AeroElectric-List Archive Browser

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mu
June 08, 2015 - June 26, 2015

current in other cells that subsequently melt down and the end result is that the entire battery becomes one mass of lead? Inquiring minds want to know, Lyle ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: AEC9001-1 Diode
Date: Jun 08, 2015
Bob, Are these diodes still available? If so, I am interested in purchasing one or two of them. Thanks Justin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2015
From: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation
On the topic of lighted toggles, I'm looking for a lighted toggle that would change colors depending on whether it is on or off. I've never seen one, but I'd be interested in knowing if they're available. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968) On 06/04/2015 11:21 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote: > > Hari, > > I am using them in my panel - but am not able to find replacements. > Mine were Eaton. > > I know that there are others out there: > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442909#442909 > is an example from Honeywell - don't know where you can get them though. > > If you find them - let us know...and get double the amount of spares you think you will ever need! > > Ralph > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hariharan Gopalan > > Sent: Jun 4, 2015 12:03 PM > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lighted Toggle Switch recommendation > > > Hello Group > Is anyone using lighted toggle switches? Looking for recommendations. > ThanksHari > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2015
Subject: My old float charger died what is the modern recommended
replacement?
From: Joe Motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com>
Hi Listers, Aircraft Spruce frightens and confuses me. Looking for personal use stories especially the don't buy that one! Piper PA-28 12Volt Gill Battery Thanks, Joe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: My old float charger died what is the modern recommended
replacement?
Date: Jun 09, 2015
I believe he best ones are the BATTERY MINDER. If all you want to do is light charging and maintaining, they have a 1500 model for a modest price. If you want to charge then the 2,4,8 amp model is better. My friends report battery life of 6 or 7 years with use of these and I have not heard of any negatives. I use the 1500 for maintenance. I plug it into a timer so that it only charges 1 hour per day. That is plenty for a good battery, and I don't worry about things being left turned on forever in the hangar. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe Motis Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 10:26 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: My old float charger died what is the modern recommended replacement? Hi Listers, Aircraft Spruce frightens and confuses me. Looking for personal use stories especially the don't buy that one! Piper PA-28 12Volt Gill Battery Thanks, Joe ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Internal Shorting of Batteries
At 01:00 PM 6/8/2015, you wrote: Hi, I see internal shorting of batteries mentioned often here. I have to assume that the batteries in question are multi-cell lead acid batteries. I am puzzled about how such a battery can and will short internally to the extent that it disables the entire charging system. Does it start with the melt down of one cell that leads to a high current in other cells that subsequently melt down and the end result is that the entire battery becomes one mass of lead? Inquiring minds want to know, On several occasions, I've asked comrades-in-slide-rules, "If you wanted to at least encourage . . . if not FORCE an SVLA battery cell to short, how would you do it?" The question nearly always raises eyebrows . . . most users of these devices and especially purveyors of SVLA products have never considered the 'task' . . . I can assert with a high degree of certainty that the shorted-cell scenario begins with a combination of depleted chemistry (would have failed cap-check a long time ago) and/or abuse (extended periods of storage in deep discharge or perhaps other abuses that cause vents to open and moisture to be lost. This raises internal resistance and exacerbates swelling of the active material that puts insulators between plates at risk. A shorted cell simply converts a battery from 12v to 10v . . . and won't 'shut down an entire electrical system'. As I've suggested for years and demonstrated numerous times here on the List . . . tale-from-the-wild on electrical systems failures are seldom, if ever, teaching moments. MOST of the time there are correlations: (shorted battery + stopped engine) that are assumed to be cause and effect . . . assumptions completely devoid of good analysis which digs to the bottom of the pile where the simple-ideas are buried. A battery artfully maintained to be (1) a good cranking source, (2) a predictable energy source to electro-whizzies useful for comfortable termination of flight, (3) charged within pretty broad limits and (4) never allowed to remain in a discharged state for extended periods of time is NOT going to suffer a shorted cell. Batteries are like house plants. You have to take care of them but for conditions not physically observable. Leaves don't change colors, they don't droop or fall off. This requires the user/maintainer to become 'intellectually one' with his/her battery. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Internal Shorting of Batteries
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 09, 2015
Suppose that the attitude of an aircraft owner towards safety is somewhat lax. He knows that one of his two batteries is weak, but does not replace it because he still has one good one, connected in parallel per Z-19. He goes flying and the weak battery develops a shorted cell. What symptoms would the pilot observe? Low voltage? High alternator output current? Both? None? Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443293#443293 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Internal Shorting of Batteries
At 11:56 AM 6/9/2015, you wrote: > >Suppose that the attitude of an aircraft owner towards safety is >somewhat lax. He knows that one of his two batteries is weak, Non-quantified . . . . weak by how much? One passes cap-check at 80% and the other doesn't? One is new and the other doesn't pass cap-check. Has the 'weak' battery become compromised due to service extended beyond practical utilization? I understand the hypothetical . . . but anyone conducting such experiments in with daylight under the wheels is . . . well . . . > but does not replace it because he still has one good one, > connected in parallel per Z-19. He goes flying and the weak > battery develops a shorted cell. What symptoms would the pilot > observe? Low voltage? High alternator output current? Both? None? Assuming a relatively robust alternator, 40+ amps, probably just a rise in alternator output. The remaining 'good' cells would be receiving an over-charge voltage . . . something akin to charging a perfectly good battery at 17 volts or about 2.88 volts per cell. Nothing earth shaking. Remaining cells are at risk of venting and loosing water whereupon they stop accepting a charge . . . and nothing happens. Shorted cell will dump all it's remaining energy into the short. The rate of energy conversion to heat sets the tone of the symptoms . . . but if the cell is so badly damaged that it's chemistry has swelled and produces a short, then there might not be much energy available to produce spectacular symptoms. The fact that the accident airplane DID present with a shorted cell raises lots of questions about that battery's history and the quality of preventative maintenance designed to prevent such occurances in the first place. And what was the condition of the 'good' battery. Certainly no shorted cell but was it flight worthy? And what was the alternator doing all this time? If he was flying without alternator and a single battery that suffered a shorted cell, then yeah . . . things could degrade in a hurry. Not necessarily because of the shorted cell but because the battery was so badly maintained that it suffered the short with the remaining cells incapable of serviceable performance. But a shorted cell battery paralleled with a truly flight worthy battery and a working alternator should not be an airplane crippling event. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Z19RB question about wire length
From: "haribole" <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 09, 2015
Hi Bob The Z19RB shows a 2AWG cable from the main battery contactor to the starter contactor and a seperate 6AWG wire from the starter contactor to the primary bus. Can the primary bus not be connected directly to the main battery contator? Thanks Hari Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443324#443324 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z19RB question about wire length
From: "haribole" <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2015
I see the reason now. Since this is a rear battery version and the main bus is likely to be closer to the firewall than the main battery contactor which is installed close to the battery, 6AWG from the starter contactor is shorter. The diagram makes it look like the main bus is close to the battery. Thanks Hari Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443330#443330 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2015
From: "Paul A. Fisher" <paulf(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Data acquisition tools?
Our local EAA chapter is looking to invest in something that can do data acquisition on a flying aircraft. I figured this group would be a good place to start. Technology in this area seems to be moving quickly, so it seems like there has to be a valid solution that we could try. What we'd like is something we could temporarily mount in the engine compartment, gather data, and then extract the data after the flight. We don't think we need to have real time information in the cockpit, since this would be a diagnostic tool, not a flight management tool. Here's some of the things we've talked about: 1. temperature probes - able to read temperatures from ambient (maybe looking for carb ice), up through oil temperatures (~250F), and maybe up to cylinder temps (~450F). 2. pressure probes - able to measure manifold pressure, air pressure inside the cowl top and bottom 3. Volt/amp probes - to diagnose in flight electrical issues 4. Vibration probes - not sure how we would use this, but something we thought ought to be on the list 5. Others? I'm guessing we'd like something that can record 4-8 channels of data. I'm not sure where the price points are, but we'd like more than two and probably less than 20! Also if multiple tools are needed (one for temperature, another for pressure for example), that would be fine as well. We're not Boeing - just an EAA chapter working on homebuilt airplanes, so we don't need the top of the line solution. But if the Aeroelectric mailing list has taught me anything, it is the value of having accurate data, so we'd like something reliable. What do you all think? Thanks in advance for any opinions! Paul A. Fisher Q-200 N17PF RV7A N18PF ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2015
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
http://www.dataq.com/products/di-145/#ordernow That is about the best deal I've seen. Much cheaper and easier than what I use. The software for display and analysis is almost more important than what hardware you select. Ken On 10/06/2015 11:25 AM, Paul A. Fisher wrote: > Our local EAA chapter is looking to invest in something that can do > data acquisition on a flying aircraft. I figured this group would be > a good place to start. Technology in this area seems to be moving > quickly, so it seems like there has to be a valid solution that we > could try. > > What we'd like is something we could temporarily mount in the engine > compartment, gather data, and then extract the data after the flight. > We don't think we need to have real time information in the cockpit, > since this would be a diagnostic tool, not a flight management tool. > > Here's some of the things we've talked about: > > 1. temperature probes - able to read temperatures from ambient (maybe > looking for carb ice), up through oil temperatures (~250F), and > maybe up to cylinder temps (~450F). > 2. pressure probes - able to measure manifold pressure, air pressure > inside the cowl top and bottom > 3. Volt/amp probes - to diagnose in flight electrical issues > 4. Vibration probes - not sure how we would use this, but something > we thought ought to be on the list > 5. Others? > > I'm guessing we'd like something that can record 4-8 channels of > data. I'm not sure where the price points are, but we'd like more > than two and probably less than 20! Also if multiple tools are needed > (one for temperature, another for pressure for example), that would be > fine as well. We're not Boeing - just an EAA chapter working on > homebuilt airplanes, so we don't need the top of the line solution. > But if the Aeroelectric mailing list has taught me anything, it is the > value of having accurate data, so we'd like something reliable. > > What do you all think? > > Thanks in advance for any opinions! > > Paul A. Fisher > Q-200 N17PF > RV7A N18PF > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
From: Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net>
Date: Jun 10, 2015
Most of these parameters could be measured by conventional instruments. Try this search in google images for measuring cowl pressures: site:vansairf orce.com piccolo tubes horton -kent > On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Paul A. Fisher wrote: > > Our local EAA chapter is looking to invest in something that can do data a cquisition on a flying aircraft. I figured this group would be a good place to start. Technology in this area seems to be moving quickly, so it seems l ike there has to be a valid solution that we could try. > > What we'd like is something we could temporarily mount in the engine compa rtment, gather data, and then extract the data after the flight. We don't t hink we need to have real time information in the cockpit, since this would b e a diagnostic tool, not a flight management tool. > > Here's some of the things we've talked about: > temperature probes - able to read temperatures from ambient (maybe looking for carb ice), up through oil temperatures (~250F), and maybe up to cylinde r temps (~450F). > pressure probes - able to measure manifold pressure, air pressure inside t he cowl top and bottom > Volt/amp probes - to diagnose in flight electrical issues > Vibration probes - not sure how we would use this, but something we though t ought to be on the list > Others? > I'm guessing we'd like something that can record 4-8 channels of data. I' m not sure where the price points are, but we'd like more than two and proba bly less than 20! Also if multiple tools are needed (one for temperature, a nother for pressure for example), that would be fine as well. We're not Boe ing - just an EAA chapter working on homebuilt airplanes, so we don't need t he top of the line solution. But if the Aeroelectric mailing list has taugh t me anything, it is the value of having accurate data, so we'd like someth ing reliable. > What do you all think? > Thanks in advance for any opinions! > Paul A. Fisher > Q-200 N17PF > RV7A N18PF > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: E-bus feed switch rating
From: "ChrisJ" <dangerplane(at)mac.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2015
I'm using the Z-12 electrical schematic to wire my airplane, and I had a question about the E-bus feed switch rating. My E-bus will draw 22-30 amps depending on transient loads like flaps or boost pump. My diode will handle that just fine, but the toggles I bought from B&C are only rated to 15A. Do I need to hunt down an appropriately rated switch for this application? I searched the archives and didn't really find the answer. I can't be the first guy to put a few too many things on the E-bus can I?? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443368#443368 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: E-bus feed switch rating
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2015
Wire the eBus per Z-32 http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z32K.pdf Notice that the relay has a diode arc suppressor. An external diode can be connected. Or buy a relay with a built in diode. If the relay has a built-in diode, then polarity matters. http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/1432793-1/PB1773-ND/1236843 The advantages of using a relay are remote control (shut off power at the source instead of running a hot wire into the cockpit). And a relay can be used to handle more current than a small switch can handle. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443373#443373 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2015
Subject: Re: My old float charger died what is the modern recommended
replacement?
From: Joe Motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Jim upon a google search it seems like it is a good one. Funny you mentioned the timer on the charger used to do that on a couple of generators back in the day when battery chargers had no electronic voltage regulations and would boil a battery no problem. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Jim Kale wrote: > > I believe he best ones are the BATTERY MINDER. If all you want to do is light charging and maintaining, they have a 1500 model for a modest price. If you want to charge then the 2,4,8 amp model is better. My friends report battery life of 6 or 7 years with use of these and I have not heard of any negatives. I use the 1500 for maintenance. I plug it into a timer so that it only charges 1 hour per day. That is plenty for a good battery, and I don't worry about things being left turned on forever in the hangar. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe Motis > Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 10:26 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: My old float charger died what is the modern recommended replacement? > > > Hi Listers, > > Aircraft Spruce frightens and confuses me. > > Looking for personal use stories especially the don't buy that one! > Piper PA-28 12Volt Gill Battery > > Thanks, > > Joe > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: E-bus feed switch rating
From: "Ross Mickey (home)" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 10, 2015
What does the arc suppressor do? Ross Mickey 541-954-7521 > On Jun 10, 2015, at 4:36 PM, user9253 wrote: > > > Wire the eBus per Z-32 > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z32K.pdf > Notice that the relay has a diode arc suppressor. An external diode can be connected. Or buy a relay with a built in diode. If the relay has a built-in diode, then polarity matters. > http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/1432793-1/PB1773-ND/1236843 > The advantages of using a relay are remote control (shut off power at the source instead of running a hot wire into the cockpit). And a relay can be used to handle more current than a small switch can handle. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443373#443373 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: rossmickey(at)comcast.net
Subject: Switch Confusion
Ever since I found out that the 1-2-3 position on a simple 1-3 switch ( or any other switch) varies in their location ( top to bottom or bottom to top as referenced by the key hole), I am trying to determine how the switches I have are configured. I assume that the center pole is the common pole between the other two. I then used my ohmmeter on an unconnected switch to check the resistance between the center and the other two poles. I thought that when the resistance read zero between two pole that this then indicated the two were connect and became an ON position. I then attached the wires and fired up the juice and low and behold the two poles that showed zero resistance actually represented the OFF position as determined by using my voltmeter between the poles and the two poles that read 1.0 on my ohmmeter were actually the ON position. I am a reasonably intelligent person and this just doesn't make sense to me. Can one of you electric wizards explain how this is so? Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Switch Confusion
Date: Jun 10, 2015
You can almost always imagine the toggle where the base of the toggle is pointing to the terminals that are connected. So, if a toggle is in the down position, the upper two terminals are connected together. If it helps, visualize the slider on the inside that you are physically pushing to short those terminals together with the lever action of the switch. If your multimeter has a continuity beeper function, often it looks something like a cell phone signal icon: o))), that might help alleviate some confusion about what the meter is indicating. Usually you wouldn=99t get a pure =9C0.00=9D reading, even connecting the two probes together. > On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:29 PM, rossmickey(at)comcast.net wrote: > > Ever since I found out that the 1-2-3 position on a simple 1-3 switch ( or any other switch) varies in their location ( top to bottom or bottom to top as referenced by the key hole), I am trying to determine how the switches I have are configured. I assume that the center pole is the common pole between the other two. I then used my ohmmeter on an unconnected switch to check the resistance between the center and the other two poles. I thought that when the resistance read zero between two pole that this then indicated the two were connect and became an ON position. I then attached the wires and fired up the juice and low and behold the two poles that showed zero resistance actually represented the OFF position as determined by using my voltmeter between the poles and the two poles that read 1.0 on my ohmmeter were actually the ON position. > > I am a reasonably intelligent person and this just doesn't make sense to me. Can one of you electric wizards explain how this is so? > > Ross > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: E-bus feed switch rating
Date: Jun 11, 2015
I used one of these. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/pbcircuitbrkr2.php?clickkey=11597 > On Jun 10, 2015, at 14:15, ChrisJ wrote: > > > I'm using the Z-12 electrical schematic to wire my airplane, and I had a question about the E-bus feed switch rating. My E-bus will draw 22-30 amps depending on transient loads like flaps or boost pump. My diode will handle that just fine, but the toggles I bought from B&C are only rated to 15A. Do I need to hunt down an appropriately rated switch for this application? I searched the archives and didn't really find the answer. I can't be the first guy to put a few too many things on the E-bus can I?? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443368#443368 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: E-bus feed switch rating
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2015
> What does the arc suppressor do? > Ross Mickey When current though an inductor (coil) is shut off, the collapsing magnetic field induces a high voltage that makes current flow in SAME direction as it was originally flowing. This principle is used to power spark plugs in engines. An analogy is to quickly shut off the flow of water in a pipe. The water tends to keep flowing due to inertia. Without some type of shock absorber, the pipes will hammer and bang. This principle is used to pump water without external power (hydraulic ram pump). Anyway, when current to a relay is shut off, the high induced voltage will arc across the open switch contacts, shortening the life of the switch. A diode connected across the coil will short out induced current and limit the voltage to about 1V. The arrow on the diode should point towards positive. The diode will not conduct while the relay is energized, but it will conduct induced current when the relay is de-energized. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443391#443391 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Switch Confusion
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2015
> as determined by using my voltmeter between the poles Your ohmmeter analysis is correct. The voltmeter analysis is flawed. Voltage between two contacts of a switch indicates that the switch is open. A closed switch will have zero volts across its contacts. Use the circuit common point (ground) as the voltmeter reference point and measure again. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443392#443392 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-bus feed switch rating
At 05:15 PM 6/10/2015, you wrote: > >I'm using the Z-12 electrical schematic to wire my airplane, and I >had a question about the E-bus feed switch rating. My E-bus will >draw 22-30 amps depending on transient loads like flaps or boost >pump. My diode will handle that just fine, but the toggles I bought >from B&C are only rated to 15A. Do I need to hunt down an >appropriately rated switch for this application? I searched the >archives and didn't really find the answer. I can't be the first guy >to put a few too many things on the E-bus can I?? That is NOT an E-BUS . . . E stands for 'endurance'. The e-bus is intended to offer a fast-configuration to Plan-B . . . battery only, alternator-out operations . . .or perhaps reduced capabilities supported by a standby alternator like Z-13/8. The e-bus alternate feed offers a means by which the airplane can be powered-down to the minimum equipment needed for comfortable continuation of flight . . . preferably to the airport of intended destination. It's an energy management tool that must calls for (1) developing the minimalist list of support equipment and (2) planning for the energy needed. If you're battery-only, then your well advised to install and maintain a battery of KNOWN capacity that will support your e-bus loads for the endurance design goals. I like to plan to run out of fuel before I run out of watt-seconds. With no standby alternator, the typical ebus loads are 2-5 amps. With an SD-8 second alternator, e-bus can run 8+ amps . . . perhaps more and still SAVE the battery for descent and approach to landing. With an SD-20, you install Z-12 and don't even need an e-bus. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-bus feed switch rating
At 05:33 AM 6/11/2015, you wrote: > > >I used one of these. > >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/pbcircuitbrkr2.php?clickkey=11597 Why a breaker/switch? Those are loaded with mechanical monkey motion to combine the functions. Rube Goldburg would be proud . . . if you don't NEED the circuit protection, then a plain vanilla switch is the better choice. Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Switch Confusion
At 11:29 PM 6/10/2015, you wrote: >Ever since I found out that the 1-2-3 position on a simple 1-3 >switch ( or any other switch) varies in their location ( top to >bottom or bottom to top as referenced by the key hole), I am trying >to determine how the switches I have are configured. I assume that >the center pole is the common pole between the other two. I then >used my ohmmeter on an unconnected switch to check the resistance >between the center and the other two poles. I thought that when >the resistance read zero between two pole that this then indicated >the two were connect and became an ON position. I then attached the >wires and fired up the juice and low and behold the two poles that >showed zero resistance actually represented the OFF position as >determined by using my voltmeter between the poles and the two poles >that read 1.0 on my ohmmeter were actually the ON position. Take one apart and see how it works . . . Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: Re: Internal Shorting of Batteries
I left two standard automotive batteries connected to a single battery maintainer over the winter. The maintainer didn't have the capability of charging the batteries, but it just needed to maintain the float voltage. At some point during the winter, one of the cells in one of the batteries failed. This held both batteries at 10.5V for an extended period of time, so I ended up with 2 ruined batteries :-( Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internal Shorting of Batteries > > At 11:56 AM 6/9/2015, you wrote: >> >> Suppose that the attitude of an aircraft owner towards safety is >> somewhat lax. He knows that one of his two batteries is weak, > > Non-quantified . . . . weak by how much? One passes cap-check > at 80% and the other doesn't? One is new and the other doesn't > pass cap-check. Has the 'weak' battery become compromised due > to service extended beyond practical utilization? I understand > the hypothetical . . . but anyone conducting such experiments > in with daylight under the wheels is . . . well . . . > >> but does not replace it because he still has one good one, >> connected in parallel per Z-19. He goes flying and the weak >> battery develops a shorted cell. What symptoms would the pilot >> observe? Low voltage? High alternator output current? Both? None? > > Assuming a relatively robust alternator, 40+ amps, probably > just a rise in alternator output. The remaining 'good' cells > would be receiving an over-charge voltage . . . something > akin to charging a perfectly good battery at 17 volts or about > 2.88 volts per cell. Nothing earth shaking. Remaining cells are > at risk of venting and loosing water whereupon they stop > accepting a charge . . . and nothing happens. > > Shorted cell will dump all it's remaining energy into > the short. The rate of energy conversion to heat sets > the tone of the symptoms . . . but if the cell is so > badly damaged that it's chemistry has swelled and > produces a short, then there might not be much energy > available to produce spectacular symptoms. > > The fact that the accident airplane DID present with > a shorted cell raises lots of questions about that > battery's history and the quality of preventative > maintenance designed to prevent such occurances in > the first place. And what was the condition of the > 'good' battery. Certainly no shorted cell but was > it flight worthy? And what was the alternator > doing all this time? > > If he was flying without alternator and a single > battery that suffered a shorted cell, then yeah . . . > things could degrade in a hurry. Not necessarily > because of the shorted cell but because the battery > was so badly maintained that it suffered the short > with the remaining cells incapable of serviceable > performance. But a shorted cell battery paralleled with a > truly flight worthy battery and a working alternator > should not be an airplane crippling event. > > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: "Paul A. Fisher" <paulf(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
Thanks for the pointer. This looks promising! - Paul On 6/10/2015 10:59 AM, C&K wrote: > > http://www.dataq.com/products/di-145/#ordernow > That is about the best deal I've seen. Much cheaper and easier than > what I use. The software for display and analysis is almost more > important than what hardware you select. > Ken > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Newbie with PM alternator feed question
From: "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2015
Running a UL Power engine with 30A PM alternator with external R/R. Excess voltage dumped to ground via the thyristors as waste/heat. My question - if the thyristors fail and I have an over voltage condition, what is the recommended design way to disconnect/interrupt alternator output to the batteries or primary and secondary busses? Switch, switch/relay combo, I do need energy to the busses from the battery to run the ECU's and fuel pumps to keep the engine running. Specifics and general discussion appreciated. Thanks Dave Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443406#443406 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Newbie with PM alternator feed question
At 01:37 PM 6/11/2015, you wrote: > >Running a UL Power engine with 30A PM alternator with external >R/R. Excess voltage dumped to ground via the thyristors as waste/heat. This class of rectifier/regulator has never been used in this class of alternator . . . and fell from favor in small engine bikes and scooters years ago. They have been SERIES switched, rectifier/regulators for decades. >My question - if the thyristors fail and I have an over voltage >condition, what is the recommended design way to >disconnect/interrupt alternator output to the batteries or primary >and secondary busses? Switch, switch/relay combo, I do need energy >to the busses from the battery to run the ECU's and fuel pumps to >keep the engine running. Specifics and general discussion appreciated. See: http://tinyurl.com/7vp9g4e . . . for an exemplar methodology for disconnecting the a/c output of the PM alternator from the R/R during normal alternator shut-down and/or forced shutdown after an OV event. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
At 10:25 AM 6/10/2015, you wrote: >Our local EAA chapter is looking to invest in >something that can do data acquisition on a >flying aircraft.=C2 I figured this group would be >a good place to start.=C2 Technology in this area >seems to be moving quickly, so it seems like >there has to be a valid solution that we could try. Take a look at this product . . . http://tinyurl.com/n3roz5z I've used perhaps a dozen different pc base DAS products over the last 20 years. Every year you can do more for less. This particular offering comes with an excellent graphical user interface to boot! The downside is that while it records a LOT of data channels, it is hardware limited to 0-5 volt analog inputs. This means that for most measurements you'll need to craft some signal conditioning. Somewhere in the archives, I have a 6 or 8 channel amplifier board that mounts instrumentation amps and a component 'patch' area to install components that set gain and frequency roll off. The instrumentation amps even let you read 50mv, high-side shunts. I'll see if I can find it . . . I used a similar system to record some strain-gage data on a trim system failure investigation back about 1992. That DAS cost $100 and didn't have a GUI . . . had to massage the data in Excel/AutoCAD In this case, the singing and dancing side of the DAS hardware and software is dirt cheap. There will be some dish washing to take care of before it's a broadly useful system. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: "Paul A. Fisher" <paulf(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
Thanks Bob. I would be interested if you find your amplifier board description. This looks cheap enough to buy just to play with it to see what it can do! - Paul On 6/11/2015 3:49 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 10:25 AM 6/10/2015, you wrote: >> Our local EAA chapter is looking to invest in something that can do >> data acquisition on a flying aircraft. I figured this group would >> be a good place to start. Technology in this area seems to be >> moving quickly, so it seems like there has to be a valid solution >> that we could try. > > > Take a look at this product . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/n3roz5z > > I've used perhaps a dozen different pc base DAS > products over the last 20 years. Every year you > can do more for less. > > This particular offering comes with an excellent > graphical user interface to boot! > > The downside is that while it records a LOT of > data channels, it is hardware limited to 0-5 volt > analog inputs. This means that for most measurements > you'll need to craft some signal conditioning. > > Somewhere in the archives, I have a 6 or 8 channel > amplifier board that mounts instrumentation amps > and a component 'patch' area to install components > that set gain and frequency roll off. The instrumentation > amps even let you read 50mv, high-side shunts. > > I'll see if I can find it . . . > > I used a similar system to record some strain-gage > data on a trim system failure investigation back > about 1992. That DAS cost $100 and didn't have > a GUI . . . had to massage the data in Excel/AutoCAD > In this case, the singing and dancing side of > the DAS hardware and software is dirt cheap. > There will be some dish washing to take care > of before it's a broadly useful system. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Newbie with PM alternator feed question
From: "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2015
Thanks Bob...more confused and curious now. The system is described as a permanent magnet 3-phase alternator with a simple and reliable shunt type of regulator with fail safe characteristics. They further state "the thyristors in the shunt regulator actually short the generator windings to ground (dump the load) in a pulsating like fashion..." What class of of R/R and Alternator do I have? Or, better yet, what is the accurate way to refer to my system. Not sure what a series switched R/R is with respect to my system. Should I consider changing out my R/R for any reason? Trying to determine how to best (if required) implement a disconnect of some sort in the event an over voltage condition occurs. Trying to sort things out as I proceed and appreciate this forum and your literature! Dave Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443415#443415 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2015
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
On 6/11/2015 3:49 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 10:25 AM 6/10/2015, you wrote: >> Our local EAA chapter is looking to invest in something that can do >> data acquisition on a flying aircraft. I figured this group would >> be a good place to start. Technology in this area seems to be >> moving quickly, so it seems like there has to be a valid solution >> that we could try. > > > Take a look at this product . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/n3roz5z > > I've used perhaps a dozen different pc base DAS > products over the last 20 years. Every year you > can do more for less. > > This particular offering comes with an excellent > graphical user interface to boot! > > The downside is that while it records a LOT of > data channels, it is hardware limited to 0-5 volt > analog inputs. This means that for most measurements > you'll need to craft some signal conditioning. > > Somewhere in the archives, I have a 6 or 8 channel > amplifier board that mounts instrumentation amps > and a component 'patch' area to install components > that set gain and frequency roll off. The instrumentation > amps even let you read 50mv, high-side shunts. > > I'll see if I can find it . . . > > I used a similar system to record some strain-gage > data on a trim system failure investigation back > about 1992. That DAS cost $100 and didn't have > a GUI . . . had to massage the data in Excel/AutoCAD > In this case, the singing and dancing side of > the DAS hardware and software is dirt cheap. > There will be some dish washing to take care > of before it's a broadly useful system. > > > Bob . . . > > From down under: http://geoffg.net/tft-maximite.html (lots of variations, too, with/without a screen) and from around there: http://www.ebay.com/itm/280916642088?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT Haven't used either one, but the Maximite is being used as an engine monitor by an Aussie running a rotary engine. I've got one of the ebay usb stick DACs, but haven't had time to actually play with it. Looks pretty easy to use with an android tablet, which is why I went ahead & bought one. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
At 04:25 PM 6/11/2015, you wrote: >Thanks Bob. I would be interested if you find your amplifier board >description. This looks cheap enough to buy just to play with it to >see what it can do! You got that right. In fact, even if I can't find the original (I think it had a d-sub input and ribbon cable output to my $100 fast-das) I think I'll whip out another version with a hole pattern that will accept that $15 eBay product. If your guys are willing to put up the hardware with wings, I'll put up the electron-pushers. This is possibly the beginnings of a nice article for KP. I've done a lot of this kind of thing . . . on other people's million dollar airplanes. Given that I don't have ready access to OBAM aircraft, it's a rarer opportunity to exploit the trickle-down possibilities. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Newbie with PM alternator feed question
At 05:26 PM 6/11/2015, you wrote: > >Thanks Bob...more confused and curious now. > >The system is described as a permanent magnet 3-phase alternator >with a simple and reliable shunt type of regulator with fail safe >characteristics. They further state "the thyristors in the shunt >regulator actually short the generator windings to ground (dump the >load) in a pulsating like fashion..." > >What class of of R/R and Alternator do I have? Or, better yet, what >is the accurate way to refer to my system. That 'series' and 'shunt' thing is subject to interpretation and mis-understanding borne of arcane technologies and low information consumerism . . . Indeed, the first r/r systems installed on small alternators were "shunt" regulated in the sense that when the system votlage was high enough, an silicon controlled rectifier was triggered to place a nearly dead short on the alternator's output. Simple, effective and VERY inefficient. This system placed the alternator under a 100%, worse than full load. The alternator had to be designed to tolerate the 'abuse' by making sure that it was adequately cooled . . . okay for running the headlight on a mini-bike. As the power output of the PM alternator went up to accommodate increased system demands, the dead-short-shunt technique became impractical but the term 'shunt' style regulator sorta hung on although it could NOT be configured to operate like it's ancestors . . . >Not sure what a series switched R/R is with respect to my >system. Should I consider changing out my R/R for any reason? No >Trying to determine how to best (if required) implement a disconnect >of some sort in the event an over voltage condition occurs. That drawing I referenced illustrates a methodology for disconnecting the AC power from the R/R with a relay controlled by the crew for normal on/off control of the alternator . . . a relay that could also be opened by operation of a crowbar over votlage detection module. In the case of a 3-phase alternator, you need to open TWO of the three leads . . . the single phase can be shut down by opening ONE of the two leads. >Trying to sort things out as I proceed and appreciate this forum and >your literature! Pleased that you find it useful. I need to take care of some other pressing business. I'll see if I can sketch a diagram of what I've described above and post it later today. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2015
From: "Paul A. Fisher" <paulf(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
I'm sure we can find "hardware with wings"! I've been chasing hot oil temperatures lately, so I have a vested interest in this - which is why I volunteered to investigate tools for our chapter. If we could make a KP article out of it that would help others, that would be even better! Let me know how (if) you would like to proceed. - Paul On 6/12/2015 6:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 04:25 PM 6/11/2015, you wrote: >> Thanks Bob. I would be interested if you find your amplifier board >> description. This looks cheap enough to buy just to play with it to >> see what it can do! > > You got that right. In fact, even if I can't > find the original (I think it had a d-sub > input and ribbon cable output to my $100 > fast-das) I think I'll whip out another version > with a hole pattern that will accept that $15 > eBay product. > > If your guys are willing to put up the hardware > with wings, I'll put up the electron-pushers. > This is possibly the beginnings of a nice > article for KP. > > I've done a lot of this kind of thing . . . on > other people's million dollar airplanes. Given > that I don't have ready access to OBAM aircraft, > it's a rarer opportunity to exploit the trickle-down > possibilities. > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: For Sale: Two Cheltons, EI MVP-50, Pinpoint ADAHRS
and Spare
From: "Norm.dewitt" <norm.dewitt(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 12, 2015
Hi Mike, Is the PinPoint ADAHRS still for sale? What are you asking for it and will you sell it separate from the Chelton IDUs? Thanks, Norm Norm.dewitt(at)gmail.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443442#443442 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 12, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Newbie with PM alternator feed question
> >>Trying to sort things out as I proceed and appreciate this forum >>and your literature! > > Pleased that you find it useful. I need to take > care of some other pressing business. I'll see if I > can sketch a diagram of what I've described above > and post it later today. I've posted a drawing that describes on/off control of a 3-phase PM alternator with Over Voltage Protection http://tinyurl.com/n9tottf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Newbie with PM alternator feed question
From: "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 13, 2015
Bob, I thank you very much! Will review/study and see what I can do. Meanwhile, I continue to dig into my favorite book this year... 12th Ed AeroElectric Connection Dave Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443457#443457 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Linear Actuator Position
From: "samdenson" <inosamd(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 13, 2015
here 2 good companies where you can try to search actuators you need 1) http://www.progressiveautomations.com/linear-actuators 2) http://importer.ec21.com/24v_linear_actuator.html. I perfer PA company because of quality, but some my friends like import. As for last one - Ive bought just 1 from them. Works good. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443465#443465 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 13, 2015
Bob - Here is the wiring diagram that Mark is planning on using on his Pacer. Let me know what you think of it and changes that you suggest. M. Haught > Begin forwarded message: > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 13, 2015
When the avionics switch fails, all avionics will be lost. I recommend not having an avionics switch. If the builder insists on an avionics switch, then I suggest having a redundant current path. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443468#443468 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
At 04:58 PM 6/12/2015, you wrote: >I'm sure we can find "hardware with wings"! I've been chasing hot >oil temperatures lately, so I have a vested interest in this - which >is why I volunteered to investigate tools for our chapter. If we >could make a KP article out of it that would help others, that would >be even better! > >Let me know how (if) you would like to proceed. I've got one of those pic-stix around here somewhere. It's embedded in some tool I built a couple years ago. Ordered another one just to make sure I'll have one handy to get the pin-out dimensions. I can put a matching pattern on a 'motor board' that mounts the signal conditioning and d-sub interface. I'm thinking about two, balanced inputs capable of reading small signals on a large common mode . . . like ammeter shunts. Two channels of K thermocouple inputs. A couple of 0-5v inputs. It would be helpful to develop a list of probable measurement tasks . . . make sure we have an signal input port tailored to task. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2015
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
I believe this USB stick has to be connected to a laptop to record data. Is there a cheap dedicated USB port recorder that would record a few hours of data for later analysis on a laptop? Perhaps even a loop recorder that could be pulled after an event or for trend monitoring. Occasionally I would have liked to look at the data from a previous flight. In my case, I already have the data that interests me available from the EIS via an RS232 port but it is not recorded unless I run my laptop in flight which is not practical on every flight. I do have a cobbled together standalone data recorder for temporary specific items. Data display and analysis is quite time consuming with the affordable or free software that I'm aware of though. Ken On 14/06/2015 12:14 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 04:58 PM 6/12/2015, you wrote: >> I'm sure we can find "hardware with wings"! I've been chasing hot >> oil temperatures lately, so I have a vested interest in this - which >> is why I volunteered to investigate tools for our chapter. If we >> could make a KP article out of it that would help others, that would >> be even better! >> >> Let me know how (if) you would like to proceed. > > I've got one of those pic-stix around here > somewhere. It's embedded in some tool I built > a couple years ago. Ordered another one > just to make sure I'll have one handy to > get the pin-out dimensions. I can put a matching > pattern on a 'motor board' that mounts the > signal conditioning and d-sub interface. > > I'm thinking about two, balanced inputs > capable of reading small signals on a large > common mode . . . like ammeter shunts. > Two channels of K thermocouple inputs. A couple > of 0-5v inputs. It would be helpful to develop > a list of probable measurement tasks . . . make > sure we have an signal input port tailored > to task. > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
At 06:35 AM 6/14/2015, you wrote: > >I believe this USB stick has to be connected to a laptop to record data. Yes . . . >Is there a cheap dedicated USB port recorder that would record a few >hours of data for later analysis on a laptop? Perhaps even a loop >recorder that could be pulled after an event or for trend >monitoring. Occasionally I would have liked to look at the data from >a previous flight. It depends . . . There are stand-alone "USB Data Loggers" tailored to a variety of tasks. E.g. http://tinyurl.com/q2o97dd depending on the kind of signal, conditioning of that signal necessary to port it to the data logger (the range, resolution, sample rate) and number of channels, the general answer to your question is yes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 14, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
>Bob - > >Here is the wiring diagram that Mark is planning on using on his >Pacer. Let me know what you think of it and changes that you suggest. > >M. Haught > >>Begin forwarded message Didn't get much . . . the .doc file displays only a small portion of the total. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 14, 2015
There should have been 4 or 5 files, each one a section of the whole drawing. I will try to send it again. M. Haught > On Jun 14, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> Bob - >> >> Here is the wiring diagram that Mark is planning on using on his Pacer. Let me know what you think of it and changes that you suggest. >> >> M. Haught >> >>> Begin forwarded message > > > Didn't get much . . . the .doc file displays > only a small portion of the total. > > > > > Bob . . . > > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 14, 2015
Okay, I have attached the four files. We will see if they come through. M. Haught > On Jun 14, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> Bob - >> >> Here is the wiring diagram that Mark is planning on using on his Pacer. Let me know what you think of it and changes that you suggest. >> >> M. Haught >> >>> Begin forwarded message > > > Didn't get much . . . the .doc file displays > only a small portion of the total. > > > > > Bob . . . > > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Data acquisition tools?
From: "pestar" <peter(at)reivernet.com>
Date: Jun 14, 2015
Got to http://www.ikalogic.com/ and have a look. I use the Scanalogic-2 20 MHz Logic Analyzer in my hangar for monitoring and analysing data. They have a newer unit now available, faster and more channels. Cheers Peter -------- Peter Armstrong Auckland, New Zealand DynAero MCR-4S (Do not shoot me :) ). Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443536#443536 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 14, 2015
The ground, at the very left side of page 1 above the alternator, is shorting out the electrical system. The voltage regulator enable terminal has two wires attached to it. The shortest of the two wires is in parallel with the alternator field switch and prevents the switch from opening the circuit. Alternators have internal diodes. An external reverse-current diode is not usually installed. The diode could get very warm depending on the type of diode and current through it. Will that diode have any affect on voltage regulation? Is 10awg wire big enough to handle full alternator output current without over heating? Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443542#443542 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 14, 2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
VGhlIFBhY2VyIGlzIGEgY2VydGlmaWNhdGVkIGFpcnBsYW5lLiAgU2VlbXMgYXMgdGhvdWdoIGl0 J3MgZWxlY3RyaWNhbCAgDQpzeXN0ZW0gc2hvdWxkIGNvbmZvcm0gdG8gdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIGFz IGl0IGxlZnQgdGhlIGZhY3RvcnkgYW5kL29yIEZBQSANCmFwcHJvdmVkICBtb2RpZmljYXRpb25z IHRoZXJlIHRvLg0KIA0KV2hhdCBhbSBJIG1pc3Npbmc/DQogDQpIYXBweSBTa2llcywNCiANCk9s ZCBCb2INCiANCiANCkluIGEgbWVzc2FnZSBkYXRlZCA2LzE0LzIwMTUgOToyNzo0NiBQLk0uIENl bnRyYWwgRGF5bGlnaHQgVGltZSwgIA0KZnJhbnNld0BnbWFpbC5jb20gd3JpdGVzOg0KDQotLT4g IEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAidXNlcjkyNTMiICA8ZnJhbnNl d0BnbWFpbC5jb20+DQoNClRoZSBncm91bmQsIGF0IHRoZSB2ZXJ5IGxlZnQgc2lkZSBvZiBwYWdl IDEgIGFib3ZlIHRoZSBhbHRlcm5hdG9yLCBpcyANCnNob3J0aW5nIG91dCB0aGUgZWxlY3RyaWNh bCBzeXN0ZW0uDQpUaGUgdm9sdGFnZSAgcmVndWxhdG9yIMOi4oKsxZNlbmFibGXDouKCrMKdIHRl cm1pbmFsIGhhcyB0d28gd2lyZXMgYXR0YWNoZWQgdG8gaXQuIA0KIFRoZSAgc2hvcnRlc3Qgb2Yg dGhlIHR3byB3aXJlcyBpcyBpbiBwYXJhbGxlbCB3aXRoIHRoZSBhbHRlcm5hdG9yIGZpZWxkIA0K c3dpdGNoIGFuZCAgcHJldmVudHMgdGhlIHN3aXRjaCBmcm9tIG9wZW5pbmcgdGhlIGNpcmN1aXQu DQpBbHRlcm5hdG9ycyBoYXZlIGludGVybmFsICBkaW9kZXMuICBBbiBleHRlcm5hbCByZXZlcnNl LWN1cnJlbnQgZGlvZGUgaXMgDQpub3QgdXN1YWxseSAgaW5zdGFsbGVkLiAgVGhlIGRpb2RlIGNv dWxkIGdldCB2ZXJ5IHdhcm0gZGVwZW5kaW5nIG9uIHRoZSB0eXBlIA0Kb2YgZGlvZGUgIGFuZCBj dXJyZW50IHRocm91Z2ggaXQuICAgV2lsbCB0aGF0IGRpb2RlIGhhdmUgYW55IGFmZmVjdCBvbiAN CnZvbHRhZ2UgIHJlZ3VsYXRpb24/DQpJcyAxMGF3ZyB3aXJlIGJpZyBlbm91Z2ggdG8gaGFuZGxl IGZ1bGwgYWx0ZXJuYXRvciBvdXRwdXQgIGN1cnJlbnQgd2l0aG91dCANCm92ZXIgaGVhdGluZz8N CkpvZQ0KDQotLS0tLS0tLQ0KSm9lICBHb3Jlcw0KDQoNCg0KDQpSZWFkIHRoaXMgdG9waWMgb25s aW5lICBoZXJlOg0KDQpodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vdmlld3RvcGljLnBocD9w PTQ0MzU0MiM0NDM1NDINCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCl8tPSAgIC0gVGhlIEFlcm9FbGVj dHJpYy1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0NCl8tPSBVc2UgIHRoZSBNYXRyb25pY3MgTGlzdCBGZWF0 dXJlcyBOYXZpZ2F0b3IgdG8gYnJvd3NlDQpfLT0gdGhlIG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMgIHN1 Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBVbi9TdWJzY3JpcHRpb24sDQpfLT0gQXJjaGl2ZSBTZWFyY2ggJiBEb3dubG9h ZCwgNy1EYXkgIEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLA0KXy09IFBob3Rvc2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNoIG11 Y2ggIG1vcmU6DQpfLT0NCl8tPSAgIC0tPiAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmln YXRvcj9BZXJvRWxlY3RyaWMtTGlzdA0KXy09DQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KXy09ICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VC IEZPUlVNUyAgLQ0KXy09IFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVudCBhbHNvIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEgdGhl IFdlYiAgRm9ydW1zIQ0KXy09DQpfLT0gICAtLT4gIGh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNv bQ0KXy09DQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KXy09ICAgLSBMaXN0IENvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiBXZWIgU2l0ZSAgLQ0KXy09 ICBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9ydCENCl8tPSAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQg RHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWluLg0KXy09ICAgLS0+ICBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20v Y29udHJpYnV0aW9uDQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KDQoNCg0KDQo ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 14, 2015
> What am I missing? The title that says, "Bearhawk"? There is a Bearhawk Patrol, but I am not familiar with a Bearhawk Pacer. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443545#443545 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 14, 2015
Marvin; Couple of comments; Don't understand the second battery depicted as a panel common ground buss?? (Also depicted with negative terminals at both ends??) On the voltage regulator, the ground, enable, and sense terminals are all tied together and also to both ground and battery power. This will either blow fuses, trip breakers or release valuable smoke from the wires. Also as shown, if the ground is corrected, the alternator field switch has no control as there is an alternate path in parallel from the first fuse on the main buss. (labeled main?? Hard to read?) This part of the circuit will simply not work as shown. Wire sizes seem a little strange. Some are marginally small others excessively large. How were these chosen?? The main battery symbol is shown with two positive terminals. The right hand, grounded terminal should be negative. (short line as opposed to long) (semantics, I know, but- - ) A single switch removing all avionics power is generally considered a bad idea as it is a single point of failure. (although used on many production aircraft for years.) (your choice, it will work, but - - ) The reverse current diode really serves no purpose as the rectifier diodes in the alternator are in series with it anyway. Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of H. Marvin Haught Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:21 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress Okay, I have attached the four files. We will see if they come through. M. Haught ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 14, 2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
So it appears that I misread the original question? Sorry 'bout that. Old Bob In a message dated 6/14/2015 10:02:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time, fransew(at)gmail.com writes: Bearhawk Patrol ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 14, 2015
Marvin, Why not use one of Bob N's Z-Diagrams in the Aeroeletric connection? Engine ered, Tested and proven to perform. Justin > On Jun 14, 2015, at 19:05, Bob McCallum wr ote: > > Marvin; > > Couple of comments; > > Don=99t understand the second battery depicted as a panel common gro und buss?? (Also depicted with negative terminals at both ends??) > > On the voltage regulator, the ground, enable, and sense terminals are all t ied together and also to both ground and battery power. This will either blo w fuses, trip breakers or release valuable smoke from the wires. Also as sho wn, if the ground is corrected, the alternator field switch has no control a s there is an alternate path in parallel from the first fuse on the main bus s. (labeled main?? Hard to read?) This part of the circuit will simply not w ork as shown. > > Wire sizes seem a little strange. Some are marginally small others excessi vely large. How were these chosen?? > > The main battery symbol is shown with two positive terminals. The right ha nd, grounded terminal should be negative. (short line as opposed to long) ( semantics, I know, but- - ) > > A single switch removing all avionics power is generally considered a bad i dea as it is a single point of failure. (although used on many production ai rcraft for years.) (your choice, it will work, but - - ) > > The reverse current diode really serves no purpose as the rectifier diodes in the alternator are in series with it anyway. > > Bob McC > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelect ric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of H. Marvin Haught > Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:21 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress > > Okay, I have attached the four files. We will see if they come through. > > M. Haught > > > > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 09:41 PM 6/14/2015, you wrote: >The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's >electrical system should conform to the original as it left the >factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to. > >What am I missing? Not a thing. I'm not sure that Marvin intended to post this to the List . . . he has a friend in AK who is rebuilding a Pacer and I'm pretty sure this is his first whack at a wiring diagram. I'm copying pages from another wirebook to assemble a page-per-system approach that will produce more readable copy and give us a better foundation to sift the details. It's not a bad thing that the List be involved, I'm pleased to see the degree of interest and participation. I'll publish the wirebook to the List as well - I think "Bearhawk" may be Mr. Mark Moyle's handle . . . Thanks for participating guys . . . watch this space . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 01:12 PM 6/14/2015, you wrote: >There should have been 4 or 5 files, each one a section of the whole >drawing. I will try to send it again. Got it . . . and it's receiving the learned attention from members of the List . . . Has he actually purchased the Plane Power hardware yet? The regulator in his drawing is a universal replacement for a host of applications, some of which date back to years that alternators were fitted with auxiliary sense terminals for controlling a field relay. His diagram for the alternator appears to be a clone of the installation instruction drawings for the R1224 regulator which assumes ALL of the legacy features are present. If he has purchased this hardware, we need to know which alternator is in hand. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Neal George <ngeorge(at)continentalmotors.aero>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 15, 2015
Old Bob - A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records." Neal On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com" > wrote: The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical syst em should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approve d modifications there to. What am I missing? Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair. If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve. On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote: > Old Bob - > A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated > electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records." > > Neal > > On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com > " > wrote: > >> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's >> electrical system should conform to the original as it left the >> factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to. >> What am I missing? >> Happy Skies, >> Old Bob > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 15, 2015
Yes, the hardware is all at hand. I talked to Mark last night and he is supposed to be joining this list. This is going to be a good learning experience for me, except for the usual back and forth as to change from original wiring or not. THAT decision has already been made, as you and I discussed, with the goals of installing more a more modern wiring design using updated components , keeping everything as simple and light as possible. I have not discussed the procedure favored by my supervising mechanic yet as to how to get the changes approved, but if it has been approved before, I have copies of the old approval, and follows approved wiring practices, with proper wire size, good workmanship and good components, he said he has no problem with the paperwork. Once we have a design, I will give it to him for his approval, and go / no go decision. I will forward your email on to him, and get him signed up to the list. M. Haught > On Jun 15, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 01:12 PM 6/14/2015, you wrote: >> There should have been 4 or 5 files, each one a section of the whole drawing. I will try to send it again. > > Got it . . . and it's receiving the learned attention > from members of the List . . . > > Has he actually purchased the Plane Power hardware yet? > The regulator in his drawing is a universal replacement > for a host of applications, some of which date back to > years that alternators were fitted with auxiliary sense > terminals for controlling a field relay. > > His diagram for the alternator appears to be a clone > of the installation instruction drawings for the R1224 > regulator which assumes ALL of the legacy features > are present. If he has purchased this hardware, > we need to know which alternator is in hand. > > > Bob . . . > > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 15, 2015
That post was copied from the Bearhawk list. The airplane is / was an original Pacer that I sold to Mark a couple of years ago. It was wrecked due to the landing gear folding up from a weld repair turning loose, likely due to the extreme cold. Mark is rebuilding it with extensive modifications. There is an extensive thread of the rebuild, step by step on the Short Wing site. Additionally, I am starting a PA22-20 project that I picked up covered and painted in Waverly, IA a few years ago, and will be doing a similar panel. The diagram is from a Super Cub builder that used that wiring design for the rebuild of his Super Cub, with the wiring approved by his mechanic and is now flying on the airplane. So we know it has been approved and installed at least once. M. Haught > On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:59 PM, user9253 wrote: > > > >> What am I missing? > > The title that says, "Bearhawk"? There is a Bearhawk Patrol, but I am not familiar with a Bearhawk Pacer. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443545#443545 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 15, 2015
Don=99t know the answers to your questions but I hope Mark will get signed up on the list today to provide the answers. But I appreciate the input and I am saving your comments to make sure these issues are resolved as I hope the design will be used in my project once this group gets done =9Ctweaking=9D it! M. Haught > On Jun 14, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Bob McCallum wrote: > > Marvin; > > Couple of comments; > > Don=99t understand the second battery depicted as a panel common ground buss?? (Also depicted with negative terminals at both ends??) > > On the voltage regulator, the ground, enable, and sense terminals are all tied together and also to both ground and battery power. This will either blow fuses, trip breakers or release valuable smoke from the wires. Also as shown, if the ground is corrected, the alternator field switch has no control as there is an alternate path in parallel from the first fuse on the main buss. (labeled main?? Hard to read?) This part of the circuit will simply not work as shown. > > Wire sizes seem a little strange. Some are marginally small others excessively large. How were these chosen?? > > The main battery symbol is shown with two positive terminals. The right hand, grounded terminal should be negative. (short line as opposed to long) (semantics, I know, but- - ) > > A single switch removing all avionics power is generally considered a bad idea as it is a single point of failure. (although used on many production aircraft for years.) (your choice, it will work, but - - ) > > The reverse current diode really serves no purpose as the rectifier diodes in the alternator are in series with it anyway. > > Bob McC > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of H. Marvin Haught > Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:21 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress > > Okay, I have attached the four files. We will see if they come through. > > M. Haught > > > > > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 15, 2015
This is a certified airplane. Prefer to start with a design and drawing that we know has been approved and is flying on a 337 in a similar Piper Product so we have a =9Chistory=9D to cite. M. Haught > On Jun 15, 2015, at 12:44 AM, Justin Jones wrote: > > Marvin, > > Why not use one of Bob N's Z-Diagrams in the Aeroeletric connection? Engineered, Tested and proven to perform. > > Justin > > > > On Jun 14, 2015, at 19:05, Bob McCallum > wrote: > >> Marvin; >> >> Couple of comments; >> >> Don=99t understand the second battery depicted as a panel common ground buss?? (Also depicted with negative terminals at both ends??) >> >> On the voltage regulator, the ground, enable, and sense terminals are all tied together and also to both ground and battery power. This will either blow fuses, trip breakers or release valuable smoke from the wires. Also as shown, if the ground is corrected, the alternator field switch has no control as there is an alternate path in parallel from the first fuse on the main buss. (labeled main?? Hard to read?) This part of the circuit will simply not work as shown. >> >> Wire sizes seem a little strange. Some are marginally small others excessively large. How were these chosen?? >> >> The main battery symbol is shown with two positive terminals. The right hand, grounded terminal should be negative. (short line as opposed to long) (semantics, I know, but- - ) >> >> A single switch removing all avionics power is generally considered a bad idea as it is a single point of failure. (although used on many production aircraft for years.) (your choice, it will work, but - - ) >> >> The reverse current diode really serves no purpose as the rectifier diodes in the alternator are in series with it anyway. >> >> Bob McC >> >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of H. Marvin Haught >> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:21 PM >> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress >> >> Okay, I have attached the four files. We will see if they come through. >> >> M. Haught >> >> >> >> >> >> >> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D >> lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> >> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D >> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/> >> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D >> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> >> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D >> > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 15, 2015
Bob is correct. But it is fine that it is on the list, as I thought everyone could learn from my ignorance. The post was originally from the Bearhawk Builders List and forwarded to Bob. Yes, this is Mark and my own first crack at a wiring diagram, and since I have 3, maybe 4 airplanes to wire in the next several months, I need to learn and develop a good generic wiring design that can be easily approved on a certified airplane without a lot of drama and effort. Those of you that have owned and flown Pacer will appreciate why the wiring needs improvement. I completely rewired my Pacer when I got it 20 years ago, but used all the old components and just replaced what was there. The project I am doing now will be for sale when it is finished, so I want something that is simple and trouble free, and won=99t be coming back for me to repair. It also needs to be similar to other GA airplanes so that any mechanic will now how to repair it (I will have a complete wiring diagram in the paperwork). I love that Bob is already on that track with the page per system approach. That is already a benefit for my understanding and records. M. Haught > On Jun 15, 2015, at 7:01 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 09:41 PM 6/14/2015, you wrote: >> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to. >> >> What am I missing? > > Not a thing. I'm not sure that Marvin intended > to post this to the List . . . he has a friend > in AK who is rebuilding a Pacer and I'm pretty > sure this is his first whack at a wiring diagram. > > I'm copying pages from another wirebook to assemble > a page-per-system approach that will produce > more readable copy and give us a better foundation > to sift the details. > > It's not a bad thing that the List be involved, > I'm pleased to see the degree of interest and > participation. I'll publish the wirebook to the > List as well - > > I think "Bearhawk" may be Mr. Mark Moyle's > handle . . . > > Thanks for participating guys . . . watch this space . . . > > > Bob . . . > > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 15, 2015
That is up to my mechanic.I am just trying to make it easier for him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we have done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a minor repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDOs require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a minor alteration. He says if I keep the design generic and similar to other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before, have detailed drawings, use approved components, and have the wiring and components sized correctly, it will make his job easier. And your last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic and project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the side benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group. M. Haught > On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair. > If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve. > > On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote: >> Old Bob - >> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records." >> >> Neal >> >> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com " > wrote: >> >>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to. >>> What am I missing? >>> Happy Skies, >>> Old Bob >> * >> >> >> * > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Neal George <ngeorge(at)continentalmotors.aero>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 15, 2015
Depends on the design of the subject aircraft, the extent of the changes and the perspective/interpretation/demands of the mechanic and approving IA, I suppose. Adjusting the average 40-year-old airplane to reflect Z-12 seems relatively simple, straightforward, and safer to this IA. Z-13/8 or Z-14 would take a little more paperwork... Neal George Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair. > If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve. > >> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote: >> Old Bob - >> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records." >> >> Neal >> >>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com " > wrote: >>> >>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to. >>> What am I missing? >>> Happy Skies, >>> Old Bob >> * >> >> >> * > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
And is probably what I will do.....Mark is trying to get signed up but the server has been down, he says. He has corrected all the stuff pointed out as problems on his schematic and will be reposting the drawings. M. Haught On 6/15/2015 2:53 PM, Neal George wrote: > > Depends on the design of the subject aircraft, the extent of the changes and the perspective/interpretation/demands of the mechanic and approving IA, I suppose. > > Adjusting the average 40-year-old airplane to reflect Z-12 seems relatively simple, straightforward, and safer to this IA. > > Z-13/8 or Z-14 would take a little more paperwork... > > Neal George > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >> >> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair. >> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve. >> >>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote: >>> Old Bob - >>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records." >>> >>> Neal >>> >>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com " > wrote: >>>> >>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to. >>>> What am I missing? >>>> Happy Skies, >>>> Old Bob >>> * >>> >>> >>> * >> >> >> >> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Moyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Fw: Pacer drawings
Date: Jun 15, 2015
Bob, I attempted to join the forum. Sever stopped responding. I've red through the thread pertaining to the schematic. Didn't realize one of the construction lines found its way into the raster file when I converted it to a word document. I've deleted that line. Ground issue with the charging circuit fixed. Removed the diode from the alternator feed. Wasn't installing it anyway... Using a 70 amp plane power alternator and the regulator identified in the thread. As to the questionable wire gauges call out. They're a combination of the original Pacer wiring diagram sizes, gauge called for in the schematics for the new electronics and gauge size on the supercub diagram I was given. The ground block/buss bar symbol has been changed to a ground symbol. Attached are two DXF files exported from Cadkey 97. One is AutoCAD...worked in AutoCAD 2000 don't know if it will work in later programs. The second is a DXF. Thanks Mark Moyle Platinum, Alaska 907-979-2010 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs. It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs won't even consider a reference to an existing modification. Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data. On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote: > > That is up to my mechanic.I am just trying to make it easier for him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we have done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a minor repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDOs require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a minor alteration. He says if I keep the design generic and similar to other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before, have detailed drawings, use approved components, and have the wiring and components sized correctly, it will make his job easier. And your last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic and project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the side benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group. > > M. Haught > >> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >> >> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair. >> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve. >> >> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote: >>> Old Bob - >>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records." >>> >>> Neal >>> >>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com " > wrote: >>> >>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's electrical system should conform to the original as it left the factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to. >>>> What am I missing? >>>> Happy Skies, >>>> Old Bob >>> * >>> >>> >>> * >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2015
From: Bill Maxwell <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Pacer drawings
You're in Mark Bill On 16/06/2015 6:32 AM, Mark Moyle wrote: > > Bob, > I attempted to join the forum. Sever stopped responding. I've red > through the thread pertaining to the schematic. Didn't realize one of > the construction lines found its way into the raster file when I > converted it to a word document. I've deleted that line. Ground issue > with the charging circuit fixed. Removed the diode from the > alternator feed. Wasn't installing it anyway... Using a 70 amp plane > power alternator and the regulator identified in the thread. As to > the questionable wire gauges call out. They're a combination of the > original Pacer wiring diagram sizes, gauge called for in the > schematics for the new electronics and gauge size on the supercub > diagram I was given. The ground block/buss bar symbol has been > changed to a ground symbol. > Attached are two DXF files exported from Cadkey 97. One is > AutoCAD...worked in AutoCAD 2000 don't know if it will work in later > programs. The second is a DXF. > Thanks > Mark Moyle > Platinum, Alaska > 907-979-2010 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Don't forget; the plane is in Alaska. Everything I've ever heard about Alaska indicates that they get to work with a different FAA than the rest of us. :-) Some of the legal mods I've heard about would make wiring changes almost unnoticeable, relatively speaking. Charlie On 6/15/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That > is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing > system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light > airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs. > It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an > STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs won't > even consider a reference to an existing modification. > Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom > wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your > diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data. > > On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote: >> >> >> That is up to my mechanic.I am just trying to make it easier for >> him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been >> used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we have >> done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a minor >> repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDOs >> require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other >> places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a minor >> alteration. He says if I keep the design generic and similar to >> other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before, have >> detailed drawings, use approved components, and have the wiring and >> components sized correctly, it will make his job easier. And your >> last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic and >> project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the side >> benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group. >> >> M. Haught >> >>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes other >>> than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the aircraft that >>> fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major alteration or repair. >>> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving >>> will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" >>> or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO >>> needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything >>> is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have >>> a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve. >>> >>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote: >>>> Old Bob - >>>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated >>>> electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records." >>>> >>>> Neal >>>> >>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com >>>> " >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's >>>>> electrical system should conform to the original as it left the >>>>> factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to. >>>>> What am I missing? >>>>> Happy Skies, >>>>> Old Bob >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> * >>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2015
Why reinvent the wheel? Use Bob Nuckolls' Z-11. It is a simple electrical system. If the powers to be think that it is too complicated, remove the ebus circuit and run everything off from the main bus. http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z11N.pdf -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443593#443593 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2015
> . . . corrected. . . .his schematic and will be reposting the drawings. M. Haught It would be a big improvement if the drawing will be posted as a pdf instead of an almost unreadable Word document. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443594#443594 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Well, having lived and flown in Alaska for over 20 years, yes, enforcement is less, field approvals a little easier, but it is the same FAA, just further from HQ. On 6/15/2015 5:04 PM, Charlie England wrote: > > > Don't forget; the plane is in Alaska. Everything I've ever heard about > Alaska indicates that they get to work with a different FAA than the > rest of us. :-) > > Some of the legal mods I've heard about would make wiring changes > almost unnoticeable, relatively speaking. > > Charlie > > On 6/15/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >> >> Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That >> is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing >> system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light >> airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs. >> It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an >> STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs >> won't even consider a reference to an existing modification. >> Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom >> wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your >> diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data. >> >> On 6/15/2015 10:05 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote: >>> >>> >>> That is up to my mechanic.I am just trying to make it easier for >>> him, and he told me to come up with a design that has already been >>> used on a similar airplane as a starting place, which is what we >>> have done. I do not know if this drawing has been used as a minor >>> repair or in filing a 337. As I understand it, different FSDOs >>> require different things, and some insist on a 337, where in other >>> places, the IA has more leeway to sign it off as a minor >>> alteration. He says if I keep the design generic and similar to >>> other certified airplanes, it has been used and approved before, >>> have detailed drawings, use approved components, and have the >>> wiring and components sized correctly, it will make his job easier. >>> And your last sentence is exactly the reason for this whole topic >>> and project. Who better to help me do this than Robert ? With the >>> side benefit of additional eyes and analysis from the group. >>> >>> M. Haught >>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Kelly McMullen >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why in the world would you file a 337 if there were no changes >>>> other than the schematic drawings? 337 is for changes to the >>>> aircraft that fit the FAR43 Appendix A definition of a Major >>>> alteration or repair. >>>> If there are actual changes to the wiring, then the A&P approving >>>> will have to make the determination whether the changes are "major" >>>> or not. If the changes are very likely to be "major" then the FSDO >>>> needs to be contacted and field approval obtained *before* anything >>>> is actually changed. Otherwise the owner might not be happy to have >>>> a changed aircraft that the FAA will not approve. >>>> >>>> On 6/15/2015 7:27 AM, Neal George wrote: >>>>> Old Bob - >>>>> A simple 337 should make things right with the world... "Updated >>>>> electrical schematics posted in aircraft permanent records." >>>>> >>>>> Neal >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:46 PM, "BobsV35B(at)aol.com >>>>> " >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Pacer is a certificated airplane. Seems as though it's >>>>>> electrical system should conform to the original as it left the >>>>>> factory and/or FAA approved modifications there to. >>>>>> What am I missing? >>>>>> Happy Skies, >>>>>> Old Bob >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * >>>> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Pacer drawings
At 03:32 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote: > > >Bob, >I attempted to join the forum. Sever stopped responding. I've red >through the thread pertaining to the schematic. Didn't realize one >of the construction lines found its way into the raster file when I >converted it to a word document. I've deleted that line. Ground >issue with the charging circuit fixed. Removed the diode from the >alternator feed. Wasn't installing it anyway... Using a 70 amp >plane power alternator and the regulator identified in the >thread. As to the questionable wire gauges call out. They're a >combination of the original Pacer wiring diagram sizes, gauge called >for in the schematics for the new electronics and gauge size on the >supercub diagram I was given. The ground block/buss bar symbol has >been changed to a ground symbol. >Attached are two DXF files exported from Cadkey 97. One is >AutoCAD...worked in AutoCAD 2000 don't know if it will work in later >programs. The second is a DXF. > >Thanks >Mark Moyle >Platinum, Alaska >907-979-2010 > Hi Mark! Welcome to the AeroElectric List. Yeah, the server was sick for a time this weekend. I've taken the liberty of converting data I was able to glean from the .doc files into a page-per-system wirebook. A working copy has been posted to http://tinyurl.com/o39rp8u When we're all through sifting the pebbles and cobwebs out of it, I can send you the original file in 2011 .dwg or .dxf Can you tell us more about your project? The Pacer is my Canadian 'dream machine' . . . I've often thought that if I lived in Canada, I'd de-cert a nice airframe and engine, strip the electrical, install cargo pad in back seat, put nice bucket seats in the front and end up with a pretty agile, low-cost, mo-gas powered CC machine for the wife and I . . . So much for fantasies . . . how can the List help? Can you give us a narrative on the hardware you've already purchased . . . alternator, regulator, battery, radios, instruments, etc. I presume this is going to be an Alaskan workhorse. Did you get your copy of the 'Connection? You might take advantage of the breaker-list and see what is already known about what items will need DC power and how much energy those gizmos use. This page becomes the index for following page-per-system drawings. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 03:53 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote: > >Is there no original wiring diagram for the Pacer or Tri-Pacer? That >is what you really need, so you are only repairing the existing >system. Your mechanic will need an inspector with strong light >airplane background. Those are hard to find in most FSDOs. >It will be MUCH easier to restore to original wiring, with maybe an >STC approved alternator, than re-inventing the wheel. Some FSDOs >won't even consider a reference to an existing modification. >Also keep in mind the future of the aircraft. If it has a custom >wiring setup, the next mechanic along will have to rely on your >diagrams. Much better if he can rely on original Piper data. or a professionally crafted and presented wirebook . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 08:03 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote: > >Why reinvent the wheel? Use Bob Nuckolls' Z-11. It is a simple >electrical system Z-11 is a snapshot of an architecture . . . not a wirebook. I've launched a wirebook project for Mark's airplane. With the List's eyes and gray-matter sifting the details, we'll end up with a wirebook worthy of attachment to any one-time STC or 337 effort. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 16, 2015
Which is what I am after for my Pacer project and any future projects! Cong rats, Mark.....you re on the list. This is gonna be fun! Marv Sent from my iPad > On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele ctric.com> wrote: > > At 08:03 PM 6/15/2015, you wrote: >> >> Why reinvent the wheel? Use Bob Nuckolls' Z-11. It is a simple electric al system > > Z-11 is a snapshot of an architecture . . . not > a wirebook. I've launched a wirebook project for > Mark's airplane. With the List's eyes and gray-matter > sifting the details, we'll end up with a wirebook > worthy of attachment to any one-time STC or 337 > effort. > > > > > Bob . . . > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net>
Subject: What to put on the E-Bus?
Date: Jun 16, 2015
I have been discussing this issue with some other builders off list and decided to ask this esteem group. What do I put on my E-Bus? I have a 40AMP B&C Alternator and a SD-8 backup basically wired as per Z-8/13 with an E-Bus relay between the battery bus and E-Bus. One option is to put everything you might need for safe flight and landing on the E-Bus (such as landing lights and strobes) and only turn on what is needed depending on the stage of flight (keeping the continuous load less than the 8 amps being put out by the SD-8). The other is to just put on what is "essential" and then rely on being able to flip the master switch to power the main to get at those "non-essential" things that would be nice to have say for a night landing. The problem with this is without an alternate feed from the E-Bus to the main bus, if the battery contactor fails, all the items on the main bus are unavailable. This was one of the reasons I was looking to install a cross feed between the E-Bus and main bus but haven't installed such. Right now, I am defining the minimum essentials as: Electronic ignition Advanced Flight System 5600 EFIS with GPS and AHARS SL-30 Nav/Com GRT Engine Monitoring SL-70 Transponder Dynon D-10 (for the blind encoder function) My next level would be Flaps Nav Lights Strobes Landing Lights Pitot Heat The next level GX-60 GPS/Com M-200 CDI Annunciator Control Unit Last Level TruTrak Sorcerer Autopilot MX-20 Multi-Functional Display Sl-15 Intercom/CD Clock Elevator Trim Aileron Trim Fuel Pump Starter Angle of Attack Indicator Defrost Fan Opinions are welcome. Ross Mickey N9PT RV-6A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2015
Subject: D-Sub connector grease
Is there a recommended grease or other compound to use on D-Sub connectors to offer some protection from moisture? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 16, 2015
Subject: Re: D-Sub connector grease
just google anti-oxidation grease you will see many there. I use a product called, I believe Oxy-ban, however I don't know if it is still available. I got mine from a friend EE, now diseased. I don't know if there is really any difference between the various brands. Your Sub-ds should be gold contacted. Use the material sparingly as excess will attract dust etc. I use this goo on all of my contacts. I have several non-gold contact connectors (Molex) for which I think this stuff is a must to prevent corrosion and future problems. Rich In a message dated 6/16/2015 12:55:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes: Is there a recommended grease or other compound to use on D-Sub connectors to offer some protection from moisture? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Neal George <ngeorge(at)continentalmotors.aero>
Subject: Re: D-Sub connector grease
Date: Jun 16, 2015
Dow Corning #4 Dielectric Grease. Permatex has their own version... Neal George Sent from my iPhone On Jun 16, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Ken Ryan > wrote: Is there a recommended grease or other compound to use on D-Sub connectors to offer some protection from moisture? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 16, 2015
Subject: Re: D-Sub connector grease
HOWEVER looking further, I found that there are both conductive and dielectric compounds. I would suggest against the conductive type in the sub-ds because of the possibility of shorting out closely spaced contacts. The molex ones, however-- perhaps not. I am sticking with the non-conductive dielectric type, however for safety. Rich (again) In a message dated 6/16/2015 12:55:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes: Is there a recommended grease or other compound to use on D-Sub connectors to offer some protection from moisture? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What to put on the E-Bus?
From: Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net>
Date: Jun 16, 2015
I think you are overloading your E-bus. Lets say you lose your alternator and b/u alternator at night in IMC. It might take 30 minutes or more to get down from altitude, find an airport and land. What do you need to power while doing that? one mag or one electronic ignition already hot-wired to the battery with its own switch a com radio (so you can declare an emergency) cockpit flood lighting minimum flight instruments intercom perhaps Id put the transponder and GPS on the E-bus but keep them on only if necessary. Maybe your battery is strong and can power more stuff for a longer time but what if it wasnt fully charged? For me, I only put the things on the E-bus that I must have to land. I dont need a transponder, engine monitor, strobes, landing lights, or flap motor. I would not want to risk turning on a landing light close in and have the e-bus items go black. -Kent Cozy IV N13AM > On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Ross Home wrote: > > > I have been discussing this issue with some other builders off list and > decided to ask this esteem group. What do I put on my E-Bus? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: What to put on the E-Bus?
Date: Jun 16, 2015
I consider the E-Bus as an Essential Bus. It's purpose is do allow bare minimum equipment to run when turning off the main contactor (which also takes electrical power) to CONSERVE your battery while you CONTINUE to destination or a nearby airport when you have a failed alternator. Once you are near the airport, you may turn on your main contactor allowing all such things for landing. Heavy loads such as landing lights, pitot heat, will max out your SD-8 all by themselves. I have the following on my E-Bus One Nav/comm radio One EFIS One cabin/panel light (LED) Engine monitor Auto-pilot With everything on, the steady state electrical load is less than the output capacity of the SD-8, thereby saving the battery for end of flight. Bevan RV7A 40 amp Main Alt 8 amp backup alt Garmin 396 has it's own internal backup battery Dual P-mags powered from the main bus and they have their own internal generators fro primary power once running. I may add internal battery backup to EFIS in the future if needed. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ross Home Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 10:33 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: What to put on the E-Bus? --> I have been discussing this issue with some other builders off list and decided to ask this esteem group. What do I put on my E-Bus? I have a 40AMP B&C Alternator and a SD-8 backup basically wired as per Z-8/13 with an E-Bus relay between the battery bus and E-Bus. One option is to put everything you might need for safe flight and landing on the E-Bus (such as landing lights and strobes) and only turn on what is needed depending on the stage of flight (keeping the continuous load less than the 8 amps being put out by the SD-8). The other is to just put on what is "essential" and then rely on being able to flip the master switch to power the main to get at those "non-essential" things that would be nice to have say for a night landing. The problem with this is without an alternate feed from the E-Bus to the main bus, if the battery contactor fails, all the items on the main bus are unavailable. This was one of the reasons I was looking to install a cross feed between the E-Bus and main bus but haven't installed such. Right now, I am defining the minimum essentials as: Electronic ignition Advanced Flight System 5600 EFIS with GPS and AHARS SL-30 Nav/Com GRT Engine Monitoring SL-70 Transponder Dynon D-10 (for the blind encoder function) My next level would be Flaps Nav Lights Strobes Landing Lights Pitot Heat The next level GX-60 GPS/Com M-200 CDI Annunciator Control Unit Last Level TruTrak Sorcerer Autopilot MX-20 Multi-Functional Display Sl-15 Intercom/CD Clock Elevator Trim Aileron Trim Fuel Pump Starter Angle of Attack Indicator Defrost Fan Opinions are welcome. Ross Mickey N9PT RV-6A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "mmoyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2015
First time posting here...the guy who didn't clean up his dwg.... Omit hidden construction lines that showed up when I converted to a raster file to get something to Marv. It's fixed on my end... Gone is the diode from the alternator, and the battery symbol has been corrected...now a ground symbol. I've briefly looked at the wiring schematic Bob emailed to me. Here's the email Bob sent. I'll add to this post below... Can you tell us more about your project? The Pacer is my Canadian 'dream machine' . . . I've often thought that if I lived in Canada, I'd de-cert a nice airframe and engine, strip the electrical, install cargo pad in back seat, put nice bucket seats in the front and end up with a pretty agile, low-cost, mo-gas powered CC machine for the wife and I . . . So much for fantasies . . . how can the List help? Can you give us a narrative on the hardware you've already purchased . . . alternator, regulator, battery, radios, instruments, etc. I presume this is going to be an Alaskan workhorse. Did you get your copy of the 'Connection? You might take advantage of the breaker-list and see what is already known about what items will need DC power and how much energy those gizmos use. This page becomes the index for following page-per-system drawings. Bob . . . The Pacer as Marv described was purchased in June of 2013. Landing gear failed here at home. Initial plan was to install a new set of Univair gear legs...that changed when I found hidden damage from the previous three wrecks. Me being a person who can't leave things alone...opened a can of worms. Stripped to the bare fuselage. Repared the bent airframe. STC's for 3" extended PA18 gear legs and Maule oleo struts...(Trimmer), Maule fuel valve STC Which allowed a new fuel system with a both setting at the valve (Trimmer), right and left seaplane door STC (Trimmer), Copper River Airmotive 150 hp O320 engine conversion....had a full power prop strike on the sweet running O290D. Lycon 150 to 160hp up grade. PA18 tail feathers, Borer prop and Odyssey batter STC from Sveen's. Pierce Aero gascolator, sky light and rudder trim. New Cub doctor firewall to replace the crunched original and a new instrument panel with smaller corner radius...which makes enough room to locate the six pack over the left yoke shaft. Tail reinforcement, lower longeron repair at the tail post, thicker flying wire bracket and solid bushing for the tail spring bolt. Float fittings, water rudder cable pulley mounts under the fabric. Fabric is Superflight system 7. The instrument panel uses the original six pack less the DG. In its place I've installed Ei's new CGR 30-P deluxe. Ei's USB power supply for the Bride/co-pilot's entertainment and a Lone Star dual port USB power supply. The lone star will be a dedicated to the flush mount iPad Air (foreflight) and the Stratus 2. Radio is a Trig 6 watt unit, PS 3000 intercom, and the Sandia transponder. Vacuum gauge and a vertical card compass on top of the panel. I've installed the battery under the left seat along with a continuous duty and intermittent duty solenoids. This is my first airplane rebuild, first airplane wiring harness. It doesn't mean I'm a newbie to concept, design and construction. Started out as a diesel mechanic for Diamond Reo, Mack Truck, Kenworth and IHC. More school, RA. Hanson Inc...have designed and built machines around the globe. Departed as the director of mining, general manager of the Goodnews Bay Platinum Mine and the President of Raylo C.A. a Venezuelan mining corporation. Back to school...primary care provider for IHS.....until the affordable care act.....did that in. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443660#443660 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. - Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Matt, You are "lucky" that they will even consider repairing it. In my rebuild of by 6A, I thought my GX-60 was on the blink and found out that nobody could repair it. I did talk to one seller of used avionic who said he used RC Avionic in Minneapolis to repair the unrepairable. It turned out my GX-60 was fine so I never followed up. You can try. The number I was given was 1-800-383-0281 and talk with Gene. Ross N9PT -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:13 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases --> In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. - Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
On 06/17/2015 02:12 PM, Matt Dralle wrote: > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. I hear ya, but realistically what choice is there? They pretty much have a monopoly on gear that will interface with a modern EFIS system. Val Avionics offers COM and NAV solutions that will "talk EFIS", but that's about it. Avidyne offers a WAAS approach certified GPS solution, which is just as outrageously priced as the new Garmin stuff. For anything even approaching a cost that most of us mere mortals can afford, the only options are used Garmin 430s or 480s. There are more options in the transponder market, such as Trig and King, and plenty of ADS-B solutions it seems. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87 Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Earl Gmail <n233ee(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Matt, I wonder if that attitude only resides in the panel mount division? M y experience with their portable devices has been satisfactory to good.. Earl > On Jun 17, 2015, at 13:12, Matt Dralle wrote: > > > > In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King K X-125 on the RV-6. > > I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told t he following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My on ly option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the M INIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pi eces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. > > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business w ith a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Date: Jun 17, 2015
This doesn't sound right. Sounds to me like someone just didn't want to deal with you (and it likely wasn't Garmin in this case). I don't know what or how you handled yourself, but sometimes you'll get more with honey than with vinegar - or perhaps the person you spoke with perhaps was slightly mis-informed. To be blunt, the lenses should be readily available (at least they were last time we got some). I'm sorry they aren't a $4 piece of plexi (there is some fancy schmancy coatings on them and such), but the GTX lens is around $26 and I think the SL lens around $65. My recommendation would be to calm down a bit, sit back and take a breath before indicting Garmin in their entirety based on a conversation with one person. Not defending anyone or indicting or flaming anyone, but your experience just sounds like we don't have the "whole story".....might I humbly suggest that before blasting this to every list you manage that you perhaps speak to someone else first (or maybe even Garmin directly)? Cheers, Stein -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:13 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases --> In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. - Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Matt - What program do you use for your builders log? Unfortunately, your experience that has generally been my experience, although David Clark has provided exceptional service (dog chewed up my favorite headset), and iCom stood behind their little comm radio quite well and efficiently. I will be very cautious at choosing Garmin stuff for my project. M. Haught > On Jun 17, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Matt Dralle wrote: > > > In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. > > I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. > > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
I wonder if someone like Stark Avionics could middleman the part much cheap er? Just a thought. John Robinson =C2- From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:12 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told th e following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My on ly option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business wi th a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. - Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore Airport.=C2- Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions.=C2- Archives too! For entertainment purposes only.=C2- http://klvk.matronics.com - S - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
From: fedico94(at)mchsi.com
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
My eperience with the G3X system in my RV9A is consistent with policy of Garmin. bought GN430W, 6 months later they cam e out with GTN750. Software for maintiaing G3X for IFR is one thousand dollars per year. The GPS from Jeppensen is another $500/yr. Had the G3X off out of spec on altimeter check at avionics shop for IFR recertification by +-20 feet in 1k to 5k altitude. The GSU73 (computer brain)had to be removed and sent back to Garmin for correction with flat rate repair of $500. Very competent avionics shop tried to make harness and use laptop to correct. GOOD--solid state/glass avionics are more dependable and less repair problem than my vacuum instruments. Repair is simplified, once the business model progresses, there is no further need for avionic shops. Plug and play ala Dynon/Advanced along with local FBO removal and service at central location means any FBO becomes an avionics shop. Every 2 years remove just the computer send in for test and certification at same cost that avionics shop would be paid. MY equipment was seviced within 7 days. Local FBO only needs to do test for integrity of pitot and static plumbing with reinstall. BAD--you are at their mercy for software. Software upgrade for G3X should probably be about 150 to 300 dollars per year compared to tablet versions. They will stop supporting hardware at unspecified intervals requring purchase of new hardware. This improves their bottom line when they are so inclined. Base price for servicing can go up without an independent shop to compete. Company gets the all the money and cuts out pesky middlemen (who require recurrent training and have varying degree of competency). Right now I could do $20,000 in panel rebuild/upgrade but in 4 years from now I may not have a 3rd class medical or I may not be around and the technology changes so radically that what you buy today is obsolete/unsupported in a short space of time. Some companies in this area last only a few short years. MGL is great but will they be around ? Dynon has good software prices but then you need an "activation" fee of around 300 to 500 dollars. In short they all have an angle but the cost will be the same. Look at the marketing angle of smart phones. Better yet look at Bede aviation using iPads for instrument panel. What you have in your cockpit today at $5k from Garmin (G3X) could be replaced with one $800 dollar tablet in a few short years, all the while the FAA piddles along with NextGen. Robert Federhofer ----- Original Message ----- From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:27:16 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases I wonder if someone like Stark Avionics could middleman the part much cheaper? Just a thought. John Robinson From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:12 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. - Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com - S - - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Good analysis - this is exactly why I am going with an iPad with ForeFlight set into a panel mount, and likely staying with steam gauges, as my instrument flying days are over. When I get to my "keeper" project, I might chuck the steam gauges if there are programs affordable programs available using an iPad as base for EFIS , but for now, steam gauges and ForeFlight on a panel mount iPad. M. Haught On 6/17/2015 3:33 PM, fedico94(at)mchsi.com wrote: > > My eperience with the G3X system in my RV9A is consistent with policy of Garmin. bought GN430W, 6 months later they cam e out with GTN750. Software for maintiaing G3X for IFR is one thousand dollars per year. The GPS from Jeppensen is another $500/yr. > Had the G3X off out of spec on altimeter check at avionics shop for IFR recertification by +-20 feet in 1k to 5k altitude. The GSU73 (computer brain)had to be removed and sent back to Garmin for correction with flat rate repair of $500. Very competent avionics shop tried to make harness and use laptop to correct. > > GOOD--solid state/glass avionics are more dependable and less repair problem than my vacuum instruments. Repair is simplified, once the business model progresses, there is no further need for avionic shops. Plug and play ala Dynon/Advanced along with local FBO removal and service at central location means any FBO becomes an avionics shop. Every 2 years remove just the computer send in for test and certification at same cost that avionics shop would be paid. MY equipment was seviced within 7 days. Local FBO only needs to do test for integrity of pitot and static plumbing with reinstall. > > BAD--you are at their mercy for software. Software upgrade for G3X should probably be about 150 to 300 dollars per year compared to tablet versions. > They will stop supporting hardware at unspecified intervals requring purchase of new hardware. This improves their bottom line when they are so inclined. > Base price for servicing can go up without an independent shop to compete. Company gets the all the money and cuts out pesky middlemen (who require recurrent training and have varying degree of competency). > > Right now I could do $20,000 in panel rebuild/upgrade but in 4 years from now I may not have a 3rd class medical or I may not be around and the technology changes so radically that what you buy today is obsolete/unsupported in a short space of time. Some companies in this area last only a few short years. > MGL is great but will they be around ? Dynon has good software prices but then you need an "activation" fee of around 300 to 500 dollars. In short they all have an angle but the cost will be the same. Look at the marketing angle of smart phones. Better yet look at Bede aviation using iPads for instrument panel. What you have in your cockpit today at $5k from Garmin (G3X) could be replaced with one $800 dollar tablet in a few short years, all the while the FAA piddles along with NextGen. > > Robert Federhofer > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:27:16 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > I wonder if someone like Stark Avionics could middleman the part much cheaper? Just a thought. John Robinson > From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:12 AM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > > In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. > > I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. > > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > > - > S - > - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Good Evening Marvin (if I may use you first name). I totally agree that steam gauges are more than adequate for keeping an airplane under control, but as of today, the glass stuff is CHEAPER! It will be quite a shock if you try to find good serviceable gyroscopes, let alone brand new ones. Low cost means using glass. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 6/17/2015 4:14:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, handainc(at)madisoncounty.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "H. Marvin Haught Jr. " Good analysis - this is exactly why I am going with an iPad with ForeFlight set into a panel mount, and likely staying with steam gauges, as my instrument flying days are over. When I get to my "keeper" project, I might chuck the steam gauges if there are programs affordable programs available using an iPad as base for EFIS , but for now, steam gauges and ForeFlight on a panel mount iPad. M. Haught On 6/17/2015 3:33 PM, fedico94(at)mchsi.com wrote: > > My eperience with the G3X system in my RV9A is consistent with policy of Garmin. bought GN430W, 6 months later they cam e out with GTN750. Software for maintiaing G3X for IFR is one thousand dollars per year. The GPS from Jeppensen is another $500/yr. > Had the G3X off out of spec on altimeter check at avionics shop for IFR recertification by +-20 feet in 1k to 5k altitude. The GSU73 (computer brain)had to be removed and sent back to Garmin for correction with flat rate repair of $500. Very competent avionics shop tried to make harness and use laptop to correct. > > GOOD--solid state/glass avionics are more dependable and less repair problem than my vacuum instruments. Repair is simplified, once the business model progresses, there is no further need for avionic shops. Plug and play ala Dynon/Advanced along with local FBO removal and service at central location means any FBO becomes an avionics shop. Every 2 years remove just the computer send in for test and certification at same cost that avionics shop would be paid. MY equipment was seviced within 7 days. Local FBO only needs to do test for integrity of pitot and static plumbing with reinstall. > > BAD--you are at their mercy for software. Software upgrade for G3X should probably be about 150 to 300 dollars per year compared to tablet versions. > They will stop supporting hardware at unspecified intervals requring purchase of new hardware. This improves their bottom line when they are so inclined. > Base price for servicing can go up without an independent shop to compete. Company gets the all the money and cuts out pesky middlemen (who require recurrent training and have varying degree of competency). > > Right now I could do $20,000 in panel rebuild/upgrade but in 4 years from now I may not have a 3rd class medical or I may not be around and the technology changes so radically that what you buy today is obsolete/unsupported in a short space of time. Some companies in this area last only a few short years. > MGL is great but will they be around ? Dynon has good software prices but then you need an "activation" fee of around 300 to 500 dollars. In short they all have an angle but the cost will be the same. Look at the marketing angle of smart phones. Better yet look at Bede aviation using iPads for instrument panel. What you have in your cockpit today at $5k from Garmin (G3X) could be replaced with one $800 dollar tablet in a few short years, all the while the FAA piddles along with NextGen. > > Robert Federhofer > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:27:16 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > I wonder if someone like Stark Avionics could middleman the part much cheaper? Just a thought. John Robinson > From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:12 AM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle > > In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. > > I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. > > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > > - > S - > - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Before making my original post, I had contacted two different Avionics shops and received the exact same story, so I didn't base my findings on a single vendor. I have subsequently contacted Garmin directly and was told that the parts are in fact orderable by dealers. But, when those same avionics dealers call the Garmin parts department they are told they are not allowed to order those parts. So, something is definitely not quite lining up here. I guess I apologize to the community for venting my frustration with this process, but this really shouldn't be this difficult. I will follow up with more information on this debacle as it hopefully progresses. Btw, the lens part number for the SL-30 is 308-3201-42 and the lens for the GTX-327 is 470-00034-00. Matt At 11:12 AM 6/17/2015 Wednesday, Matt Dralle wrote: >In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. > >I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. > >I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > >- >Matt Dralle > - Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Matt, I read your frustration. . . My contacts in the past with Garmin directly couldn't have gone better. Suggestion. . Call and ask for the tech support debt./guru for the product that are using. Don't bother with Parts nor Customer service. Nicely vent, on what your experience has been and the frustration it makes for a customer and venting of course is not good for Garmin. I strongly suspect that the person you are talking to will send you the parts at n/c especially if he believes that you will know how to make the parts swap. Keep us tuned in on the results. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:38 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > > Before making my original post, I had contacted two different Avionics > shops and received the exact same story, so I didn't base my findings on a > single vendor. I have subsequently contacted Garmin directly and was told > that the parts are in fact orderable by dealers. But, when those same > avionics dealers call the Garmin parts department they are told they are > not allowed to order those parts. So, something is definitely not quite > lining up here. I guess I apologize to the community for venting my > frustration with this process, but this really shouldn't be this > difficult. I will follow up with more information on this debacle as it > hopefully progresses. > > Btw, the lens part number for the SL-30 is 308-3201-42 and the lens for > the GTX-327 is 470-00034-00. > > Matt > > > At 11:12 AM 6/17/2015 Wednesday, Matt Dralle wrote: >>In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens >>of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, >>I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the >>King KX-125 on the RV-6. >> >>I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told >>the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My >>only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and >>the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace >>two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal >>behavior. >> >>I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business >>with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. >> >>- >>Matt Dralle >> > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Is it feasible to repair the plastic lens? I had a bad scratch on my canopy and used an acrylic scratch removal kit that contains 3 steps of abrasive. Now no one can tell that the canopy was ever scratched. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443707#443707 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Date: Jun 17, 2015
I have also heard that certain brands of toothpaste are a good scratch remover. All of them take a lot of wrist grease. . . Dave ____________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:10 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > Is it feasible to repair the plastic lens? I had a bad scratch on my > canopy and used an acrylic scratch removal kit that contains 3 steps of > abrasive. Now no one can tell that the canopy was ever scratched. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443707#443707 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Additional possibilities-- find a bad unit and cannibalize it. If not in a certified aircraft, make your own lens out of plexi ---- or live with the scratch Rich In a message dated 6/17/2015 6:12:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time, fransew(at)gmail.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" Is it feasible to repair the plastic lens? I had a bad scratch on my canopy and used an acrylic scratch removal kit that contains 3 steps of abrasive. Now no one can tell that the canopy was ever scratched. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443707#443707 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
From: don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com>
Matti am not familiar with the avionics shop you mentioned. I do know that Garmin will only sell parts to Garmin Authorized Installers. There are a bunch of shops that are FAA approved and yet they can not buy Garmin parts or do mandatory upgrades. In the future the first question to ask any av shop is if they are Garmin and FAA authorized installers. If yes they will never have a problem buying any Garmin part. I went round and round with three shops when my G480 needed a mandatory firmware upgrade. All three shops sell Garmin but they are not Garmin authorized installers. Garmin would not send them the firmware. They td me that same story about the factory does that work. I called Garmin and was given a list of installers that could/would do the work. There are many bogus avionics dealers out there selling Garmin devices. The problem is they can't buy parts to repair them. On Jun 17, 2015 3:48 PM, "David Lloyd" wrote: > skywagon(at)charter.net> > > Matt, > > I read your frustration. . . > My contacts in the past with Garmin directly couldn't have gone better. > Suggestion. . Call and ask for the tech support debt./guru for the product > that are using. Don't bother with Parts nor Customer service. > Nicely vent, on what your experience has been and the frustration it makes > for a customer and venting of course is not good for Garmin. I strongly > suspect that the person you are talking to will send you the parts at n/c > especially if he believes that you will know how to make the parts swap. > Keep us tuned in on the results. > Dave > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:38 PM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > >> dralle(at)matronics.com> >> >> Before making my original post, I had contacted two different Avionics >> shops and received the exact same story, so I didn't base my findings on a >> single vendor. I have subsequently contacted Garmin directly and was told >> that the parts are in fact orderable by dealers. But, when those same >> avionics dealers call the Garmin parts department they are told they are >> not allowed to order those parts. So, something is definitely not quite >> lining up here. I guess I apologize to the community for venting my >> frustration with this process, but this really shouldn't be this difficult. >> I will follow up with more information on this debacle as it hopefully >> progresses. >> >> Btw, the lens part number for the SL-30 is 308-3201-42 and the lens for >> the GTX-327 is 470-00034-00. >> >> Matt >> >> >> At 11:12 AM 6/17/2015 Wednesday, Matt Dralle wrote: >> >>> In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the >>> lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, >>> I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the >>> King KX-125 on the RV-6. >>> >>> I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told >>> the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My >>> only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and >>> the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two >>> $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. >>> >>> I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business >>> with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. >>> >>> - >>> Matt Dralle >>> >>> >> - >> Matt Dralle >> >> RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" >> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log >> http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log >> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel >> Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! >> >> RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" >> http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log >> Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! >> >> Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! >> Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore >> Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! >> For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
From: <rd2(at)dejazzd.com>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
I'll second David Lloyd's experience with Garmin. I had 2 or 3 similar cases in the past needing - and not finding - a Garmin part. Parts and Cust. support could talk but not help; however when I talked to tech support to people who sounded knowledgeable and after I succeeded in coming across like being able to install the part myself, they sent it at n/c. Even sent me an email later asking how it was working. Rumen ---- David Lloyd wrote: ============ Matt, I read your frustration. . . My contacts in the past with Garmin directly couldn't have gone better. Suggestion. . Call and ask for the tech support debt./guru for the product that are using. Don't bother with Parts nor Customer service. Nicely vent, on what your experience has been and the frustration it makes for a customer and venting of course is not good for Garmin. I strongly suspect that the person you are talking to will send you the parts at n/c especially if he believes that you will know how to make the parts swap. Keep us tuned in on the results. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:38 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > > Before making my original post, I had contacted two different Avionics > shops and received the exact same story, so I didn't base my findings on a > single vendor. I have subsequently contacted Garmin directly and was told > that the parts are in fact orderable by dealers. But, when those same > avionics dealers call the Garmin parts department they are told they are > not allowed to order those parts. So, something is definitely not quite > lining up here. I guess I apologize to the community for venting my > frustration with this process, but this really shouldn't be this > difficult. I will follow up with more information on this debacle as it > hopefully progresses. > > Btw, the lens part number for the SL-30 is 308-3201-42 and the lens for > the GTX-327 is 470-00034-00. > > Matt > > > At 11:12 AM 6/17/2015 Wednesday, Matt Dralle wrote: >>In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens >>of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, >>I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the >>King KX-125 on the RV-6. >> >>I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told >>the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My >>only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and >>the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace >>two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal >>behavior. >> >>I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business >>with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. >> >>- >>Matt Dralle >> > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Date: Jun 17, 2015
I have been =9Ccollecting=9D what appears to be serviceable units for several years and have a couple of boxes of stuff, all that look good, including 4 or 5 gyros. Initially, glass may be lower cost, but the software fees and subscription costs quickly add up. Marv > On Jun 17, 2015, at 4:33 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > > Good Evening Marvin (if I may use you first name). > > I totally agree that steam gauges are more than adequate for keeping an airplane under control, but as of today, the glass stuff is CHEAPER! > > It will be quite a shock if you try to find good serviceable gyroscopes, let alone brand new ones. > > Low cost means using glass. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > > In a message dated 6/17/2015 4:14:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, handainc(at)madisoncounty.net writes: > > Good analysis - this is exactly why I am going with an iPad with > ForeFlight set into a panel mount, and likely staying with steam gauges, > as my instrument flying days are over. When I get to my "keeper" > project, I might chuck the steam gauges if there are programs affordable > programs available using an iPad as base for EFIS , but for now, steam > gauges and ForeFlight on a panel mount iPad. > > M. Haught > > On 6/17/2015 3:33 PM, fedico94(at)mchsi.com wrote: > > > > My eperience with the G3X system in my RV9A is consistent with policy of Garmin. bought GN430W, 6 months later they cam e out with GTN750. Software for maintiaing G3X for IFR is one thousand dollars per year. The GPS from Jeppensen is another $500/yr. > > Had the G3X off out of spec on altimeter check at avionics shop for IFR recertification by +-20 feet in 1k to 5k altitude. The GSU73 (computer brain)had to be removed and sent back to Garmin for correction with flat rate repair of $500. Very competent avionics shop tried to make harness and use laptop to correct. > > > > GOOD--solid state/glass avionics are more dependable and less repair problem than my vacuum instruments. Repair is simplified, once the business model progresses, there is no further need for avionic shops. Plug and play ala Dynon/Advanced along with local FBO removal and service at central location means any FBO becomes an avionics shop. Every 2 years remove just the computer send in for test and certification at same cost that avionics shop would be paid. MY equipment was seviced within 7 days. Local FBO only needs to do test for integrity of pitot and static plumbing with reinstall. > > > > BAD--you are at their mercy for software. Software upgrade for G3X should probably be about 150 to 300 dollars per year compared to tablet versions. > > They will stop supporting hardware at unspecified intervals requring purchase of new hardware. This improves their bottom line when they are so inclined. > > Base price for servicing can go up without an independent shop to compete. Company gets the all the money and cuts out pesky middlemen (who require recurrent training and have varying degree of competency). > > > > Right now I could do $20,000 in panel rebuild/upgrade but in 4 years from now I may not have a 3rd class medical or I may not be around and the technology changes so radically that what you buy today is obsolete/unsupported in a short space of time. Some companies in this area last only a few short years. > > MGL is great but will they be around ? Dynon has good software prices but then you need an "activation" fee of around 300 to 500 dollars. In short they all have an angle but the cost will be the same. Look at the marketing angle of smart phones. Better yet look at Bede aviation using iPads for instrument panel. What you have in your cockpit today at $5k from Garmin (G3X) could be replaced with one $800 dollar tablet in a few short years, all the while the FAA piddles along with NextGen. > > > > Robert Federhofer > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:27:16 PM > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > > > I wonder if someone like Stark Avionics could middleman the part much cheaper? Just a thought. John Robinson > > From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:12 AM > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > > > > > In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. > > > > I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. > > > > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > > > > - > > Matt Dralle > > > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > > > > > - > > S - > > - > > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus ======================== Use utilities Day =================== ==== - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======================= - List Contribution Web Site sp; > > > > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
From: Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com>
Matt, is it possible to buff out the scratches? Lots of car head lamp covers and aircraft covers can be restored. Rick #40956 Southampton, Ont On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Matt Dralle wrote: > > > > Before making my original post, I had contacted two different Avionics > shops and received the exact same story, so I didn't base my findings on a > single vendor. I have subsequently contacted Garmin directly and was told > that the parts are in fact orderable by dealers. But, when those same > avionics dealers call the Garmin parts department they are told they are > not allowed to order those parts. So, something is definitely not quite > lining up here. I guess I apologize to the community for venting my > frustration with this process, but this really shouldn't be this difficult. > I will follow up with more information on this debacle as it hopefully > progresses. > > Btw, the lens part number for the SL-30 is 308-3201-42 and the lens for > the GTX-327 is 470-00034-00. > > Matt > > > At 11:12 AM 6/17/2015 Wednesday, Matt Dralle wrote: > >In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the > lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, > I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the > King KX-125 on the RV-6. > > > >I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told > the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My > only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and > the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two > $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. > > > >I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business > with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > > > >- > >Matt Dralle > > > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
From: A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Nice thing about Dynon skyview After purchase all future software is free. T here is a one time 500$ fee for some mapping stuff. If you want it (I think t here is a 90 day free trial. Maps/charts/plates vfr/ifr kept current are about 100$ per year......quite a de Rich Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 17, 2015, at 8:17 PM, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: > > I have been =9Ccollecting=9D what appears to be serviceable un its for several years and have a couple of boxes of stuff, all that look goo d, including 4 or 5 gyros. Initially, glass may be lower cost, but the soft ware fees and subscription costs quickly add up. > > Marv > > >> On Jun 17, 2015, at 4:33 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: >> >> Good Evening Marvin (if I may use you first name). >> >> I totally agree that steam gauges are more than adequate for keeping an a irplane under control, but as of today, the glass stuff is CHEAPER! >> >> It will be quite a shock if you try to find good serviceable gyroscopes, l et alone brand new ones. >> >> Low cost means using glass. >> >> Happy Skies, >> >> Old Bob >> >> In a message dated 6/17/2015 4:14:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, handainc @madisoncounty.net writes: c(at)madisoncounty.net> >> >> Good analysis - this is exactly why I am going with an iPad with >> ForeFlight set into a panel mount, and likely staying with steam gauges, >> as my instrument flying days are over. When I get to my "keeper" >> project, I might chuck the steam gauges if there are programs affordable >> programs available using an iPad as base for EFIS , but for now, steam >> gauges and ForeFlight on a panel mount iPad. >> >> M. Haught >> >> On 6/17/2015 3:33 PM, fedico94(at)mchsi.com wrote: >> > >> > My eperience with the G3X system in my RV9A is consistent with policy o f Garmin. bought GN430W, 6 months later they cam e out with GTN750. Softwa re for maintiaing G3X for IFR is one thousand dollars per year. The GPS fro m Jeppensen is another $500/yr. >> > Had the G3X off out of spec on altimeter check at avionics shop for IFR recertification by +-20 feet in 1k to 5k altitude. The GSU73 (computer bra in)had to be removed and sent back to Garmin for correction with flat rate r epair of $500. Very competent avionics shop tried to make harness and use la ptop to correct. >> > >> > GOOD--solid state/glass avionics are more dependable and less repair pr oblem than my vacuum instruments. Repair is simplified, once the business m odel progresses, there is no further need for avionic shops. Plug and play a la Dynon/Advanced along with local FBO removal and service at central locati on means any FBO becomes an avionics shop. Every 2 years remove just the c omputer send in for test and certification at same cost that avionics shop w ould be paid. MY equipment was seviced within 7 days. Local FBO only needs t o do test for integrity of pitot and static plumbing with reinstall. >> > >> > BAD--you are at their mercy for software. Software upgrade for G3X sho uld probably be about 150 to 300 dollars per year compared to tablet version s. >> > They will stop supporting hardware at unspecified intervals requring pu rchase of new hardware. This improves their bottom line when they are so in clined. >> > Base price for servicing can go up without an independent shop to compe te. Company gets the all the money and cuts out pesky middlemen (who requir e recurrent training and have varying degree of competency). >> > >> > Right now I could do $20,000 in panel rebuild/upgrade but in 4 years fr om now I may not have a 3rd class medical or I may not be around and the tec hnology changes so radically that what you buy today is obsolete/unsupported in a short space of time. Some companies in this area last only a few shor t years. >> > MGL is great but will they be around ? Dynon has good software prices b ut then you need an "activation" fee of around 300 to 500 dollars. In short they all have an angle but the cost will be the same. Look at the marketin g angle of smart phones. Better yet look at Bede aviation using iPads for i nstrument panel. What you have in your cockpit today at $5k from Garmin (G3 X) could be replaced with one $800 dollar tablet in a few short years, all t he while the FAA piddles along with NextGen. >> > >> > Robert Federhofer >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> >> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:27:16 PM >> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases >> > >> > I wonder if someone like Stark Avionics could middleman the part much c heaper? Just a thought. John Robinson >> > From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> >> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:12 AM >> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases >> > com> >> > >> > In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the l ens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I 'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the Ki ng KX-125 on the RV-6. >> > >> > I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was tol d the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and th e MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. >> > >> > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do busines s with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. >> > >> > - >> > Matt Dralle >> > >> > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" >> > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log >> > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log >> > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel >> > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! >> > >> > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" >> > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log >> > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! >> > >> > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! >> > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore >> > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! >> > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com >> > >> > >> > - >> > S - >> > - >> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus ===== =================== Use utilities Day = ====================== - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================= ====== - List Contribution Web Site sp; >> >> >> >> >> >> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List" class=""> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> class="">http://forums.matronics.com >> class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2015
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
I kind of doubt it. I use the term "scratch" loosely. It looks more like the surface coating is flaking off. About 1/4 to 1/3 of the lens is discolored in a flaking pattern. So, really, while I accepted responsibility for the "scratch", I really think that it is a manufacturing defect. Very frustrating, considering the radio is essentially new but I bought it 5 years ago. Garmin is now claiming that part isn't even available internally or externally for sale except for new manufacture. In other words, it couldn't be replaced even it the unit were returned for repair. But, again, the story seems to change by the hour... Matt At 06:30 PM 6/17/2015 Wednesday, you wrote: >Matt, is it possible to buff out the scratches? Lots of car head lamp covers and aircraft covers can be restored. > >Rick >#40956 >Southampton, Ont > >On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> wrote: > >Before making my original post, I had contacted two different Avionics shops and received the exact same story, so I didn't base my findings on a single vendor. I have subsequently contacted Garmin directly and was told that the parts are in fact orderable by dealers. But, when those same avionics dealers call the Garmin parts department they are told they are not allowed to order those parts. So, something is definitely not quite lining up here. I guess I apologize to the community for venting my frustration with this process, but this really shouldn't be this difficult. I will follow up with more information on this debacle as it hopefully progresses. > >Btw, the lens part number for the SL-30 is 308-3201-42 and the lens for the GTX-327 is 470-00034-00. > >Matt > > >At 11:12 AM 6/17/2015 Wednesday, Matt Dralle wrote: >>In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. >> >>I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. >> >>I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. >> >>- >>Matt Dralle >> > >- >Matt Dralle > >RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" ><http://www.mattsrv8.com>http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log ><http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap>http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log ><http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8>http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel >Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > >RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" ><http://www.mattsrv6.com>http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log >Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > >Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! >Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore >Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! >For entertainment purposes only. <http://klvk.matronics.com>http://klvk.matronics.com > > >========== >- >Electric-List" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >========== >FORUMS - >_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com >========== >b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >========== > > Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 17, 2015
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Good Evening Marv, Cost can be high for glass if you opt for the fancy data, but if all you want is attitude and heading, the stuff is cheaper than gyros and gimbals. As Always, It All Depends! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 6/17/2015 8:20:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, handainc(at)madisoncounty.net writes: I have been =9Ccollecting=9D what appears to be serviceable un its for several years and have a couple of boxes of stuff, all that look good, including 4 or 5 gyros. Initially, glass may be lower cost, but the software fees an d subscription costs quickly add up. Marv On Jun 17, 2015, at 4:33 PM, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote: Good Evening Marvin (if I may use you first name). I totally agree that steam gauges are more than adequate for keeping an airplane under control, but as of today, the glass stuff is CHEAPER! It will be quite a shock if you try to find good serviceable gyroscopes, let alone brand new ones. Low cost means using glass. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 6/17/2015 4:14:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, _handainc(at)madisoncounty.net_ (mailto:handainc(at)madisoncounty.net) writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "H. Marvin Haught Jr. " <_handainc(at)madisoncounty.net_ (mailto:handainc(at)madisoncounty.net) > Good analysis - this is exactly why I am going with an iPad with ForeFlight set into a panel mount, and likely staying with steam gauges, as my instrument flying days are over. When I get to my "keeper" project, I might chuck the steam gauges if there are programs affordable programs available using an iPad as base for EFIS , but for now, steam gauges and ForeFlight on a panel mount iPad. M. Haught On 6/17/2015 3:33 PM, _fedico94(at)mchsi.com_ (mailto:fedico94(at)mchsi.com) wrote: (mailto:fedico94(at)mchsi.com) > > My eperience with the G3X system in my RV9A is consistent with policy of Garmin. bought GN430W, 6 months later they cam e out with GTN750. Software for maintiaing G3X for IFR is one thousand dollars per year. Th e GPS from Jeppensen is another $500/yr. > Had the G3X off out of spec on altimeter check at avionics shop for IFR recertification by +-20 feet in 1k to 5k altitude. The GSU73 (computer brain)had to be removed and sent back to Garmin for correction with flat rate repair of $500. Very competent avionics shop tried to make harness and us e laptop to correct. > > GOOD--solid state/glass avionics are more dependable and less repair problem than my vacuum instruments. Repair is simplified, once the busin ess model progresses, there is no further need for avionic shops. Plug and play ala Dynon/Advanced along with local FBO removal and service at centr al location means any FBO becomes an avionics shop. Every 2 years remove just the computer send in for test and certification at same cost that avionic s shop would be paid. MY equipment was seviced within 7 days. Local FBO on ly needs to do test for integrity of pitot and static plumbing with reinstal l. > > BAD--you are at their mercy for software. Software upgrade for G3X should probably be about 150 to 300 dollars per year compared to tablet versions. > They will stop supporting hardware at unspecified intervals requring purchase of new hardware. This improves their bottom line when they are so inclined. > Base price for servicing can go up without an independent shop to compete. Company gets the all the money and cuts out pesky middlemen (wh o require recurrent training and have varying degree of competency). > > Right now I could do $20,000 in panel rebuild/upgrade but in 4 years from now I may not have a 3rd class medical or I may not be around and th e technology changes so radically that what you buy today is obsolete/unsupported in a short space of time. Some companies in this ar ea last only a few short years. > MGL is great but will they be around ? Dynon has good software prices but then you need an "activation" fee of around 300 to 500 dollars. In short they all have an angle but the cost will be the same. Look at the marketing angle of smart phones. Better yet look at Bede aviation using iPads for instrument panel. What you have in your cockpit today at $5k from Ga rmin (G3X) could be replaced with one $800 dollar tablet in a few short years, all the while the FAA piddles along with NextGen. > > Robert Federhofer > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rv7a.builder" <_rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com_ (mailto:rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com) > > To: _aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com_ (mailto:aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com) > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:27:16 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > I wonder if someone like Stark Avionics could middleman the part much cheaper? Just a thought. John Robinson > From: Matt Dralle <_dralle(at)matronics.com_ (mailto:dralle(at)matronics.com) > > To: _aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com_ (mailto:aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com) > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:12 AM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > <_dralle(at)matronics.com_ (mailto:dralle(at)matronics.com) > > > In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I though t, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. > > I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was tol d the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavi or. > > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do busines s with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > _http://www.mattsrv8.com_ (http://www.mattsrv8.com/) - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > _http://www.mattsrv6.com_ (http://www.mattsrv6.com/) - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. _http://klvk.matronics.com_ (http://klvk.matronics.com/) > > > - > S - > - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus ======================== Use utilities Day ================== ===== - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ====================== = - List Contribution Web Site sp; href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List" class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List class="">http://forums.matronics.com class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ======================== ============ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Christopher Barber <cbarber(at)TexasAttorney.net>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Date: Jun 18, 2015
Yes, Dynon charges a one time $500 for the moving map software. The free t rial period is 30 hrs, iirc. So far all upgrades to the Dynon Skyview have been free including map secti onal type updates. FWIW. Chris Houston Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 8:52 PM, A R Goldman > wrote: Nice thing about Dynon skyview After purchase all future software is free. There is a one time 500$ fee for some mapping stuff. If you want it (I thin k there is a 90 day free trial. Maps/charts/plates vfr/ifr kept current are about 100$ per year......quite a de Rich Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2015, at 8:17 PM, "H. Marvin Haught" > wrote: I have been =93collecting=94 what appears to be serviceable units for sever al years and have a couple of boxes of stuff, all that look good, including 4 or 5 gyros. Initially, glass may be lower cost, but the software fees a nd subscription costs quickly add up. Marv On Jun 17, 2015, at 4:33 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrot e: Good Evening Marvin (if I may use you first name). I totally agree that steam gauges are more than adequate for keeping an air plane under control, but as of today, the glass stuff is CHEAPER! It will be quite a shock if you try to find good serviceable gyroscopes, le t alone brand new ones. Low cost means using glass. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 6/17/2015 4:14:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, handainc@m adisoncounty.net writes: madisoncounty.net> Good analysis - this is exactly why I am going with an iPad with ForeFlight set into a panel mount, and likely staying with steam gauges, as my instrument flying days are over. When I get to my "keeper" project, I might chuck the steam gauges if there are programs affordable programs available using an iPad as base for EFIS , but for now, steam gauges and ForeFlight on a panel mount iPad. M. Haught On 6/17/2015 3:33 PM, fedico94(at)mchsi.com wrote: 94(at)mchsi.com> > > My eperience with the G3X system in my RV9A is consistent with policy of Garmin. bought GN430W, 6 months later they cam e out with GTN750. Softwar e for maintiaing G3X for IFR is one thousand dollars per year. The GPS fro m Jeppensen is another $500/yr. > Had the G3X off out of spec on altimeter check at avionics shop for IFR r ecertification by +-20 feet in 1k to 5k altitude. The GSU73 (computer brai n)had to be removed and sent back to Garmin for correction with flat rate r epair of $500. Very competent avionics shop tried to make harness and use l aptop to correct. > > GOOD--solid state/glass avionics are more dependable and less repair prob lem than my vacuum instruments. Repair is simplified, once the business mo del progresses, there is no further need for avionic shops. Plug and play ala Dynon/Advanced along with local FBO removal and service at central loca tion means any FBO becomes an avionics shop. Every 2 years remove just th e computer send in for test and certification at same cost that avionics sh op would be paid. MY equipment was seviced within 7 days. Local FBO only n eeds to do test for integrity of pitot and static plumbing with reinstall. > > BAD--you are at their mercy for software. Software upgrade for G3X shoul d probably be about 150 to 300 dollars per year compared to tablet versions . > They will stop supporting hardware at unspecified intervals requring purc hase of new hardware. This improves their bottom line when they are so inc lined. > Base price for servicing can go up without an independent shop to compete . Company gets the all the money and cuts out pesky middlemen (who require recurrent training and have varying degree of competency). > > Right now I could do $20,000 in panel rebuild/upgrade but in 4 years from now I may not have a 3rd class medical or I may not be around and the tech nology changes so radically that what you buy today is obsolete/unsupported in a short space of time. Some companies in this area last only a few sho rt years. > MGL is great but will they be around ? Dynon has good software prices bu t then you need an "activation" fee of around 300 to 500 dollars. In short they all have an angle but the cost will be the same. Look at the marketi ng angle of smart phones. Better yet look at Bede aviation using iPads for instrument panel. What you have in your cockpit today at $5k from Garmin (G3X) could be replaced with one $800 dollar tablet in a few short years, a ll the while the FAA piddles along with NextGen. > > Robert Federhofer > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com<mailto:rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.co m>> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:27:16 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > I wonder if someone like Stark Avionics could middleman the part much che aper? Just a thought. John Robinson > From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com<mailto:dralle(at)matronics.c om>> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:12 AM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > m> > > In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the len s of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I' ll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the Ki ng KX-125 on the RV-6. > > I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and th e MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $ 4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. > > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > > - > S - > - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus ===== =================== Use utilities Day ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ============== ========= - List Contribution Web Site sp; href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List" class="">ht tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List class="">http://forums.matronics.com class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D //forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 18, 2015
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
It sounds exactly right to me, based on my personal experience, and stories I've heard from others for over a decade. They might offer a bit more of a 'deal' if you can find the right button (person) to push, but the opening line is always outrageous flat rate fees for anything. I've even experienced it myself, with Garmin wanting around $150 to replace the $4 backup battery in my GPS III Pilot portable. When I cornered a Garmin rep about it at a major flyin, he offered to give me a 'deal' at $70 if I sent it to his attention after the flyin. And the portable isn't even a 'certified' device. The vast majority of homebuilders (and even cert a/c owners) don't even know that there are buttons available to push, and pay the outrageous fees because they effectively have no other choice. BTW, I'd like to thank Matt for keeping these lists up and running and avoiding the ugliness of censorship, which is rampant on the VAF forum. For those who don't follow it closely, Matt's recent thread on the Garmin service subject didn't last a day before it was deleted (can't have one of your advertisers called out in public, can you.....). I sometimes go for much longer than I should without donating to Matt, and incidents like that remind me why I should donate every year. Charlie On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Stein Bruch wrote: > > > > This doesn't sound right. Sounds to me like someone just didn't want to > deal > with you (and it likely wasn't Garmin in this case). I don't know what or > how you handled yourself, but sometimes you'll get more with honey than > with > vinegar - or perhaps the person you spoke with perhaps was slightly > mis-informed. > > To be blunt, the lenses should be readily available (at least they were > last > time we got some). I'm sorry they aren't a $4 piece of plexi (there is some > fancy schmancy coatings on them and such), but the GTX lens is around $26 > and I think the SL lens around $65. > > My recommendation would be to calm down a bit, sit back and take a breath > before indicting Garmin in their entirety based on a conversation with one > person. > > Not defending anyone or indicting or flaming anyone, but your experience > just sounds like we don't have the "whole story".....might I humbly suggest > that before blasting this to every list you manage that you perhaps speak > to > someone else first (or maybe even Garmin directly)? > > Cheers, > Stein > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt > Dralle > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:13 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Reconsider Garmin Purchases > > --> > > In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens > of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll > just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King > KX-125 on the RV-6. > > I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told > the > following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only > option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the > MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 > pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. > > I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business > with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. > > - > Matt Dralle > > RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" > http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log > http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log > http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel > Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > > RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" > http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log > Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > > Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! > Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore > Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! > For entertainment purposes only. http://klvk.matronics.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: iPad in the Cockpit
Date: Jun 18, 2015
6/18/2015 Hello Marvin Haught, You wrote: .... I am going with an iPad with ForeFlight set into a panel mount...... On a normally warm yesterday my iPad mini 2 with WingX Pro 7, held in cockpit space by a Ram mount, gave up and said words to the effect: "I am suffering from heat exhaustion and will have to rest for a while." Maybe one should rethink making a panel mounted iPad a critical piece of flight instrumentation. OC 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and understand information." ========================================================== --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "H. Marvin Haught Jr. " <_handainc(at)madisoncounty.net_ (mailto:handainc(at)madisoncounty.net) > Good analysis - this is exactly why I am going with an iPad with ForeFlight set into a panel mount, and likely staying with steam gauges, as my instrument flying days are over. When I get to my "keeper" project, I might chuck the steam gauges if there are programs affordable programs available using an iPad as base for EFIS , but for now, steam gauges and ForeFlight on a panel mount iPad. M. Haught ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 18, 2015
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
Subject: Re: iPad in the Cockpit
On 06/18/2015 08:57 AM, Owen Baker wrote: > > On a normally warm yesterday my iPad mini 2 with WingX Pro 7, held in > cockpit space by a Ram mount, gave up and said words to the effect: "I > am suffering from heat exhaustion and will have to rest for a while." > > Maybe one should rethink making a panel mounted iPad a critical piece of > flight instrumentation. On the flip side of that, I have an iPad 2 running WingX mounted on the panel of my Glastar using a RAM mount, and have had no issues in using it, going on 4 years now. Likely my high wing helps to block some of the sun from hitting the iPad directly. It would also be easy enough to add a cooling fan much like we do with other panel mounted avionics. For a VFR aircraft, do you really need more than an airspeed indicator to make a safe landing? I would not consider the iPad a critical piece of flight instrumentation even if it were the only thing on the panel other than an airspeed indicator and maybe an RPM gauge. My half cents, fwiw, -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87 Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 18, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: What to put on the E-Bus?
> On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Ross Home wrote: > > > I have been discussing this issue with some other builders off list and > decided to ask this esteem group. What do I put on my E-Bus? BN: what ever you NEED for comfortable continuation of flight to your intended destination . . . Maybe your battery is strong and can power more stuff for a longer time but what if it wasn't fully charged? For me, I only put the things on the E-bus that I must have to land. I don't need a transponder, engine monitor, strobes, landing lights, or flap motor. I would not want to risk turning on a landing light close in and have the e-bus items go black. -Kent BN: Various comments to this thread suggest that a review of the e-bus history might be useful. I remember when the seeds of an idea for an 'endurance' bus germinated. . I was in a telephone conversation with a LongEz builder one evening about 1990. His anticipated use of the airplane was long distance travel over mountainous country. He lived in California and wanted to take trips back east. We were discussing flight system reliability, not just about his battery or alternator but the whole airplane. It was a comparative study designed to discover the weakest links (shortest endurance) in the system. The worst case scenario was deduced to be at altitude, a long way from concrete and maintenance-friendly facilities. The design goal was to put the sharp pencil to electrical demands for continued flight, battery only, to either intended destination or departure airport. A design goal for supporting en route demands for no less than 1/2 the fuel endurance . . . longer would be even better. This was a time when the solid state transceivers and transponders were making good market penetration. We deduced that a 200W transponder consumed 20 watts average power if heavily interrogated, probably 10W or less over sparsely populated terrain. A comm transceiver in the receive mode was about 4w. Panel lighting could be whittled down to less than a watt. His turn coordinator demand was 6 watts. We deduced that after the low voltage warning light came on, the limited battery energy should be rationed out according to a carefully crafted and maintained, PLAN-B. Engine endurance was limited to 4 hours by virtue of fuel aboard. We reasoned that COMFORTABLE battery-only endurance should not be less than 1/2 that value . . . and preferably more. Meeting this design goal depends heavily on two bits of knowledge. (1) Capacity of the battery in watt-seconds and (2) knowing the watt-seconds required to support en-route loads for the target endurance goals. Gee . . . nobody told anyone about that kind of stuff in flight school . . . The flight instructor syllabus was tailored to make us operators of airplanes, not system designers. Yeah, we knew about batteries from our experience with automobiles. But to consider the battery as a resource of energy with limited capabilities was not nearly so refined as our attitudes toward the OTHER energy source . . . tanks of fuel. The e-bus was birthed from the knowledge that (1) it didn't take much energy to keep useful electro-whizzies alive and (2) enerby demands of a battery contactor were significant compared energy required to run a radio or light up the panel. So, the e-bus diode and alternate feed-path directly to the battery offered a way to PARTITION off the most useful devices such that low volts warning prompts reconfiguration of electrical loads by operation of two switches. The design goal being to KNOW how long the e-bus would stay up battery only . . . with enough energy left to run some lights and things during approach to landing. A typical e-bus load then was 2-3 amps tops. 25 years later, electrically dependent airplanes are growing in number. But the task of KNOWING what energy is needed to design and operated a failure-tolerant system hasn't changed. Depending on intended use of the airplane, goals for reducing risk by design and well conducted maintenance (the FAA calls is requirements for continued airworthiness), one still needs to add up the energy requirements, multiply by minutes of operation and then take steps to assure availability of thatn energy from some combination of engine driven power sources and batteries. Batteries evaluated as accurately as peering down the open filler cap on a fuel tank. I will confess to the fact that early drawings for this Plan-B bus called it the 'emergency' bus. But as the concept evolved and new ideas were incorporated, it became obvious that the primary goal for the e-bus was to prevent an emergency situation from evolving . . . hence the renaming to 'endurance' bus: a calculated, planned and maintained Plan-B for failure-tolerant, comfortable continuation of flight with predictable performance. I hope this helps our brothers understand why I get exercised when questions arise like, "How to I wire to support a 20-amp e-bus?". The better question is, "Given the configuration of my airplane and it's intended use, which electro-whizzies should be feed from the E and battery busses . . . and how to craft and maintain XX minutes of endurance after loss of the primary alternator?" I understand why some questioners feel invaded or perhaps slighted when prospective counselors look past a question about wire gages and switch ratings to inquire into the life-story of the planned electrical system. Please understand that to offer such advice is like responding to: "How do I keep this soup tasting good . . . more basil or less sea-salt?". The useful answer to the question can only be offered by knowing what kind of soup you're cooking, what ingredients are on hand and in what proportions they are incorporated. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: USB Charger
From: "JCurtis" <jeremy.curtis(at)harkwood.co.uk>
Date: Jun 18, 2015
Hi, I am the designer and maker of the Charge2 and Charge4 USB chargers mentioned in this tread. A customer let me know about the forum and suggested I register, so I have. If anyone has questions over the units, please get in touch, I will answer the best I can. -------- Designer and maker of Charge2 & Charge4 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443757#443757 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: USB Charger
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 18, 2015
So.you are in the UK? I M. Haught > On Jun 18, 2015, at 11:56 AM, JCurtis wrote: > > > Hi, > > I am the designer and maker of the Charge2 and Charge4 USB chargers mentioned in this tread. A customer let me know about the forum and suggested I register, so I have. > > If anyone has questions over the units, please get in touch, I will answer the best I can. > > -------- > Designer and maker of Charge2 & Charge4 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443757#443757 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: USB Charger
From: "JCurtis" <jeremy.curtis(at)harkwood.co.uk>
Date: Jun 18, 2015
handainc(at)madisoncounty wrote: > So.you are in the UK? I > > M. Haught Yes, based in Cambridge, UK. -------- Designer and maker of Charge2 & Charge4 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443759#443759 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 18, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: D-Sub connector grease
At 01:18 PM 6/16/2015, you wrote: >HOWEVER looking further, I found that there are both conductive and >dielectric compounds. I would suggest against the conductive type in >the sub-ds because of the possibility of shorting out closely spaced >contacts. The molex ones, however-- perhaps not. I am sticking with >the non-conductive dielectric type, however for safety. > >Rich (again) > >In a message dated 6/16/2015 12:55:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, >keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes: >Is there a recommended grease or other compound to use on D-Sub >connectors to offer some protection from moisture? The D-sub series of connectors, while available with the best of mil-qualified pins, is not classified as an 'environmental' connector. This means that while the pins may be golden, the housing is not rated for the usual nasties . . . oil, water, grease, hydraulic fluid, etc. There are versions of the d-sub connector qualified for space-travel but in a relatively contaminant free application. In aviation, this means a space shared with humans. There is a family of magic elixers and uckum-yuckies intended to shield various devices from the ravages of unfriendly contaminants. But the guaranteed process is to avoid installations at risk for such contaminants. Any silicone grease (DC-4, silicone ignition harness treatments, etc) can be brushed onto male pins to forestall the effects of moisture laden contaminants but I've never had occasion to use them in 50+ years. I do use DC-4 stuffed into coax connectors exposed to the weather . . . but that's about it. I can tell you that numerous hopeful suppliers have proweld the halls of engineering at Beech, Cessna and Learjet to extol the virtues of their particular elixer . . . and to my knowledge, not one has ever made it into our catalog of useful and approved processes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 18, 2015
Subject: Re: D-Sub connector grease
Thanks. I guess I will just use a little dielectric grease as a "just in case." On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 01:18 PM 6/16/2015, you wrote: > > HOWEVER looking further, I found that there are both conductive and > dielectric compounds. I would suggest against the conductive type in the > sub-ds because of the possibility of shorting out closely spaced contacts. > The molex ones, however-- perhaps not. I am sticking with the > non-conductive dielectric type, however for safety. > > Rich (again) > > In a message dated 6/16/2015 12:55:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes: > Is there a recommended grease or other compound to use on D-Sub > connectors to offer some protection from moisture? > > > The D-sub series of connectors, while available with the > best of mil-qualified pins, is not classified as an > 'environmental' connector. This means that while the > pins may be golden, the housing is not rated for the > usual nasties . . . oil, water, grease, hydraulic > fluid, etc. > > There are versions of the d-sub connector qualified > for space-travel but in a relatively contaminant free > application. In aviation, this means a space shared with > humans. > > There is a family of magic elixers and uckum-yuckies > intended to shield various devices from the ravages > of unfriendly contaminants. But the guaranteed process > is to avoid installations at risk for such contaminants. > > Any silicone grease (DC-4, silicone ignition harness > treatments, etc) can be brushed onto male pins to forestall > the effects of moisture laden contaminants but I've never > had occasion to use them in 50+ years. I do use DC-4 stuffed > into coax connectors exposed to the weather . . . but that's > about it. > > I can tell you that numerous hopeful suppliers have proweld > the halls of engineering at Beech, Cessna and Learjet to > extol the virtues of their particular elixer . . . and > to my knowledge, not one has ever made it into our > catalog of useful and approved processes. > > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: How to check alternator rating?
From: "haribole" <rdu.hari(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 18, 2015
I have an Eggenfellner H6 package that came with the alternator. It seems they were shipped with both 40A and 60A alternators. Would anyone know of a simple way to check the rating on mine? Thanks Hari Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443766#443766 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 18, 2015
Subject: Re: How to check alternator rating?
From: DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com>
Hari, Our alternator on our 3.6L we were curious about too. It had no markings on it (thanks, Jan!). So Brutus took it to an automotive alternator repair shop and they identified it both as to manufacturer, model and output. We wanted to now in case it failed and we have to replace it. Dee DeWitt (Dee) Whittington Richmond, VA 804-677-4849 iPhone 804-358-4333 Home On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:57 PM, haribole wrote: > > I have an Eggenfellner H6 package that came with the alternator. It seems > they were shipped with both 40A and 60A alternators. Would anyone know of a > simple way to check the rating on mine? > > Thanks > Hari > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443766#443766 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Housman <europaa070(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases
Date: Jun 18, 2015
First I must point out that I do not have any of the Garmin avionics that you are trying to repair, so my comments might not apply. Having spent several years working for a manufacturer of polycarbonate spectacle lenses I am familiar with the coatings applied to lenses. In the case of polycarbonate, a rather soft plastic, there is an anti-scratch coating to protect the softer poly. In order to minimize reflections there is a vacuum deposited multi-layer thin film coating generally referred to as an AR (anti-reflective) coating. This coating is very easily removed. Anyone who has ever tried to remove scratches from a CD or DVD knows how hard the anti-scratch coating is and how difficult it is to remove scratches. Acrylic plastic, used for aircraft windscreens and windows, is much more scratch resistant than poly and would not have an AR or anti-scratch coating. Best regards, Rob Housman Irvine, CA Europa XS A070 Airframe complete Working on aviaonics -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 6:38 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Reconsider Garmin Purchases --> I kind of doubt it. I use the term "scratch" loosely. It looks more like the surface coating is flaking off. About 1/4 to 1/3 of the lens is discolored in a flaking pattern. So, really, while I accepted responsibility for the "scratch", I really think that it is a manufacturing defect. Very frustrating, considering the radio is essentially new but I bought it 5 years ago. Garmin is now claiming that part isn't even available internally or externally for sale except for new manufacture. In other words, it couldn't be replaced even it the unit were returned for repair. But, again, the story seems to change by the hour... Matt At 06:30 PM 6/17/2015 Wednesday, you wrote: >Matt, is it possible to buff out the scratches? Lots of car head lamp covers and aircraft covers can be restored. > >Rick >#40956 >Southampton, Ont > >On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> wrote: >--> <dralle(at)matronics.com> > >Before making my original post, I had contacted two different Avionics shops and received the exact same story, so I didn't base my findings on a single vendor. I have subsequently contacted Garmin directly and was told that the parts are in fact orderable by dealers. But, when those same avionics dealers call the Garmin parts department they are told they are not allowed to order those parts. So, something is definitely not quite lining up here. I guess I apologize to the community for venting my frustration with this process, but this really shouldn't be this difficult. I will follow up with more information on this debacle as it hopefully progresses. > >Btw, the lens part number for the SL-30 is 308-3201-42 and the lens for the GTX-327 is 470-00034-00. > >Matt > > >At 11:12 AM 6/17/2015 Wednesday, Matt Dralle wrote: >>In the rebuild of my RV-8 recently, I managed to get a scratch in the lens of both the Garmin SL-30 and the Garmin GTX-327. No biggie, I thought, I'll just order up a replacement and stick them in, much like I did on the King KX-125 on the RV-6. >> >>I called up Pacific Coast Avionics today to order the parts and was told the following: Garmin will not sell the lens. Yup, you hear that right. My only option is to return both units to Garmin for a "factory repair" and the MINIMUM charge will be $535 for EACH unit! That is $1070 to replace two $4 pieces of plastic! That is simply outrageous! Frankly, criminal behavior. >> >>I will NOT be buying ANY future Garmin products. I refuse to do business with a company that treats their customers this way. Unacceptable. >> >>- >>Matt Dralle >> > >- >Matt Dralle > >RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" ><http://www.mattsrv8.com>http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 >Construction Log ><http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap>http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - >Landing Mishap Rebuild Log ><http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8>http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - >Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel >Status: 182+ Hours TTSN - Version 2.0 Now Flying! > >RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" ><http://www.mattsrv6.com>http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 >Revitalization Log >Status: 300+ Hours - Full Flyer Mode! > >Matt's Livermore Airport Live ATC Stream! >Check out the live ATC stream directly from my hangar at the Livermore >Airport. Includes both Tower and Ground transmissions. Archives too! >For entertainment purposes only. ><http://klvk.matronics.com>http://klvk.matronics.com > > >========== >- >Electric-List" target="_blank" >rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >========== >FORUMS - >_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com >========== >b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >========== > > Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 19, 2015
Subject: Re: iPad in the Cockpit
Good Morning M. Haught, Very well put. Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 19, 2015
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: iPad in the Cockpit
The iPad 2 is generating much less heat then the mini iPad or iPad3. That will influence usability ;) Cheers Werner On 18.06.2015 16:28, Dj Merrill wrote: > > On 06/18/2015 08:57 AM, Owen Baker wrote: >> On a normally warm yesterday my iPad mini 2 with WingX Pro 7, held in >> cockpit space by a Ram mount, gave up and said words to the effect: "I >> am suffering from heat exhaustion and will have to rest for a while." > On the flip side of that, I have an iPad 2 running WingX mounted on the > panel of my Glastar using a RAM mount, and have had no issues in using > it, going on 4 years now. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 19, 2015
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: iPad in the Cockpit
I don't think internal heat generation is the issue; it's heat gain (absorption) due to exposure to sunlight on the black screen. Having said that, losing basic flight instruments on a VFR day in bright sunlight shouldn't be too much of a problem. Losing nav info might be a bit bigger deal if on a cross country, but should be recoverable by just moving the device out of the sun until it cools down. Besides, a backup nav device is as simple as a smart phone. Charlie On 6/19/2015 9:26 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > The iPad 2 is generating much less heat then the mini iPad or iPad3. > > That will influence usability ;) > > Cheers Werner > > On 18.06.2015 16:28, Dj Merrill wrote: >> >> On 06/18/2015 08:57 AM, Owen Baker wrote: >>> On a normally warm yesterday my iPad mini 2 with WingX Pro 7, held in >>> cockpit space by a Ram mount, gave up and said words to the effect: "I >>> am suffering from heat exhaustion and will have to rest for a while." >> On the flip side of that, I have an iPad 2 running WingX mounted on the >> panel of my Glastar using a RAM mount, and have had no issues in using >> it, going on 4 years now. >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad in the Cockpit
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 19, 2015
I could not be more pleased with my iPad 2, for general use or in the cockpit. Bought it used from a guy trading up when the iP3 came out, and it has been flawless. Good battery life, everything works well and will hook up with my piece of crap iMac, and interfaces on various apps with my iPhone perfectly. It will be a sad day when I have to trade up because I suspect that anything that replaces it will not be nearly as good as it has been. My iPhone had its trepidations, and had to be replaced twice when new because the battery would not hold a charge and got really hot, but the last one has been good. So I read reviews about the newer iterations in anticipation of having to replace either of them and hope I can put off the change as long as possible. Still, I think the cooling issues can be mitigated. Like any other piece of equipment, you just have to deal with the particular operating characteristics of each to maximize the usability. Due to my old eyes I favor the larger of the display screens available, which can create space and layout issues. M. Haught > On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > The iPad 2 is generating much less heat then the mini iPad or iPad3. > > That will influence usability ;) > > Cheers Werner > > On 18.06.2015 16:28, Dj Merrill wrote: >> >> On 06/18/2015 08:57 AM, Owen Baker wrote: >>> On a normally warm yesterday my iPad mini 2 with WingX Pro 7, held in >>> cockpit space by a Ram mount, gave up and said words to the effect: "I >>> am suffering from heat exhaustion and will have to rest for a while." >> On the flip side of that, I have an iPad 2 running WingX mounted on the >> panel of my Glastar using a RAM mount, and have had no issues in using >> it, going on 4 years now. >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad in the Cockpit
From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Date: Jun 19, 2015
Here's how I use my iPad: oh yes: that's my four year old grandson co-pilot John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 19 Jun 2015, at 04:49 pm, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: > soncounty.net> > > I could not be more pleased with my iPad 2, for general use or in the cock pit. Bought it used from a guy trading up when the iP3 came out, and it has been flawless. Good battery life, everything works well and will hook up w ith my piece of crap iMac, and interfaces on various apps with my iPhone per fectly. It will be a sad day when I have to =9Ctrade up=9D becau se I suspect that anything that replaces it will not be nearly as good as it has been. My iPhone had it=99s trepidations, and had to be replaced t wice when new because the battery would not hold a charge and got really hot , but the last one has been good. So I read reviews about the newer iterati ons in anticipation of having to replace either of them and hope I can put o ff the change as long as possible. Still, I think the cooling issues can be mitigated. Like any other piece of equipment, you just have to deal with t he particular operating characteristics of each to maximize the usability. D ue to my =9Cold eye! > s=9D I favor the larger of the display screens available, which can c reate space and layout issues. > > M. Haught > > >> On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: >> t> >> >> The iPad 2 is generating much less heat then the mini iPad or iPad3. >> >> That will influence usability ;) >> >> Cheers Werner >> >>> On 18.06.2015 16:28, Dj Merrill wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/18/2015 08:57 AM, Owen Baker wrote: >>>> On a normally warm yesterday my iPad mini 2 with WingX Pro 7, held in >>>> cockpit space by a Ram mount, gave up and said words to the effect: "I >>>> am suffering from heat exhaustion and will have to rest for a while." >>> On the flip side of that, I have an iPad 2 running WingX mounted on the >>> panel of my Glastar using a RAM mount, and have had no issues in using >>> it, going on 4 years now. > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > > >

________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: iPad in the Cockpit
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 19, 2015
Great photo! Thats the way to get them started! Marv > On Jun 19, 2015, at 1:16 PM, John Tipton wrote: > > > > Here's how I use my iPad: oh yes: that's my four year old grandson co-pilot > > John > Sent from my iPad > > ----x--O--x---- > >> On 19 Jun 2015, at 04:49 pm, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: >> >> >> I could not be more pleased with my iPad 2, for general use or in the cockpit. Bought it used from a guy trading up when the iP3 came out, and it has been flawless. Good battery life, everything works well and will hook up with my piece of crap iMac, and interfaces on various apps with my iPhone perfectly. It will be a sad day when I have to trade up because I suspect that anything that replaces it will not be nearly as good as it has been. My iPhone had its trepidations, and had to be replaced twice when new because the battery would not hold a charge and got really hot, but the last one has been good. So I read reviews about the newer iterations in anticipation of having to replace either of them and hope I can put off the change as long as possible. Still, I think the cooling issues can be mitigated. Like any other piece of equipment, you just have to deal with the particular operating characteristics of each to maximize the usability. Due to my old eye! >> s I favor the larger of the display screens available, which can create space and layout issues. >> >> M. Haught >> >> >>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: >>> >>> >>> The iPad 2 is generating much less heat then the mini iPad or iPad3. >>> >>> That will influence usability ;) >>> >>> Cheers Werner >>> >>>> On 18.06.2015 16:28, Dj Merrill wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 06/18/2015 08:57 AM, Owen Baker wrote: >>>>> On a normally warm yesterday my iPad mini 2 with WingX Pro 7, held in >>>>> cockpit space by a Ram mount, gave up and said words to the effect: "I >>>>> am suffering from heat exhaustion and will have to rest for a while." >>>> On the flip side of that, I have an iPad 2 running WingX mounted on the >>>> panel of my Glastar using a RAM mount, and have had no issues in using >>>> it, going on 4 years now. >> >> >> >> > =================================== > =================================== > =================================== > =================================== >> >> >> > >
> > >
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: iPad in the Cockpit
Date: Jun 19, 2015
If you like the 2 you'll really like the air/air2 also some day. Tim > On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:49 AM, H. Marvin Haught wrote: > > > I could not be more pleased with my iPad 2, for general use or in the cockpit. Bought it used from a guy trading up when the iP3 came out, and it has been flawless. Good battery life, everything works well and will hook up with my piece of crap iMac, and interfaces on various apps with my iPhone perfectly. It will be a sad day when I have to trade up because I suspect that anything that replaces it will not be nearly as good as it has been. My iPhone had its trepidations, and had to be replaced twice when new because the battery would not hold a charge and got really hot, but the last one has been good. So I read reviews about the newer iterations in anticipation of having to replace either of them and hope I can put off the change as long as possible. Still, I think the cooling issues can be mitigated. Like any other piece of equipment, you just have to deal with the particular operating characteristics of each to maximize the usability. Due to my old eye! > s I favor the larger of the display screens available, which can create space and layout issues. > > M. Haught > > >> On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: >> >> >> The iPad 2 is generating much less heat then the mini iPad or iPad3. >> >> That will influence usability ;) >> >> Cheers Werner >> >>> On 18.06.2015 16:28, Dj Merrill wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/18/2015 08:57 AM, Owen Baker wrote: >>>> On a normally warm yesterday my iPad mini 2 with WingX Pro 7, held in >>>> cockpit space by a Ram mount, gave up and said words to the effect: "I >>>> am suffering from heat exhaustion and will have to rest for a while." >>> On the flip side of that, I have an iPad 2 running WingX mounted on the >>> panel of my Glastar using a RAM mount, and have had no issues in using >>> it, going on 4 years now. > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Stuart Hutchison <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
Subject: Re: iPad in the Cockpit
Date: Jun 19, 2015
Like anything electronic, the iPad generates its own heat and requires cooling airflow. Vertical mount lends itself to effective cooling as the heat rises away from the device, but carrying it on your lap or in a knee mount in direct sunlight in thin air makes cooling even harder. I=99ve seen a horizontally mounted iPad overheat and shut down in under 20 min in a Lancair IV at 18000. Food for thought. If you can, point the punkah louver at it. Cheers, Stu > On 19 Jun 2015, at 22:42, H. Marvin Haught wrote: > > > > Great photo! That=99s the way to get them started! > > Marv >> On Jun 19, 2015, at 1:16 PM, John Tipton > wrote: >> >> >> >> Here's how I use my iPad: oh yes: that's my four year old grandson co-pilot >> >> John >> Sent from my iPad >> >> ----x--O--x---- >> >>> On 19 Jun 2015, at 04:49 pm, "H. Marvin Haught" wrote: >>> >>> >>> I could not be more pleased with my iPad 2, for general use or in the cockpit. Bought it used from a guy trading up when the iP3 came out, and it has been flawless. Good battery life, everything works well and will hook up with my piece of crap iMac, and interfaces on various apps with my iPhone perfectly. It will be a sad day when I have to =9Ctrade up=9D because I suspect that anything that replaces it will not be nearly as good as it has been. My iPhone had it=99s trepidations, and had to be replaced twice when new because the battery would not hold a charge and got really hot, but the last one has been good. So I read reviews about the newer iterations in anticipation of having to replace either of them and hope I can put off the change as long as possible. Still, I think the cooling issues can be mitigated. Like any other piece of equipment, you just have to deal with the particular operating characteristics of each to maximize the usability. Due to my =9Cold ! > eye! >>> s=9D I favor the larger of the display screens available, which can create space and layout issues. >>> >>> M. Haught >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The iPad 2 is generating much less heat then the mini iPad or iPad3. >>>> >>>> That will influence usability ;) >>>> >>>> Cheers Werner >>>> >>>>> On 18.06.2015 16:28, Dj Merrill wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 06/18/2015 08:57 AM, Owen Baker wrote: >>>>>> On a normally warm yesterday my iPad mini 2 with WingX Pro 7, held in >>>>>> cockpit space by a Ram mount, gave up and said words to the effect: "I >>>>>> am suffering from heat exhaustion and will have to rest for a while." >>>>> On the flip side of that, I have an iPad 2 running WingX mounted on the >>>>> panel of my Glastar using a RAM mount, and have had no issues in using >>>>> it, going on 4 years now. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ======================== =========== >> ======================== =========== >> ======================== =========== >> ======================== =========== >>> >>> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>
> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 19, 2015
Subject: basic questions on terminal strips
I have two beacons, each beacon has a positive, negative and synchronization wire. I need to connect the wires from each beacon and then send them forward. I have chosen to accomplish this with a terminal strip. I have noticed that the terminal strips do use star washers. Should I use a star washer atop my ring terminals? Or maybe I should use thread locker on the terminal strip screw? Also, is it okay to stack two ring terminals on one side of the terminal strip (as shown in the attached photo)? Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 19, 2015
Unless the wires will be taken apart frequently or need to be exposed for testing, I prefer to make a permanent splice. Terminal strips could be a trouble spot due to loose screws or corrosion. If a terminal strip is used, an internal tooth star washer between the ring terminals and screw head is a good idea. Temporary thread locker could also be used. When I install two ring terminals under one screw, I orientate them back to back so that a ring terminal does not have to be bent. A thin film of grease will help prevent corrosion. Grease does not hinder conduction because the screw pressure forces the grease out. Thus there is still metal to metal contact. Wires should be supported close to the ring terminals to prevent any relative motion due to vibration. Your installation looks neat with the cushion clamps. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443827#443827 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 19, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
At 02:20 PM 6/19/2015, you wrote: I have two beacons, each beacon has a positive, negative and synchronization wire. I need to connect the wires from each beacon and then send them forward. I have chosen to accomplish this with a terminal strip. I have noticed that the terminal strips do use star washers. Should I use a star washer atop my ring terminals? Or maybe I should use thread locker on the terminal strip screw? Also, is it okay to stack two ring terminals on one side of the terminal strip (as shown in the attached photo)? Thanks. As a general rule, new designs will minimize the use of threaded fasteners . . . particularly screws into soft threads (Yeah, circuit breakers do that . . . you just gotta live with some things!). Those barrier strips are brass screws into brass nuts formed out of the two-barrel, hollow rivet that makes up the conductor between screws. The preferred terminal strip is illustrated below. CAPTIVE studs designed to take a stack of terminals and press them together in gas-tight harmony with the universe. Emacs! These things are not cheap. However, you can make your own from a block of phenolic, Delrin or similar structural insulator. Press hex headed studs into undersized, counterbores and pot the back side with epoxy. Crank a nut down on TOP of the block to capture the stud. Now you can stack as many terminals on the studs as you like while maintaining gas-tight integrity between the stack of terminals. A metal locking nut on a quality steel screw will squish things together with a great deal more robustness than those brass screws into internally threaded, brass sleeves. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 19, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
>These things are not cheap. http://tinyurl.com/qd233vg but you can make your own . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 19, 2015
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
Thanks everyone for the ideas regarding terminal strips. I will make my own using the captive stud approach as suggested by Bob. I feel much better about that approach than the terminal strip I had chosen. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 02:20 PM 6/19/2015, you wrote: > I have two beacons, each beacon has a positive, negative and > synchronization wire. I need to connect the wires from each beacon and > then send them forward. I have chosen to accomplish this with a > terminal strip. > > I have noticed that the terminal strips do use star washers. Should I > use a star washer atop my ring terminals? Or maybe I should use thread > locker on the terminal strip screw? > > Also, is it okay to stack two ring terminals on one side of the > terminal strip (as shown in the attached photo)? > > Thanks. > > *As a general rule, new designs will minimize the use **of threaded > fasteners . . . particularly screws into **soft threads (Yeah, circuit > breakers do that . . . you **just gotta live with some things!). Those > barrier **strips are brass screws into brass nuts formed out of the **two-barrel, > hollow rivet that makes up the conductor * > *between screws. **The preferred terminal strip is illustrated below. > CAPTIVE **studs designed to take a stack of terminals and press * > > > *them together in gas-tight harmony with the universe. * [image: Emacs!] > > > *These things are not cheap. However, you can make **your own from a > block of phenolic, Delrin or similar **structural insulator. Press hex > headed studs into **undersized, counterbores and pot the back side with **epoxy. > Crank a nut down on TOP of the block to capture * > *the stud. **Now you can stack as many terminals on the studs **as you > like while maintaining gas-tight integrity **between the stack of > terminals. A metal locking nut **on a quality steel screw will squish > things together **with a great deal more robustness than those brass **screws > into internally threaded, brass sleeves.* > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 20, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
At 12:01 AM 6/20/2015, you wrote: >Thanks everyone for the ideas regarding terminal strips. I will make >my own using the captive stud approach as suggested by Bob. I feel >much better about that approach than the terminal strip I had chosen. A hex headed screw is easy to 'captivate' in your base material. I.e. pressing a screw like this Emacs! to bottom out in a 1/4" counterbore will force the hex-points into a good grip on the base. Experiment a bit . . . I might have used a 9/32" bore . . . it's been awhile. You don't want to break the base with "too much grip." McMaster-Carr can offer you grade-8, hex screws but you need to buy a pkg of 25. Any good hardware store's specialty screws bins may offer smaller lots of similar screws. Use a washer and nut on the top side and some epoxy fill underneath to finish installing the stud. I have a chunk of Delrin about 0.35 x 0.77 x 8 inches that I'll donate to the cause if you'll photograph your process and finished product to share with the List. If finding the 'golden' hardware is problematic, I can pick it up on my next trip to ICT. Shoot me a mailing address. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 20, 2015
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
Thanks Bob. I think I have what I need in the shop to do it about three different ways, and if not it should be easy to find right here in Anchorage. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 12:01 AM 6/20/2015, you wrote: > > Thanks everyone for the ideas regarding terminal strips. I will make my > own using the captive stud approach as suggested by Bob. I feel much better > about that approach than the terminal strip I had chosen. > > > A hex headed screw is easy to 'captivate' in your > base material. I.e. pressing a screw like this > > [image: Emacs!] > > to bottom out in a 1/4" counterbore will force the > hex-points into a good grip on the base. Experiment > a bit . . . I might have used a 9/32" bore . . . it's > been awhile. You don't want to break the base with > "too much grip." > > McMaster-Carr can offer you grade-8, hex screws > but you need to buy a pkg of 25. Any good hardware store's > specialty screws bins may offer smaller lots of similar > screws. Use a washer and nut on the top side and > some epoxy fill underneath to finish installing > the stud. > > I have a chunk of Delrin about 0.35 x 0.77 x 8 inches > that I'll donate to the cause if you'll photograph your > process and finished product to share with the List. > > If finding the 'golden' hardware is problematic, > I can pick it up on my next trip to ICT. Shoot > me a mailing address. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 20, 2015
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
UHMW + standard AN3 hardware seems to have worked pretty well. Pics attached. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Ken Ryan wrote: > Thanks Bob. I think I have what I need in the shop to do it about three > different ways, and if not it should be easy to find right here in > Anchorage. > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > >> At 12:01 AM 6/20/2015, you wrote: >> >> Thanks everyone for the ideas regarding terminal strips. I will make my >> own using the captive stud approach as suggested by Bob. I feel much better >> about that approach than the terminal strip I had chosen. >> >> >> A hex headed screw is easy to 'captivate' in your >> base material. I.e. pressing a screw like this >> >> [image: Emacs!] >> >> to bottom out in a 1/4" counterbore will force the >> hex-points into a good grip on the base. Experiment >> a bit . . . I might have used a 9/32" bore . . . it's >> been awhile. You don't want to break the base with >> "too much grip." >> >> McMaster-Carr can offer you grade-8, hex screws >> but you need to buy a pkg of 25. Any good hardware store's >> specialty screws bins may offer smaller lots of similar >> screws. Use a washer and nut on the top side and >> some epoxy fill underneath to finish installing >> the stud. >> >> I have a chunk of Delrin about 0.35 x 0.77 x 8 inches >> that I'll donate to the cause if you'll photograph your >> process and finished product to share with the List. >> >> If finding the 'golden' hardware is problematic, >> I can pick it up on my next trip to ICT. Shoot >> me a mailing address. >> >> Bob . . . >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 20, 2015
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net>
Subject: basic questions on terminal strips
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Does anyone know what happens here? I too often get emails from a friend like this where there is nothing in the body of the email. Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 7:29 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: basic questions on terminal strips ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
At 12:20 PM 6/20/2015, you wrote: >Thanks Bob. I think I have what I need in the shop to do it about >three different ways, and if not it should be easy to find right >here in Anchorage. Take pictures . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
At 02:32 PM 6/20/2015, you wrote: >UHMW + standard AN3 hardware seems to have worked pretty well. Pics attached. Thanks! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
Pic showing temp/partial installation: On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 12:20 PM 6/20/2015, you wrote: > > Thanks Bob. I think I have what I need in the shop to do it about three > different ways, and if not it should be easy to find right here in > Anchorage. > > > Take pictures . . . > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
Me too! However, you can "view source" and see the message. john On 6/21/2015 7:26 AM, Bill Bradburry wrote: > > Does anyone know what happens here? I too often get emails from a friend > like this where there is nothing in the body of the email. > > Bill > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie > England > Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 7:29 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: basic questions on terminal strips > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
At 11:00 AM 6/21/2015, you wrote: >Pic showing temp/partial installation: You done good my friend . . . just remember that as you add wires to any post, there should be no intervening hardware between terminals . . . i.e. the terminal strip hardware is there to separate, support and put the super-mash on the stack of terminals . . . no hardware should be tasked with carrying electrons. In your particular case, the currents are low; failure to observe that process goal is not fraught with risk. I'll use your photos to do a comic-book for aeroelectric.com wherein we'll mention the time-honored recipes for success to manage wires from 22AWG through 000. Thanks for sharing. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "mmoyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Progress as of yesterday. Remaining before installing the panel are the jacks for the PM3000, 2ea 1 amp shunt breakers, connecting the power supply to the Trig radio and PM3000 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443859#443859 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_438.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_347.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "mmoyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Battery mount. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443860#443860 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_873.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_825.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_807.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_548.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 11:57 AM 6/21/2015, you wrote: > >Progress as of yesterday. Remaining before installing the panel are >the jacks for the PM3000, 2ea 1 amp shunt breakers, connecting the >power supply to the Trig radio and PM3000 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443859#443859 > > >Attachments: > >http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_438.jpg >http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_347.jpg Hmmmm . . . looks like your project has already passed many opportunities for considered decisions. When you published your diagram, I mistakenly assumed you were in the planning stages . . . Getting back to your original diagram, what questions are as yet unresolved? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 12:05 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: > >Battery mount. > What are the functions of the two contactors? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "mmoyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Bob, I was at the wiring the panel planning stage four days ago. Still pondering the mag ground at the ignition switch for the P-leads. The schematic shows grounding it to the airframe. The shortwing guys are talking about grounding per schematic, others not. I'm extending a few of the head set jack. The PM300 calls for shielded wires. Do I need to add shielding at the splice? Something like metal foil then shrink tube? The two solenoids are Lamar. One continuous duty. Is closed at the panel's master switch by completing the ground. The other is intermittent duty and is for the starter. Mark Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443867#443867 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Bob - Mark=99s system is well beyond =9Copportunities for consideration=9D but I am following his path on my PA22-20 project, so want to learn from what Mark has done, and get your input on designing a system for my project. Hence, I asked him to post what he has done. =46rom his postings, and the responses from you and the group, I hope to learn what to do differently, as well as what to copy. For example: I have the same contactors for my project, (one for starter that is not continuous, and one form Battery that IS continuous)) coupled with a Bendix ignition switch with a =9CStart =9D position to do away with the box / push button system that was originally under the pilot=99s seat. Mark used a Master Switch for his system - I understand that you do not recommend a Master Switch because it is a single point of failure for the electrical system. In that case, how would the system be configured to do away with a Master Switch? Would the entire electrical system be activated from the ignition switch going to a L/R or Both Mag position? I am hoping this will generate a very productive discussion that results in an electrical system design that I can get =9Capproved=9D for my project with a minimum of problems with the FAA, and yet, have an up to date system with modern components. M. Haught > On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 11:57 AM 6/21/2015, you wrote: >> >> Progress as of yesterday. Remaining before installing the panel are the jacks for the PM3000, 2ea 1 amp shunt breakers, connecting the power supply to the Trig radio and PM3000 >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443859#443859 <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443859#443859> >> >> >> >> >> Attachments: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_438.jpg <http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_438.jpg> >> http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_347.jpg <http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_347.jpg> > > Hmmmm . . . looks like your project has already > passed many opportunities for considered decisions. > When you published your diagram, I mistakenly > assumed you were in the planning stages . . . > > Getting back to your original diagram, what > questions are as yet unresolved? > > > Bob . . . > > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Four days ago, when we started this process, we were hoping for substantial feedback then, and the whole discussion stalled. Mark proceeded forward as best he knew how, as he is trying to move his project forward as efficiently as possible. I am still hoping to glean some dos and donts from his experience. M. Haught > On Jun 21, 2015, at 2:25 PM, mmoyle wrote: > > > Bob, > I was at the wiring the panel planning stage four days ago. Still pondering the mag ground at the ignition switch for the P-leads. The schematic shows grounding it to the airframe. The shortwing guys are talking about grounding per schematic, others not. I'm extending a few of the head set jack. The PM300 calls for shielded wires. Do I need to add shielding at the splice? Something like metal foil then shrink tube? > > The two solenoids are Lamar. One continuous duty. Is closed at the panel's master switch by completing the ground. The other is intermittent duty and is for the starter. > Mark > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443867#443867 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com>
Subject: Re: USB Charger
Wow! The "designer and maker" of the product makes himself available to the list and the subject goes dead. Did I miss something? john On 6/18/2015 9:56 AM, JCurtis wrote: > > Hi, > > I am the designer and maker of the Charge2 and Charge4 USB chargers mentioned in this tread. A customer let me know about the forum and suggested I register, so I have. > > If anyone has questions over the units, please get in touch, I will answer the best I can. > > -------- > Designer and maker of Charge2 & Charge4 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443757#443757 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: USB Charger
From: "JCurtis" <jeremy.curtis(at)harkwood.co.uk>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
JohnInReno wrote: > Wow! The "designer and maker" of the product makes himself available to the list and the subject goes dead. Did I miss something? > > john Well, I do try and put information up on the website, but still happy to answer questions via the forum or via e-mail (address on the website). Jeremy. -------- Designer and maker of Charge2 & Charge4 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443871#443871 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: USB Charger
From: John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
I think it's indicative of this list that there is a lot of fancy talk, people go on about design criteria, a lot of theorising etc etc, then someone comes along with positive advice from a professional - which puts everyone out on a limb because they know nothing John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 21 Jun 2015, at 09:18 pm, John Morgensen wrote: > > > Wow! The "designer and maker" of the product makes himself available to the list and the subject goes dead. Did I miss something? > > john > >> On 6/18/2015 9:56 AM, JCurtis wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am the designer and maker of the Charge2 and Charge4 USB chargers mentioned in this tread. A customer let me know about the forum and suggested I register, so I have. >> >> If anyone has questions over the units, please get in touch, I will answer the best I can. >> >> -------- >> Designer and maker of Charge2 & Charge4 >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443757#443757 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: USB Charger
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Gee Whiz, John! I have a bad day from time to time as well, and it sometimes results in a post I wish I had kept to myself. Don't worry about it. Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Tipton Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:03 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: USB Charger I think it's indicative of this list that there is a lot of fancy talk, people go on about design criteria, a lot of theorising etc etc, then someone comes along with positive advice from a professional - which puts everyone out on a limb because they know nothing John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 21 Jun 2015, at 09:18 pm, John Morgensen wrote: > > > Wow! The "designer and maker" of the product makes himself available to the list and the subject goes dead. Did I miss something? > > john > >> On 6/18/2015 9:56 AM, JCurtis wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am the designer and maker of the Charge2 and Charge4 USB chargers mentioned in this tread. A customer let me know about the forum and suggested I register, so I have. >> >> If anyone has questions over the units, please get in touch, I will answer the best I can. >> >> -------- >> Designer and maker of Charge2 & Charge4 >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443757#443757 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 02:25 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: > >Bob, >I was at the wiring the panel planning stage four days ago. Still >pondering the mag ground at the ignition switch for the >P-leads. The schematic shows grounding it to the airframe. The >shortwing guys are talking about grounding per schematic, others not. As you wish . . . but if your not into flipping a coin, know that grounding p-leads at both ends creates potential ground loops for both cranking currents to flow in the shields. > I'm extending a few of the head set jack. The PM300 calls for > shielded wires. Do I need to add shielding at the splice? > Something like metal foil then shrink tube? > >The two solenoids are Lamar. One continuous duty. Is closed at the >panel's master switch by completing the ground. The other is >intermittent duty and is for the starter. Those particular starter contactors have poor track records. They feature low pressure mating surfaces . . . they're a slightly modified version of the continuous duty contactor . . . we tried them at Cessna in the 60's . . . pain in the arse . . . Starter contactor right next to the battery contactor? Forgive me, I thought we were at the planning stages. The drawing you offered was not a wiring diagram but a rough architecture . . . not unlike the Z-figures in the book. Building a wiring diagram around an architecture drawing takes some time, conversation and thought. The wire book with understanding gleaned from a team of guys who have been there done that goes a long way toward putting grins on your flying-fuzz when they sign off on your rebuild. You were already at the top of the ski jump . . . a bit late to be getting input from the coaches. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
I do not see a nut under the ring terminals. Is there one? Ring terminals need to be squashed between two nuts, not between a nut and plastic because plastic will flow over time, causing the connection to loosen. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443879#443879 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
There's a washer under the terminals. On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 5:10 PM, user9253 wrote: > > I do not see a nut under the ring terminals. Is there one? Ring terminals need to be squashed between two nuts, not between a nut and plastic because plastic will flow over time, causing the connection to loosen. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443879#443879 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
> I understand that you do not recommend a Master Switch because it is a single point of failure for the electrical system. In that case, how would the system be configured to do away with a Master Switch? I have never heard anyone recommend not having a master switch. There needs to be some way to shut off power. Many have recommended not having an avionics switch, which is an unnecessary single point of failure. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443881#443881 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
> I'm extending a few of the head set jack. The PM300 calls for > shielded wires. Do I need to add shielding at the splice? > Something like metal foil then shrink tube? No . . . in fact, shielding of headset and microphone wires is of little if any demonstrable benefit. Shielding breaks certain form of noise propagation that doesn't exist behind modern panels . . . and few legacy panels. You could wire headsets with bare, twisted pair and microphonee with twisted trios (assuming a PTT wire) and save yourself a lot of fuss with shielding. But if you choose to extend already sheiled wires, a simple splice between signal and shield conductors is fine. You don't need to add a shielding 'cocoon'. We often take shielded wires through connectors with separate pins carrying the shield(s) . . . with perhaps as much as 3" of the vulnerable wire running 'unshielded' through the connector . . . not a problem. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Okay.now I understand. Was not comprehending how you could NOT have a Master Switch. So without an avionics, switch, you have to individually switch on or off all electronics once the master switch is turned on. M. Haught > On Jun 21, 2015, at 8:27 PM, user9253 wrote: > > > >> I understand that you do not recommend a Master Switch because it is a single point of failure for the electrical system. In that case, how would the system be configured to do away with a Master Switch? > > I have never heard anyone recommend not having a master switch. There needs to be some way to shut off power. > Many have recommended not having an avionics switch, which is an unnecessary single point of failure. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443881#443881 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
On 6/21/2015 8:00 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > Starter contactor right next to the battery contactor? > > Forgive me, I thought we were at the planning stages. > The drawing you offered was not a wiring diagram but > a rough architecture . . . not unlike the Z-figures > in the book. Building a wiring diagram around an > architecture drawing takes some time, conversation > and thought. The wire book with understanding gleaned > from a team of guys who have been there done that goes > a long way toward putting grins on your flying-fuzz when > they sign off on your rebuild. You were already at the > top of the ski jump . . . a bit late to be getting input > from the coaches. > > Bob . . . > As I said in my follow on post after Mark, I AM trying to do my planning. I am new at this and don't have Mark's experience with other machinery, so I need all the help I can get. I have a set of the same contactors, and was planning on installing them as Mark has. What is the problem with the starter contactor right next to the battery contactor? Other than a vague idea of what I want on the panel, I have not a clue as to how to get to the point of "putting grins on the flying-fuzz when they sign off on my rebuild"? But that is my purpose. So....how do we arrive at the wire book? What do I need to do to bring this process along get the "coaches" engaged? M. Haught > * > > > * --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 02:38 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: >Bob - > >Mark=99s system is well beyond =9Copportunities >for consideration=9D =85=85but I am following his >path th on my PA22-20 project, so want to learn >from what Mark has done, and get your input on >designing a system for my project. Hence, I >asked him to post what he has done. From his >postings, and the responses from you and the >group, I hope to learn what to do differently, as well as what to copy. Okay, the skeleton wire-book I published for Mark is the baseline document for doing the best we know how to do for your project. > > >For example: I have the same contactors for my >project, (one for starter that is not >continuous, and one form Battery that IS >continuous)) coupled with a Bendix ignition >switch with a =9CStart=9D position to do away >with the box / push button system that was originally under the pilot =99s seat. >Mark used a Master Switch for his syster - I >understand that you do not recommend a Master >Switch because it is a single point of failure >for the electrical system. In that case, how >would the system be configured to do away with a >Master Switch? Would the entire electrical >system be activated from the ignition switch >going to a L/R or Both Mag position? I am >hoping this will generate a very productive >discussion that results in an electrical system >design that I can get =9Capproved=9D for my >project with a minimum of problems with the FAA, >and yet, have an up to date system with modern components. Understand. But the 'master switch' discussion was NOT about the DC Power Master switch, clearly shown in the baseline wirebook. What you don't find is an avionics master switch . . . which was birthed from poor understanding of the physics. All those NAVCOM 300's we killed at Cessna were NOT spike-bit by starters . . . starters do not generate spikes of radio killing proportions . . . and RTCA knows it. In fact, the legacy 'spike test' conducted under DO-160 contains very little energy . . . about the equivalent of a gnat sneeze compared to say, alternator runaways . . . The radios were being killed by soggy batteries allowing engine cranking to drag the bus down to 6-7 volts combined with transistors of the era being exceedingly vulnerable to a phenomenon called 'second breakdown'. Conditions imposed on our NC300's prompted the unhappy event on dozens of radios on delivery aircraft. The AV Master switch was a knee-jerk band-aid . . . the value of which disappeared a few years after we started putting them in airplanes. See http://tinyurl.com/q5uzw78 If you find an 'avionics master' mentioned in ANY installation manual for avionics, I'd like to know who published it. For the past 40 years, EVERY company I've contacted about that feature had to confess, "We don't think it's needed either . . . it's just that everybody has been doing it for decades . . ." ANY piece of hardware qualified to DO-160 can easily stand off the ravages of everything the aircraft bus can throw at it. Starter spikes don't exist . . . I've tracked the elusive starter-spike on everything from C150 to BeechJets . . . they are not there. Start with the draft wirebook. Craft your questions based on the existence or absence of some feature about which you need more understanding. As the educational process moves forward, we'll edit those drawings to match the best-we-know-how-to-do for your project. For Mark, we're limited to combing out a few big tangles . . . his system is pretty much cast in concrete. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
>For example: I have the same contactors for my project, (one for >starter that is not continuous, and one form Battery that IS continuous)) Okay, the contactor of choice for starter duty looks more like this . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Starter_Contact These devices have been common to the automotive industry for decades and feature low area, high pressure contacts much more suited to withstanding starter inrush currents due to their higher closing pressures and low mass to minimize bounce. Location of choice is on the firewall where the BAT terminal of hte contactor becomes the distribution point for bringing battery+ wire to the bus. Although, mounting under the seat is only slightly inconvenient. But I DO recommend the alternative form factor . . . it's much better suited to task and will have diode suppression built in. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Great article, provides me with the first goals for my system, and a very go od understanding of the logic. I have already been studying the wire book p ages. Will print out each one and start making note and additions of my spe cific components, plus compare them to the original schematic. Question one is: you seemed skeptical about mounting the two contractors si de by side right at the battery as Mark did. Why is that not desirable and w hat are the problems? M. Haught Sent from my iPad > On Junhttps://www.flypadmount.com 21, 2015, at 9:23 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls , III wrote: > > > > > Okay, the skeleton wire-book I published for Mark > is the baseline document for doing the best we know > how to do for your project. >> > > See http://tinyurl.com/q5uzw78 > > > > Start with the draft wirebook. Craft your questions > based on the existence or absence of some feature > about which you need more understanding. As the > educational process moves forward, we'll edit > those drawings to match the best-we-know-how-to-do > for your project. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Sent from my iPad > On Jun 21, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroel ectric.com> wrote: > >> For example: I have the same contactors for my project, (one for start er that is not continuous, and one form Battery that IS continuous)) > > Okay, the contactor of choice for starter > duty looks more like this . . . > > > > These devices have been common to the automotive > industry for decades and feature low area, high > pressure contacts much more suited to withstanding > starter inrush currents due to their higher closing > pressures and low mass to minimize bounce. > > Location of choice is on the firewall where the > BAT terminal of hte contactor becomes the distribution > point for bringing battery+ wire to the bus. > > Although, mounting under the seat is only > slightly inconvenient. But I DO recommend > the alternative form factor . . . it's much > better suited to task and will have diode > suppression built in. > > > > Bob . . . > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 21, 2015
Okay.....found one the B&C site plus located your article on the use of diod es. The B & C has diode built in and is PMA. Grounds from mounting surface . Thanks! M. Haught Sent from my iPad > On Jun 21, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroel ectric.com> wrote: > >> For example: I have the same contactors for my project, (one for start er that is not continuous, and one form Battery that IS continuous)) > > Okay, the contactor of choice for starter > duty looks more like this . . . > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
At 08:10 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: > >I do not see a nut under the ring terminals. Is there one? Ring >terminals need to be squashed between two nuts, not between a nut >and plastic because plastic will flow over time, causing the >connection to loosen. >Joe > >-------- >Joe Gores > Good eye . . . I had noticed that but neglected to articulate it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
At 08:18 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: > >There's a washer under the terminals. What Joe is referencing is the fact that 'gas tightness' in the interface between current carrying parts depends on the pressure established and maintained by either crimping or, in this case, squeezing between two very stable forces in the clamping mechanism. Force from a nut driven down onto the terminals is reacted by a plastic surface under the stack. The plastic is not stable under continuous pressure and will relieve to some degree over time and temperature cycles. In your particular application, the currents and duty-cycles involved do not imposed large stresses on those interfaces . . . and you'll be find with what you have. But were you crafting say, a distribution point for fat wires carrying tens of amps continuously and perhaps hundreds of amps cranking . . . the need to bring those terminals together with TWO nuts is greater. You can see that the base of these studs is part of the metal that makes up the stud. Terminals stacked on these studs can be brought up to and held at gas-tight pressures without adding the nut under it. With the DIY terminal block the bottom nut takes on this duty. You're okay as is for THIS application but folks reading this thread later need to be aware of the physics. Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 08:41 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: >Marvin Haught" > >Okay=85.now I understand. Was not comprehending >how you could NOT have a Master Switch. So >without an avionics, switch, you have to >individually switch on or off all electronics >once the master switch is turned on. as you do with any appliance that is not intended to be operated 100% of the time. The core idea to be considered is whether or not there is value in making sure any particular device is OFF during any particular phase of aircraft operation . . . The Avionics Master was created based on the notion that radios were prone to go belly up due to supposed spikes from the starter . . . which turned out to be brown-out events and not spikes. Adding the switch reduced the risk of pilots killing radios that were not well crafted to withstand the brown-out event . . . a condition that disappeared from the marketplace a few years after the avionics master became deeply entrenched in the aviator's psyche. Some still argue that it's useful to reduce loads on the battery while cranking . . . again a condition built on the performance of marginal batteries miserably maintained. If you're SVLA battery is watched as closely as you check your tires, oil, brake fluid, fuel and nicks on the prop, then there's no reason to 'relieve' cranking loads. The avionics are a tiny fraction of cranking loads and insignificant in the grand energy calculus. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2015
From: "H. Marvin Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
And with having only a comm radio (Icom) and a transponder (Sandia), and a panel mount for an iPad, there is only 3 items to be added to the before start up checklist. The Pacer I flew (now the one Mark is rebuilding) had no avionics master, radios are already a part of my checklist habit. What regulator do you recommend - I had installed a Zefftronics on the old Pacer due to a chronic problem with the old Ford Type regulator. Could never get one to last more than 6 or 8 months. Bought the first 2 from aircraft supply stores (read pricy) and the last two from auto supply stores,( read crappy rebuilds) , which I suspect was also the problem with the aircraft supply units, just with 3 times the markup. The Zefftronics made the charging system trouble free with gel cell batteries lasting 5 years, and only changing them because of their age or accidentally leaving the master switch on in sub zero temps, killing the battery. But generally, I took very good care of my batteries. The Zeftronics is now over $350. I see now that I should have been following the list closer, as many of these things have likely been discussed on here. My plate has stayed too full as of late, and now these topics are front an foremost in what I need to accomplish. M. Haught On 6/22/2015 8:45 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 08:41 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: >> >> >> Okay.now I understand. Was not comprehending how you could NOT have >> a Master Switch. So without an avionics, switch, you have to >> individually switch on or off all electronics once the master switch >> is turned on. > > as you do with any appliance that is not > intended to be operated 100% of the time. > The core idea to be considered is whether > or not there is value in making sure any > particular device is OFF during any particular > phase of aircraft operation . . . > > The Avionics Master was created based on the > notion that radios were prone to go belly up > due to supposed spikes from the starter . . . > which turned out to be brown-out events and > not spikes. > > Adding the switch reduced the risk of pilots > killing radios that were not well crafted to > withstand the brown-out event . . . a condition > that disappeared from the marketplace a few > years after the avionics master became deeply > entrenched in the aviator's psyche. > > Some still argue that it's useful to reduce > loads on the battery while cranking . . . again > a condition built on the performance of marginal > batteries miserably maintained. > > If you're SVLA battery is watched as closely > as you check your tires, oil, brake fluid, > fuel and nicks on the prop, then there's no > reason to 'relieve' cranking loads. The > avionics are a tiny fraction of cranking loads > and insignificant in the grand energy calculus. > > Bob . . . > > * > > > * --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2015
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
Might have to re-make it. I have doubts that the UHMW will "flow" enough (with 15 inch-pounds of torque) to loosen connections. Anybody here qualified to interpreting attached document regarding this question? On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 08:18 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: > > > There's a washer under the terminals. > > > What Joe is referencing is the fact that > 'gas tightness' in the interface between > current carrying parts depends on the pressure > established and maintained by either crimping > or, in this case, squeezing between two very > stable forces in the clamping mechanism. Force > from a nut driven down onto the terminals is > reacted by a plastic surface under the stack. > The plastic is not stable under continuous > pressure and will relieve to some degree over > time and temperature cycles. > > In your particular application, the currents > and duty-cycles involved do not imposed large > stresses on those interfaces . . . and you'll > be find with what you have. But were you crafting > say, a distribution point for fat wires carrying > tens of amps continuously and perhaps hundreds > of amps cranking . . . the need to bring those > terminals together with TWO nuts is greater. > > You can see that the base of these studs is part > of the metal that makes up the stud. Terminals > stacked on these studs can be brought up to > and held at gas-tight pressures without adding > the nut under it. With the DIY terminal block > the bottom nut takes on this duty. You're okay > as is for THIS application but folks reading this > thread later need to be aware of the physics. > > [image: Emacs!] > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 10:54 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: >Great article, provides me with the first goals for my system, and a >very good understanding of the logic. I have already been studying >the wire book pages. Will print out each one and start making note >and additions of my specific components, plus compare them to the >original schematic. bingo! >Question one is: you seemed skeptical about mounting the two >contractors side by side right at the battery as Mark did. Why is >that not desirable and what are the problems? Okay, from the perspective of a clean-piece-of-paper installation on a homebuilt aircraft, we try to position items in the airplane to minimize numbers and lengths of wires. The first goal is battery contactor next to battery, starter contactor next to the starter. In the case of your refurb, the original battery and starter controls were crew operated switches one the seat stringer under the pilot's knees and the battery was under the passenger's seat. It's not illogical to REPLACE those switches with contators located more or less in the same locations as the original switches. I would write my proposed 337 up to move the starter contactor to the firewall but if you wanted to utilize as much of the factory stock architecture as possible . . . locating the contactors like Mark did is perfectly logical. The style of starter contactor problematic . . . while the Lamar 'works', upgrading it's technology will improve service life an reduce risk of sticking the contactor. By the way, what starter are you contemplating for this airplane? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
At 10:01 AM 6/22/2015, you wrote: >Might have to re-make it. I have doubts that the UHMW will "flow" >enough (with 15 inch-pounds of torque) to loosen connections. >Anybody here qualified to interpreting attached document regarding >this question? I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. The argument goes more to support standard practices based on the full spectrum of stresses. It is not terribly relevant to your application. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
From: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net>
Date: Jun 22, 2015
I've had good luck using "toilet bolts" for making terminal strips. You can get them in either stainless steel or brass. The elongated head of the bolt is thin and fits in a slot, which is sometimes easier to fabricate than a hex shaped hole. Here's a link to a photo: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-5-16-in-x-2-1-4-in-Brass-Toilet-Bolts-with-Nuts-10063X/205172289 Dennis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443913#443913 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
Date: Jun 22, 2015
Well, this discussion is progressing nicely! I spent the evening trying to decide if I am going to invest in a lightweight starter and alternator, or save several hundred dollars and use the serviceable original starter and generators that I have one had (have 3 or 4 of each, all in good working order). Since this airplane is to resell, I think at this point, I am going to opt to use the original equipment. This whole exercise is to turn a project in which I have money tied up into cash, while getting hours toward my mechanic=99s license (have tried to sell it for 3 or 4 years as a project with absolutely NO interest, even at give away prices). I am treading water while waiting to see if the medical reform passes and is put into effect. If so, my keeper project is another Pacer that will end up experimental..ve ry little will be left of the original fuselage, new wing with a different airfoil, fuselage extension, and otherwise, pretty much your dream project on big tires. Only 2 seat with large cargo space, built as lightly as possible. So your clean piece of paper installation will be the next step in project evolution, but for now, I want the experience of doing the 337, and hopefully, getting it approved fairly easily because it will be a valuable experience in the work I hope to do as a licensed mechanic in my retirement world. So I like your second and third paragraph as if fits what I am trying to do, as well as being compatible with my thinking process. I think the architecture choices should be driven by feedback from active mechanics as to the prevalent mind set of FAA inspectors - closed minds as to changes in architecture when reviewing 337=99s in the approval process, or receptive with logical support, professional wire book and presentation. If the former, Mark=99s approach wins out - if the latter, firewall location of the starter contactor. I have the continuous duty Lamar contactor being delivered today, but the starter contactor was back ordered, so I canceled that order. Will likely order the B&C starter contactor at $45 unless you have better and or cheaper alternative, and will do the same for the Battery contactor. M. Haught > On Jun 22, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 10:54 PM 6/21/2015, you wrote: > >> Great article, provides me with the first goals for my system, and a very good understanding of the logic. I have already been studying the wire book pages. Will print out each one and start making note and additions of my specific components, plus compare them to the original schematic. > > bingo! > >> Question one is: you seemed skeptical about mounting the two contractors side by side right at the battery as Mark did. Why is that not desirable and what are the problems? > > Okay, from the perspective of a clean-piece-of-paper > installation on a homebuilt aircraft, we try to > position items in the airplane to minimize numbers > and lengths of wires. The first goal is battery > contactor next to battery, starter contactor next > to the starter. > > In the case of your refurb, the original battery > and starter controls were crew operated switches > one the seat stringer under the pilot's knees > and the battery was under the passenger's seat. > It's not illogical to REPLACE those switches > with contators located more or less in the same > locations as the original switches. > > I would write my proposed 337 up to move the > starter contactor to the firewall but if you > wanted to utilize as much of the factory stock > architecture as possible . . . locating > the contactors like Mark did is perfectly > logical. The style of starter contactor > problematic . . . while the Lamar 'works', > upgrading it's technology will improve service > life an reduce risk of sticking the contactor. > > By the way, what starter are you contemplating > for this airplane? > > Bob . . . > > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
From: "H. Marvin Haught" <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net>
Date: Jun 22, 2015
Using those, you could use a plain nut of the top side of the plastic, inset as per Bobs example and have eequivalent to the factory unit if you can figure out some way to tighten the nut on the bolt. Using a larger drill to allow use of thin walled socket, cinching down the nut tightly, and the anchoring it in place with epoxy should provide a very serviceable part that achieves the physics Bob references. M. Haught > On Jun 22, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Dennis Johnson wrote: > > > I've had good luck using "toilet bolts" for making terminal strips. You can get them in either stainless steel or brass. The elongated head of the bolt is thin and fits in a slot, which is sometimes easier to fabricate than a hex shaped hole. > > Here's a link to a photo: > > http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-5-16-in-x-2-1-4-in-Brass-Toilet-Bolts-with-Nuts-10063X/205172289 > > Dennis > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443913#443913 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "mmoyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2015
Panel is almost ready to instal. Dimmer pot for the Ei hardware should be here today. Head set jacks extended. A few zip ties remain. On the subject of stuck starter solenoids. On my list of pros and cons for locating the starter contactor under the seat... How easy is it to get at if I need to whack it with something or disconnect it from the battery? Deciding the trade off... More wire up the firewall to a solenoid location accessible with the cowl open. Or deal with pulling the seat. Marv and I spoke yesterday about the avionics master. When the PM3000 and the Sandia transponder was installed. The avionics guy told Marv and I to pull the breakers for them before starting the engine. Don't recall the reason. If the battery is nearly dead, low voltage....start contactor just asking to be stuck. Or brown out. A good battery shouldn't pull down below 10.8 volts under a load. What if it does due to poor health or some other reason. Being in the middle of now where. Many many times waiting for the temperature to reach 25 below zero before the first flight. Decided the avionics master is a good thing for me. Some of the other decisions I made... Perhaps due to drain bramage....but. Decided to go with the Ei amp shunt on the alternator. I'd rather know if the field voltage reduces as the battery charge state comes up after starting. Or to discover the ampherage is greater than normal, indicating a possible battery problem. Monitor the battery health with the voltage meter. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443920#443920 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_471.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2015
> > >I've had good luck using "toilet bolts" for making terminal strips. >You can get them in either stainless steel or brass. The elongated >head of the bolt is thin and fits in a slot, which is sometimes easier >to fabricate than a hex shaped hole. > >Here's a link to a photo: > >http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-5-16-in-x-2-1-4-in-Brass-Toilet-Bolts-with-Nuts-10063X/205172289 > >Dennis > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443913#443913 > > That's what I did when I made a forest of tabs ground block using a brass switch plate. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
Date: Jun 22, 2015
Around where I live the toilet bolts are brass plated, not solid brass. This may be worth noting. I used them anyway. > On Jun 22, 2015, at 12:20, Dennis Johnson wrote: > > > I've had good luck using "toilet bolts" for making terminal strips. You can get them in either stainless steel or brass. The elongated head of the bolt is thin and fits in a slot, which is sometimes easier to fabricate than a hex shaped hole. > > Here's a link to a photo: > > http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-5-16-in-x-2-1-4-in-Brass-Toilet-Bolts-with-Nuts-10063X/205172289 > > Dennis > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443913#443913 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 22, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: basic questions on terminal strips
At 11:20 AM 6/22/2015, you wrote: > > >I've had good luck using "toilet bolts" for making terminal >strips. You can get them in either stainless steel or brass. The >elongated head of the bolt is thin and fits in a slot, which is >sometimes easier to fabricate than a hex shaped hole. > >Here's a link to a photo: > >http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-5-16-in-x-2-1-4-in-Brass-Toilet-Bolts-with-Nuts-10063X/205172289 But those are 5/16" diam . . . pretty beefy for terminal. Unless you're bringing 4 AWG or fatter wires together, 8-32 studs are much friendlier . . . or even 6-32. You don't WANT a hex hole, just an undersized round hole that grabs the hex-corners when the head is pressed into the counterbore. Grade 8 steel is the material of choice . . . the stud has no electrical duties in this application. The stud and nuts are used to maximize the crush forces on the terminals . . . so GOOD steel is the material of choice. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 23, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
At 12:19 PM 6/22/2015, you wrote: Panel is almost ready to instal. Dimmer pot for the Ei hardware should be here today. Head set jacks extended. A few zip ties remain. On the subject of stuck starter solenoids. On my list of pros and cons for locating the starter contactor under the seat... How easy is it to get at if I need to whack it with something or disconnect it from the battery? Normally, shuts off the battery master to stop the fault . . . so that it can be dealt with in a relaxed manner. Deciding the trade off... More wire up the firewall to a solenoid location accessible with the cowl open. Or deal with pulling the seat. Ideally, one chooses a starter contactor designed to minimize the sticking phenomenon . . . THEN one also MAINTAINS the battery in a condition that (1) provides design-goal-driven endurance requirements from which the happy condition (2) arises: Risks for starter contactor sticking are significantly reduced. Marv and I spoke yesterday about the avionics master. When the PM3000 and the Sandia transponder was installed. The avionics guy told Marv and I to pull the breakers for them before starting the engine. Don't recall the reason. I'll bet he doesn't have one . . . beyond the notion that 'everybody does it' . . . Further, pulling a breaker is not accepted operational practice . . . you won't find that behavior in any TC aircraft POH. If shutting a thing OFF for cranking operations is a good thing to do . . . then the reason is probably NOT something you want to spend money on. If the battery is nearly dead, low voltage....start contactor just asking to be stuck. Or brown out. A good battery shouldn't pull down below 10.8 volts under a load. What if it does due to poor health or some other reason. Being in the middle of now where. Many many times waiting for the temperature to reach 25 below zero before the first flight. Decided the avionics master is a good thing for me. BINGO! Routine preventative maintenance of the battery is the time honored, demonstrated recipe for comfortable completion of missions to PREDICTABLE compliance with design goals while minimizing miseries. There is NO GOOD REASON to be "in the middle of nowhere" with a soggy battery . . . there are lots of bad reasons . . . mostly founded in the owner/operators's less than responsible attitudes toward battery maintenance. Being short on fuel 'in the middle of nowhere' would get you many raised eyebrows around a table of suds and pizzas . . . sadly, being caught in-the-wild with a soggy battery is all too often simply attributed to 'bad luck'. I suggest that it is easy to make it NOT so . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "addseo1115" <addseo2015(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jun 24, 2015
I have enjoyed with your posts. Useful posts here. Nice to be here. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443958#443958 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Starter Contactors
Date: Jun 24, 2015
Bob, I have my O-360 with a Sky Tech 149-12LS starter wire as per your Z-22 =9CFix for =9CRun-on=9D in Starters with Permeant Magnet Motors=9D which uses a relay rather than a starter contactor. Am I missing something and also need a starter contactor with this set-up? Ross Mickey N9PT RV-6A Sent from my iPad On Jun 21, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > wrote: For example: I have the same contactors for my project, (one for starter that is not continuous, and one form Battery that IS continuous)) Okay, the contactor of choice for starter duty looks more like this . . . <http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Starter_Contactor/s702-1 l.jpg> These devices have been common to the automotive industry for decades and feature low area, high pressure contacts much more suited to withstanding starter inrush currents due to their higher closing pressures and low mass to minimize bounce. Location of choice is on the firewall where the BAT terminal of hte contactor becomes the distribution point for bringing battery+ wire to the bus. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Starter Contactors
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 24, 2015
According to this diagram: http://www.skytecair.com/images/P1/Exp%20LS%20Wiring_1100.jpg the starter has a built-in contactor. So an external one is not required. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444013#444013 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bearhawk] Pacer progress
From: "mmoyle" <moylemc(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 24, 2015
No smoke..... Every thing functions.... Haven't powered up the radio yet. I'd like to have an antenna connected before closing the breaker.... Marv gifted me The Bob's book. Arrived in the mail today. Another manual to digest.... Thank you Marv and Bob. When I get to the Bearhawk harness I will be better edge-you-ma-kate'd. One odd thing I found today. Have installed a dimmer rheostat for the Ei components. The engine monitor dims nicely.....thing is the Ei USB power supply is opposite. It gets bright as the engine monitor gets dim??. Don't know if I made a mistake...some ting Wong? One question I've asked on the shortwing and Bearhawk group.... No answer. Hour meter. The Ei engine monitor is programmed with the actual total time on the aircraft. Do I need a separate hour meter? Not having fresh trout for dinner...... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444015#444015 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_522.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_810.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Starter Contactors
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2015
Skytec's diagram http://www.skytecair.com/images/P1/Exp%20LS%20Wiring_1100.jpg shows a diode to protect the switch from arcing. So I added diodes to Z-22 to protect the relay and start switch contacts. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444019#444019 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/z22_with_diodes_158.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Starter Contactors
Date: Jun 25, 2015
Thanks, Joe. I know my current set-up has at least one diode. When I get to the airport, I will check to see if there are two as shown on your diagram. There must have been some discussion back 12+ years ago about putting a diode in the relay wiring or I wouldn't have done it but it must not have shown up in the Z-22 drawing. Ross -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253 Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:11 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter Contactors Skytec's diagram http://www.skytecair.com/images/P1/Exp%20LS%20Wiring_1100.jpg shows a diode to protect the switch from arcing. So I added diodes to Z-22 to protect the relay and start switch contacts. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444019#444019 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/z22_with_diodes_158.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2015
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Starter Contactors
The inductive kick from the shift solenoid on the starter is pretty fierce. Joe, do you know the part number they specify for the anti-kickback diode? -Jeff On Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:28 AM, Ross Home wrote: et> Thanks, Joe.=C2- I know my current set-up has at least one diode.=C2- W hen I get to the airport, I will check to see if there are two as shown on your diagram.=C2- There must have been some discussion back 12+ years ago abou t putting a diode in the relay wiring or I wouldn't have done it but it must not have shown up in the Z-22 drawing. Ross -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253 Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:11 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter Contactors Skytec's diagram http://www.skytecair.com/images/P1/Exp%20LS%20Wiring_1100.jpg shows a diode to protect the switch from arcing.=C2- So I added diodes to Z-22 to protect the relay and start switch contacts. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444019#444019 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/z22_with_diodes_158.jpg - S - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Starter Contactors
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2015
> Joe, do you know the part number they specify for the anti-kickback diode? Skytec shows a 1N4002, but any mechanically robust diode rated 1 amp or more should work. The banded end connects to positive. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444038#444038 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Starter Contactors
At 01:31 PM 6/24/2015, you wrote: >Bob, > >I have my O-360 with a Sky Tech 149-12LS starter >wire as per your Z-22 =9CFix for =9CRun-on=9D in >Starters with Permeant Magnet Motors=9D which >uses a relay rather than a starter >contactor.=C2 Am I missing something and also >need a starter contactor with this set-up? Z-22 is appropriate to your airplane . . . There are driving considerations for several configurations of starter control erroneously mis-applied . . . The external, automotive contactor was part of the B&C lightweight starter STC for a couple of reasons. First, target after-market aircraft were already set up for external contactors . . . starters being replaced were legacy Bendix-drive pinion gears. We COULD have eliminated the external contactor in favor of utilizing the BUILT IN contactor operated in tandem with the pinon gear extension solenoid. This would have complicated the STC. Further, the built in solenoid-contactor assembly was really hard on starter switches due to the spectacular in-rush currents. http://tinyurl.com/opmr4ae Hence, BOTH the OBAM and TC market offerings from B&C featured the external contactor with a built in suppression diode. The stock contactor coil on the starter was jumpered to the battery terminal. At some later time, there was a rise in popularity of PM motors on light weight starters. If wired per the B&C philosophy, counter emf voltages generated in the starter motor during spin-down would keep the jumpered, built-in contactor energize for seconds after the starter button was released. B&C has retained the wound field configuration in favor of lower motor inrush currents and better cranking performance. PM motor products were not well suited to the B&C technique so many system were modified to drive the built in contactor-solenoid from the ship's starter switch. The quantum jump in starter-switch abuse by modern contactor-solenoids prompted an abortive air worthiness directive to add a diode to the legacy Bendix/ACS-510 key-switch to forestall contact erosion promulgated by the extra ordinary contactor-solenoid characteristics. The original AD put a diode across the switch contacts but was later amended to put it across the contactor coil thusly. http://tinyurl.com/pjckjwv There are several ways to live gracefully with the modern built-on contactor-solenoid: Use external contactor as illustrated in most of the Z-figures . . . EXCEPT if your starter has a permanent magnet motor, then you'll want to drive the built-in contactor-solenoid with . . . EITHER Diode protected starter switch of your choice . . . . OR Install an isolation relay per Z-22. This can be used to replace the external contactor on a starter of any pedigree . . . PM or Wound-Field. The 1N5400 series diodes are both mechanically robust and electrically qualified to deal with coil collapse spikes from ANY of the starter contactor or contactor-solenoid combiations. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ross Home" <rossmickey(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Starter Contactors
Date: Jun 25, 2015
Thanks, Bob. You stated: =9CThe 1N5400 series diodes are both mechanically robust and electrically qualified to deal with coil collapse spikes from ANY of the starter contactor or contactor-solenoid combinations.=9D Z-22 doesn=99t show any diodes but I do know I have some installed on my relay. Joe provided a Z-22 with diodes shown. <http://forums.matronics.com/files/z22_with_diodes_158.jpg> http://forums.matronics.com//files/z22_with_diodes_158.jpg Is this how the Z-22 in your book Version 12 should look if I am not using a diode protected starter push button or no? Ross From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 11:40 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Starter Contactors At 01:31 PM 6/24/2015, you wrote: Bob, I have my O-360 with a Sky Tech 149-12LS starter wire as per your Z-22 =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93Fix for =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93Run-on=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D in Starters with Permeant Magnet Motors=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D which uses a relay rather than a starter contactor.=C3=82 Am I missing something and also need a starter contactor with this set-up? Z-22 is appropriate to your airplane . . . There are driving considerations for several configurations of starter control erroneously mis-applied . . . The external, automotive contactor was part of the B&C lightweight starter STC for a couple of reasons. First, target after-market aircraft were already set up for external contactors . . . starters being replaced were legacy Bendix-drive pinion gears. We COULD have eliminated the external contactor in favor of utilizing the BUILT IN contactor operated in tandem with the pinon gear extension solenoid. This would have complicated the STC. Further, the built in solenoid-contactor assembly was really hard on starter switches due to the spectacular in-rush currents. http://tinyurl.com/opmr4ae Hence, BOTH the OBAM and TC market offerings from B&C featured the external contactor with a built in suppression diode. The stock contactor coil on the starter was jumpered to the battery terminal. At some later time, there was a rise in popularity of PM motors on light weight starters. If wired per the B&C philosophy, counter emf voltages generated in the starter motor during spin-down would keep the jumpered, built-in contactor energize for seconds after the starter button was released. B&C has retained the wound field configuration in favor of lower motor inrush currents and better cranking performance. PM motor products were not well suited to the B&C technique so many system were modified to drive the built in contactor-solenoid from the ship's starter switch. The quantum jump in starter-switch abuse by modern contactor-solenoids prompted an abortive air worthiness directive to add a diode to the legacy Bendix/ACS-510 key-switch to forestall contact erosion promulgated by the extra ordinary contactor-solenoid characteristics. The original AD put a diode across the switch contacts but was later amended to put it across the contactor coil thusly. http://tinyurl.com/pjckjwv There are several ways to live gracefully with the modern built-on contactor-solenoid: Use external contactor as illustrated in most of the Z-figures . . . EXCEPT if your starter has a permanent magnet motor, then you'll want to drive the built-in contactor-solenoid with . . . EITHER Diode protected starter switch of your choice . . . . OR Install an isolation relay per Z-22. This can be used to replace the external contactor on a starter of any pedigree . . . PM or Wound-Field. The 1N5400 series diodes are both mechanically robust and electrically qualified to deal with coil collapse spikes from ANY of the starter contactor or contactor-solenoid combiations. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Starter Contactors
Just curious what the advantage might be to wiring according to Skytec. You get rid of starter relay, but you have to replace standard aviation mag/starter switch with one that will carry 30 amps of current, or roughly 360 watts. Does anyone even make an ignition switch that can handle that load, or would you have to split off the starter to a separate toggle that can handle the current? On 6/25/2015 10:10 AM, user9253 wrote: > > >> Joe, do you know the part number they specify for the anti-kickback diode? > Skytec shows a 1N4002, but any mechanically robust diode rated 1 amp or more should work. The banded end connects to positive. > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444038#444038 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2015
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Starter Contactors
There are farm and marine key switches rated at 25 amps for the start circuit. I've got a couple of thousand cycles on a few of them with no problems. These were not on a skytec starter though. Ken On 25/06/2015 4:51 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Just curious what the advantage might be to wiring according to > Skytec. You get rid of starter relay, but you have to replace standard > aviation mag/starter switch with one that will carry 30 amps of > current, or roughly 360 watts. Does anyone even make an ignition > switch that can handle that load, or would you have to split off the > starter to a separate toggle that can handle the current? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Starter Contactors
At 03:51 PM 6/25/2015, you wrote: > >Just curious what the advantage might be to wiring according to >Skytec. You get rid of starter relay, but you have to replace >standard aviation mag/starter switch with one that will carry 30 >amps of current, or roughly 360 watts. Does anyone even make an >ignition switch that can handle that load, or would you have to >split off the starter to a separate toggle that can handle the current? That 30A number is exceedingly transient. Further, switches are 'rated' in rather conventional sense that strives for tens of thousands of operating cycles at the specified load. The starter engagement switch in an airplane sees only hundreds of cycles per year and most even fewer. The AD against the legacy ACS510 was a response to the extra ordinary wear for having been tasked with controlling the modern solenoid- contactor where a major improvement in service life was achieved by simply adding the diode to mitigate contact-opening stress as opposed to contact closure stresses. This fix alone seems to have achieve a satisfactory service life when driving the solenoid-contactor. There are some solid state options for relieving stresses on the starter switch. A device like the BTS50055 hi-side switch from Infineon can be incorporated as a robust, solid state switch to handle the solenoid-coil current thus dropping switch current to mere milliamps. http://tinyurl.com/q9q5h74 There is another option for adding the external contactor on a PM starter and dealing with the run-on problem. Emacs! You can use the contactor's "I" terminal to energize the solenoid-contactor yet release it the same time that the starter switch opens. It seems that there are a lot more after market opportunities to buffer the load presented to and EXISTING or legacy start switch than there is to replace it with something with an extra-ordinary specification for robustness. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2015
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Starter Contactors
At 02:38 PM 6/25/2015, you wrote: >Thanks, Bob. > >You stated: > >=9CThe 1N5400 series diodes are both >mechanically robust and electrically qualified to deal with > coil collapse spikes from ANY of the > starter contactor or contactor-solenoid combinations.=9D > >Z-22 doesn=99t show any diodes but I do know I >have some installed on my relay. > >Joe provided a Z-22 with diodes shown.=C2 > ><http://forums.matronics.com/files/z22_with_diodes_158.jpg>http://forums.ma tronics.com//files/z22_with_diodes_158.jpg > >Is this how the Z-22 in your book Version 12 >should look if I am not using a diode protected starter push button or no? It doesn't hurt. The contacts of the S702 relay are quite suited to unprotected control of the solenoid-contactor . . . and the S702 coil presents a much reduced stress on the starter switch. But adding the diodes is not a bad thing to do. I show the diode in the drawing I just published . . . I'll add them to Z-22 . . . along with the suggestion I just published. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Alternator problem?
From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2015
I'm in the process of trying to track down an over voltage fault. So far the engine runs that I've been doing have been relatively short duration (mostly around 5-10min) while I'm getting the engine dialed in. On about 4 occasions I've noticed the alternator circuit has faulted for "over voltage". I'm running a 28v electrical system VP-X Pro B&C LR3C voltage regulator Kelly Aerospace 50a alternator Continental IO-550 engine. Vertical Power and B&C have had me check a number things. All checks have shown voltage levels, drops and wire resistance to be well within parameters. B&C is recommending to pull the alternator and have it checked. I"m just wondering if anyone has run into anything similar with these alternators before I pull it ship it out. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444057#444057 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Alternator problem?
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2015
I think it is more likely that there is a bad (intermittent) connection or faulty voltage regulator than a problem with the alternator. The best way to find a bad connection is to make voltage measurements when the circuit is under heavy load. A high wattage lamp can be used to temporarily load the circuit for voltage testing. Particular attention should be given to LR3C terminals 6 and 7 and the associated wiring. If a high wattage lamp is connected between terminals 6 & 7, the voltage between those two terminals should be close to battery voltage. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444058#444058 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator problem?
Date: Jun 26, 2015
Don, First step is to determine if you are actually experiencing a fault or just a bad indication. Which system is giving you the over voltage fault error? The VP, an over voltage module, something else? Do you have a digital volt meter that remembers the highest peak voltage? -Jeff Sent from my iPad > On Jun 26, 2015, at 04:34, donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote: > > > I'm in the process of trying to track down an over voltage fault. > > So far the engine runs that I've been doing have been relatively short duration (mostly around 5-10min) while I'm getting the engine dialed in. On about 4 occasions I've noticed the alternator circuit has faulted for "over voltage". > > I'm running a 28v electrical system > VP-X Pro > B&C LR3C voltage regulator > Kelly Aerospace 50a alternator > Continental IO-550 engine. > > Vertical Power and B&C have had me check a number things. All checks have shown voltage levels, drops and wire resistance to be well within parameters. > > B&C is recommending to pull the alternator and have it checked. > > I"m just wondering if anyone has run into anything similar with these alternators before I pull it ship it out. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444057#444057 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Alternator problem?
From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2015
As it has been explained to me, the voltage regulator is determining the fault. The VP-X is reporting the fault. My meter has a hold feature but it's manual, not a peak hold. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=444069#444069 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2015
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator problem?
Don, That regulator uses the "crowbar" technique to handle an over-voltage condi tion.=C2- Which means that it will pop its own circuit breaker to shut it self off when buss voltage gets too high. So, is it the case that the electronic circuit breaker in the VP-X which fe eds the regulator is "popping"?=C2- (I'm not very familiar w/ the VP-X so I don't know how it indicates when one of its electronic circuit breakers pops.)

June 08, 2015 - June 26, 2015

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mu