
ct on lift.=0A=0A =0A=0A Large air transport aircraft will lift rather la
rge=0A=0A areas of aluminum from the top surface of the wing.=0A=0A In
cruising flight, only the outboard panels will=0A=0A occasionally lift du
ring roll control maneuvers. In=0A=0A this mode, the panels are SPOILERS
that reduce lift=0A=0A on one wing at a time. Loss of lift augments rolli
ng=0A=0A moment offered by the ailerons.=0A=0A =0A=0A However, during l
anding roll-out, one often sees=0A=0A every square foot of aluminum throu
gh out into=0A=0A the breeze with the obvious intent of making the=0A=0A
whole machine a very draggy aerodynamic shape where=0A=0A flying effici
ency is not important while slowing=0A=0A down is most important.=0A=0A
=0A=0A The space shuttle has a bifurcated rudder that can=0A=0A be simu
ltaneously extend both to the right and left=0A=0A of the vertical fin fo
r the purpose of throwing out=0A=0A some aerodynamic drag.=0A=0A =0A=0A
The Precise Flight product is the brainchild of on=0A=0A Bill Thompson w
ho was chief of flight test at Cessna=0A=0A single engine division while
I was a tech writer.=0A=0A Bill was directly responsible for introducing
me to=0A=0A Ken Razak, former dean of engineering at Wichita=0A=0A Stat
e who became my second most revered mentor,=0A=0A business partner and fr
iend with more than 40 years=0A=0A of collaboration on interesting things
. But that's=0A=0A another story.=0A=0A =0A=0A Bill's product first evo
lved on the Cessna 210=0A=0A and was later approved for installation on a
host=0A=0A of TC aircraft. I was introduced to the device=0A=0A in Ker
rville, TX by a Mooney test pilot and later=0A=0A on another Mooney by Ge
orge Masey.=0A=0A =0A=0A It was then that I was given to understand that
=0A=0A the Precise flight product is NOT A SPEED BRAKE.=0A=0A It's a SP
OILER. Design goals for this device call=0A=0A for reducing lift on the w
ing while having very=0A=0A little effect on total drag. The artfully ins
talled=0A=0A blades can be extended during a stabilized approach=0A=0A
to offer a profound effect on rate of descent=0A=0A while having little e
ffect on pitch angle or=0A=0A indicated airspeed.=0A=0A =0A=0A There ar
e similar devices on the top of the wing=0A=0A in a Beechjet that offer a
ugmentation of tiny=0A=0A ailerons for roll control in fight -OR- an incr
eased=0A=0A rate of descent when fully extended on both sides.=0A=0A Th
ese also are NOT SPEED BRAKES. They might be extended=0A=0A during a roll
out for the purpose of killing lift=0A=0A to increase weight on wheels a
nd improve braking=0A=0A by the tires . . . but their effect as aerodynam
ic=0A=0A speed brakes is nil.=0A=0A =0A=0A The reason why this distinct
ion is important has=0A=0A to do with proper and useful deployment of SPO
ILERS.=0A=0A I'm working an accident case where a pilot reports=0A=0A h
aving extended his Precise Flight "speed brakes"=0A=0A a few seconds befo
re an off-airport landing. He=0A=0A was under the mistaken understanding
that they=0A=0A would help slow things down before an un-planned=0A=0A
contact with the ground. In fact, the impact forces=0A=0A were probably G
REATER than if he had not extended=0A=0A the SPOILERS at all. The net eff
ect of extending the=0A=0A Precise Flight paddles on top of the wing was
to=0A=0A INCREASE rate of descent to the ground.=0A=0A =0A=0A So after
understanding what these things are designed=0A=0A to do for you, I'll su
ggest that its a really good=0A=0A thing to make sure that under no circu
mstances=0A=0A can they can extend when you don't want them to=0A=0A an
d that they can always be retracted when they're=0A=0A not needed . . . o
r their extension would increase=0A=0A risks of bent airplanes or broken
people.=0A=0A =0A=0A When considering departures from the manufacture's
=0A=0A instructions, make sure that you're not crafting=0A=0A a situati
on that increases risk of unintended=0A=0A extension or loss of pilot con
trol for that=0A=0A extension. The system should probably include an=0A
=0A easily accessed power switch. Removal of power=0A=0A from the syste
m insures positive retraction=0A=0A irrespective of what other switch bec
omes=0A=0A stuck.=0A=0A =0A=0A Itty-bitty switches on stick-grips are n
ot renowned=0A=0A for their robustness. Take care that your quest=0A=0A
for convenience does not increase risks for=0A=0A un-intended consequenc
es.=0A=0A =0A=0A Bob . . .=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A=0Ato browse=0AUn/Subscript
ion,=0ABrowse, Chat, FAQ,=0Amore:=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Aero
Electric-List=0A=0AWeb Forums!=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0A=0Asupport!
=0A=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"? |
Valin;
The simplest circuit to accomplish your request would be to use your SPST
push button to switch coil power to a bi-stable relay and use the relay
contacts to switch the power to whatever load you wish. Each push of the
button will toggle the relay. The second item on this page (part number
RLY7742) is an example of a 12VDC 15 amp DPDT bi-stable relay.
http://tinyurl.com/2ffvkur
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin &
Allyson Thorn
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Push Button "Speed Brakes"?
Hi Bob and everyone,
Thanks for the history of the Precise Flight Speedbrakes/Spoilers. Since
they brand them "speed brakes" I've been using that term even though I know
they are really spoilers. The accident scenario you described really brings
to light how someone without a clear understanding of what they actually do
could call for them at a bad time.
****** Big Clip**********
Anyway, I appreciate and encourage the discussion about the best way to
design all this with aircraft operations and human factors in mind.
Even if I don't do it this way, I'd still like to know the best way to
design a circuit to toggle back and forth between two poles with a push
button switch. :-) Anyone have any advice on that question?
Thanks,
Valin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gordon Smith <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
Is there a 12V. Relay device (SPST or SPDT) that can be toggled OFF/ON from
a remote momentary SPST mini switch?- It should remain in the off or on
position until toggled again. -I am looking for something in the class of
a S704-1 regarding robustness and capacity.
-
Gordon Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gordon Smith <gordonrsmith921(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | LV Warn Light vs. Alternator Light |
Given =93 You have installed a device for active notification of low
voltage that moniters Main Bus voltage and lights an indicator lamp/Led if
voltage drops below a programmed level.
=C2-
The first thought if this light comes on is that the alternator is off line
and not outputting to the battery or aircraft bus systems. =C2-However t
his is not necessarily true.
=C2-
Can not there be a condition where the alternator is puitting out it
=99s maximum capacity but you are trying to use a total load greater than t
hat capacity. =C2-I think this would eventually pull the battery and main
bus voltage down to a point where the LV warning light would turn on.
=C2-
My thought was that maybe it would be advantageous to have an additional in
dicator of alternator function.=C2- Many regulators for both field wound
and/or permanent magnet alternators have a =9Clight=9D. =C2-B
ut what does that light actually tell you?
=C2-
On a schematic supplied by Jabiru for the J3300 the stock supplied regulato
r for the permanent magnet regulator system has a =9Clight=9D c
onnection. =C2-It is identified as =9CTo Low Voltage Warning Light
=9D.=C2- Is this just redundant LV warning or does it actually tell
=C2- if the there is alternator output?
June 07, 2010 - June 27, 2010
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-jo