AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-nu
February 25, 2017 - March 27, 2017
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466638#466638
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Revmaster with EFIS |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Van's has changed the design over time. The latest version is the
AV-50001 SWITCH & FUSE MODULE
Since it is a unique proprietary design, it is probably expensive.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466655#466655
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
Hi All,
I'm hoping to get some help in swapping out a 3PDT switch with a 3PDT relay.
Here's the background: I'm building a Long-EZ and there is a promising new electrical
scheme to drive the electrical nose gear actuator in canards. This new
wiring calls for replacing the old SPST (1-1, ON-OFF-ON) Nose Gear Up/Down switch
with a 3PDT ON-OFF-ON switch.
The problem for me is that I already have my current nose gear switch nicely configured
and installed in my throttle handle, and I really, really don't want
to swap it out. So, I was thinking I could swap out the newly required 3PDT switch
with a 3PDT relay.
However, with this being the gear switch, in my mind there's a problem in doing
this since there's that pesky "-OFF-" position on the switch, that to my knowledge
doesn't translate over to a "middle position" between N.O. and N.C. on a
relay. As you probably know, on canards we don't simply use a binary, all-the-way
up or down gear position (only for TO/landing ops), but use the gear switch
to position the nose in a myriad of heights off the ground when parked. Thus
I need to be able to hit the nose gear up/down position, have it run down
for a few seconds and then move the switch to the "OFF" position to stop the gear
from moving any forward.
I've attached a diagram to show what I'm talking about. Any help would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks!
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466656#466656
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/3pdtswitch_to_relay_swap_123.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 2/25/2017 10:19 PM, Airdog77 wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm hoping to get some help in swapping out a 3PDT switch with a 3PDT relay.
>
> Here's the background: I'm building a Long-EZ and there is a promising new electrical
scheme to drive the electrical nose gear actuator in canards. This new
wiring calls for replacing the old SPST (1-1, ON-OFF-ON) Nose Gear Up/Down
switch with a 3PDT ON-OFF-ON switch.
>
> The problem for me is that I already have my current nose gear switch nicely
configured and installed in my throttle handle, and I really, really don't want
to swap it out. So, I was thinking I could swap out the newly required 3PDT
switch with a 3PDT relay.
>
> However, with this being the gear switch, in my mind there's a problem in doing
this since there's that pesky "-OFF-" position on the switch, that to my knowledge
doesn't translate over to a "middle position" between N.O. and N.C. on
a relay. As you probably know, on canards we don't simply use a binary, all-the-way
up or down gear position (only for TO/landing ops), but use the gear switch
to position the nose in a myriad of heights off the ground when parked.
Thus I need to be able to hit the nose gear up/down position, have it run down
for a few seconds and then move the switch to the "OFF" position to stop the
gear from moving any forward.
>
> I've attached a diagram to show what I'm talking about. Any help would be greatly
appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
> Wade
>
> --------
> Airdog
> Wade Parton
> Building Long-EZ 916WP
> www.longezpush.com
>
How about 2 separate 3 pole relays? Both off with switch in center, one
or the other active with switch up or down.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
Ok, I think I see how that would work to solve the center "off" dilemma. Now,
would it be more advisable to use two 3PST relays? Or does it matter at all?
Thanks!
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466658#466658
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
I'm pretty sure I got it! Thanks CE, you definitely got me thinking in the right
direction.
Because the new required 3PDT switch had 2 poles in one direction and one in the
other I was able to pare down the two 3PDT relays into a DPDT and an SPDT relay
set.
Attached is a diagram showing the implementation of these relays to allow me to
continue to use my SPST (1-1) ON-OFF-ON landing gear up/down switch as per my
original design.
Excellent.... thanks for the help!
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466659#466659
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/3pdtswitch_to_relay_swapped_128.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stuart Hutchison <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware supplies (was Coaxial Cable) |
Sometimes the temptation to order from Harbour Freight Aerospace is strong, but
its important to ask yourself and perhaps the forum whether a part is critical
before deciding. FMEA applies to everything we do, not just the electrics.
For example, many regular greases doesnt fare well in freezing conditions and
mild steel (non-hardened) axel washers have been known to gall and lock up a
wheel, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Yes, Tefzel wires all round for me please Id rather not have to endure acrid PVC
fumes if my wiring cooks off there would be enough to contend with already.
Having experienced numerous in-flight overheats in electronic systems on the
P-3 Orion (Kapton wiring), my cockpit will be well ventilated with efficient
inflow plus smoke removal (exit) doors as well since I cant open the slider
canopy in-flight. Call me crazy, but iPad/iPhone overheat (in rarified air, poor
ventilation and direct sunlight) concerns me too, so I am designing a lightweight
stainless steel, smoke and flame proof sleeve with an external ventilation
tube to contain the device if a thermal runaway were to occur.
V/R Stu
> On 25 Feb 2017, at 03:25, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> I'm with Charlie. There are huge differences with the other examples you cite,
such as hardware store fasteners vs AN hardware.
> The difference in performance and safety between RG58 and RG400 is minuscule
for a very real price difference.
> RG58 has been the accepted aircraft coax for at least 50 yrs. AFAIK RG400 didn't
become recommended until after the turn of the century. Mainly over performance
with WAAS GPS, not safety, not anything else that matters for other avionics.
> I'll not argue Tefzel vs automotive wire. There is a huge durability difference
there, as well as insulation thickness difference.
> OTOH I have inspected many aircraft with RG58 installed 50-60 yrs ago and it
is still performing fine. Unlike the general wiring that was used back then.
>
> On 2/24/2017 9:02 AM, Robert McCallum wrote:
>> Charlie;
>>
>> I've followed your many posts and generally "good opinions" on many
>> subjects over a lengthy period of time and respect those opinions and
>> advice, but in this case I'm curious.
>>
>> Did you wire your bird with automotive PVC wire because it was "good
>> enough" or did you use Tefzel insulated wire because that's what is
>> recognized as "correct" current practice? Did you use "hardware store"
>> hardware because it's probably "good enough" or did you use correct "AN
>> hardware"? Did you use proper "braided hoses" (Aeroquip style) or did
>> you use "good enough" rubber hoses?
>>
>> I'm a bit mystified why you seem to be advocating "good enough" RG-58
>> when "better" (by how much may be debatable) RG-400 is readily available
>> for a small overall increase in $$$$. Wouldn't it seem that doing "the
>> best we know how" be the most prudent "best" approach?? There is no
>> labour difference, the fittings are essentially the same, the only
>> actual "difference" might be a hundred dollars or so which in the
>> overall scheme of things is peanuts for the average finished project?
>> There's also "pride of workmanship" and the self satisfaction of doing
>> it right as opposed to "good enough". Just my alternate view two cents
>> worth.
>>
>> Respectfully
>>
>> Bob McC
>>
>>
>>
>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>> From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
>>> Date: February 24, 2017 at 9:06 AM
>>>
>>> Here are links to cable specs for RG58a/u (stranded; note that RG58
>>> can be had with solid center conductor, so beware when ordering), and
>>> RG400. I picked this site/brand to get both sets of specs in the same
>>> format.
>>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/28-rg58
>>>
>>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/128-rg400
>>>
>>> Relevant data:
>>> 400's center conductor is 0.0384" vs 58's 0.0355"
>>>
>>> dielectric (center insulation) is the same dia, but 400 has marginally
>>> better properties; relevant only at the extreme high end of design
>>> use: capacitance of 400 is 29.4pF/ft, vs 58's 30.8pF/ft
>>>
>>> test freq of 400 is 12.4 GHz, vs 58's 1 GHz (but we use the cable at a
>>> max of ~1 GHz)
>>>
>>> 400's loss at 1 GHz is 14.7 dB/100ft; 58's is 22.6 dB/100ft
>>> (unfortunately, I had to pull this spec from other sources; it doesn't
>>> show up in the linked pages)
>>>
>>> Doing the math, for a 10 foot run (more than enough to mount the
>>> antenna on the belly of most planes), 400's loss would be 1.47dB vs
>>> 58's 2.26dB. For those that don't know, dB's are a logarithmic
>>> measurement. 0.79dB of difference is so small that it could get lost
>>> in the noise of connector quality, installation technique, phase of
>>> the moon...
>>>
>>> At comm & nav frequencies (~100 MHz; 1/10 thefrequency), the spread
>>> would be even smaller.
>>>
>>> Biggest difference is the outer jacket material; 400 is rated to 200
>>> C, while 58 is PVC rated to 85 C. Unless you're bonding it to your
>>> cylinder head, that shouldn't be a big factor.
>>>
>>> Yes, 400 is 'better'. But is 58 good enough? There are planes flying
>>> with 58 that is still good after 40 years.....
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Art Zemon < art(at)zemon.name
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I have been following this thread because I, too, am trying to
>>> decide which coax to buy for my plane. I'm a computer engineer; I
>>> shied away from EE in college and especially antenna design
>>> because... well... I heard that antenna designers were a special
>>> kind of crazy.. :-)
>>>
>>> Seriously, though, if I understand correctly, in the context of an
>>> installation in a homebuilt airplane, the biggest difference
>>> between RG58 and RG400 seems to be that the RG400 is less loss-y.
>>> Yes? In other words, if an antenna puts a weak signal in one end
>>> of the coax, the signal that reaches the radio receiver will be
>>> stronger if the coax is RG400 than if it is RG58.
>>>
>>> I'm looking at 10 feet of coax from the GPS and comm antennas to
>>> the receivers, including service loops. I am looking at 20 feet
>>> for the VOR/GS antenna. The transponder antenna will be less than
>>> 10 feet.
>>>
>>> At those distances, does RG400 vs RG58 matter? How do I evaluate it?
>>>
>>> And then there is the LMR-195 that Bob just showed us. How does
>>> that fit in?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -- Art Z.
>>>
>>> --
>>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>>>
>>> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for
>>> myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hardware supplies (was Coaxial Cable) |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
I'm not sure what Harbor Freight {anything} has to do with RG58a/u coax
that's FAA certified for a/c use, but if self-righteous rants float your
boat...
On 2/26/2017 2:36 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:
>
> Sometimes the temptation to order from Harbour Freight Aerospace is strong, but
its important to ask yourself and perhaps the forum whether a part is critical
before deciding. FMEA applies to everything we do, not just the electrics.
For example, many regular greases doesnt fare well in freezing conditions and
mild steel (non-hardened) axel washers have been known to gall and lock up
a wheel, with potentially disastrous consequences.
>
> Yes, Tefzel wires all round for me please Id rather not have to endure acrid
PVC fumes if my wiring cooks off there would be enough to contend with already.
Having experienced numerous in-flight overheats in electronic systems on
the P-3 Orion (Kapton wiring), my cockpit will be well ventilated with efficient
inflow plus smoke removal (exit) doors as well since I cant open the slider
canopy in-flight. Call me crazy, but iPad/iPhone overheat (in rarified air,
poor ventilation and direct sunlight) concerns me too, so I am designing a lightweight
stainless steel, smoke and flame proof sleeve with an external ventilation
tube to contain the device if a thermal runaway were to occur.
>
> V/R Stu
>
>
>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 03:25, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm with Charlie. There are huge differences with the other examples you cite,
such as hardware store fasteners vs AN hardware.
>> The difference in performance and safety between RG58 and RG400 is minuscule
for a very real price difference.
>> RG58 has been the accepted aircraft coax for at least 50 yrs. AFAIK RG400 didn't
become recommended until after the turn of the century. Mainly over performance
with WAAS GPS, not safety, not anything else that matters for other avionics.
>> I'll not argue Tefzel vs automotive wire. There is a huge durability difference
there, as well as insulation thickness difference.
>> OTOH I have inspected many aircraft with RG58 installed 50-60 yrs ago and it
is still performing fine. Unlike the general wiring that was used back then.
>>
>> On 2/24/2017 9:02 AM, Robert McCallum wrote:
>>> Charlie;
>>>
>>> I've followed your many posts and generally "good opinions" on many
>>> subjects over a lengthy period of time and respect those opinions and
>>> advice, but in this case I'm curious.
>>>
>>> Did you wire your bird with automotive PVC wire because it was "good
>>> enough" or did you use Tefzel insulated wire because that's what is
>>> recognized as "correct" current practice? Did you use "hardware store"
>>> hardware because it's probably "good enough" or did you use correct "AN
>>> hardware"? Did you use proper "braided hoses" (Aeroquip style) or did
>>> you use "good enough" rubber hoses?
>>>
>>> I'm a bit mystified why you seem to be advocating "good enough" RG-58
>>> when "better" (by how much may be debatable) RG-400 is readily available
>>> for a small overall increase in $$$$. Wouldn't it seem that doing "the
>>> best we know how" be the most prudent "best" approach?? There is no
>>> labour difference, the fittings are essentially the same, the only
>>> actual "difference" might be a hundred dollars or so which in the
>>> overall scheme of things is peanuts for the average finished project?
>>> There's also "pride of workmanship" and the self satisfaction of doing
>>> it right as opposed to "good enough". Just my alternate view two cents
>>> worth.
>>>
>>> Respectfully
>>>
>>> Bob McC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>>> From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
>>>> Date: February 24, 2017 at 9:06 AM
>>>>
>>>> Here are links to cable specs for RG58a/u (stranded; note that RG58
>>>> can be had with solid center conductor, so beware when ordering), and
>>>> RG400. I picked this site/brand to get both sets of specs in the same
>>>> format.
>>>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/28-rg58
>>>>
>>>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/128-rg400
>>>>
>>>> Relevant data:
>>>> 400's center conductor is 0.0384" vs 58's 0.0355"
>>>>
>>>> dielectric (center insulation) is the same dia, but 400 has marginally
>>>> better properties; relevant only at the extreme high end of design
>>>> use: capacitance of 400 is 29.4pF/ft, vs 58's 30.8pF/ft
>>>>
>>>> test freq of 400 is 12.4 GHz, vs 58's 1 GHz (but we use the cable at a
>>>> max of ~1 GHz)
>>>>
>>>> 400's loss at 1 GHz is 14.7 dB/100ft; 58's is 22.6 dB/100ft
>>>> (unfortunately, I had to pull this spec from other sources; it doesn't
>>>> show up in the linked pages)
>>>>
>>>> Doing the math, for a 10 foot run (more than enough to mount the
>>>> antenna on the belly of most planes), 400's loss would be 1.47dB vs
>>>> 58's 2.26dB. For those that don't know, dB's are a logarithmic
>>>> measurement. 0.79dB of difference is so small that it could get lost
>>>> in the noise of connector quality, installation technique, phase of
>>>> the moon...
>>>>
>>>> At comm & nav frequencies (~100 MHz; 1/10 thefrequency), the spread
>>>> would be even smaller.
>>>>
>>>> Biggest difference is the outer jacket material; 400 is rated to 200
>>>> C, while 58 is PVC rated to 85 C. Unless you're bonding it to your
>>>> cylinder head, that shouldn't be a big factor.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, 400 is 'better'. But is 58 good enough? There are planes flying
>>>> with 58 that is still good after 40 years.....
>>>>
>>>> Charlie
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Art Zemon < art(at)zemon.name
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> I have been following this thread because I, too, am trying to
>>>> decide which coax to buy for my plane. I'm a computer engineer; I
>>>> shied away from EE in college and especially antenna design
>>>> because... well... I heard that antenna designers were a special
>>>> kind of crazy.. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, though, if I understand correctly, in the context of an
>>>> installation in a homebuilt airplane, the biggest difference
>>>> between RG58 and RG400 seems to be that the RG400 is less loss-y.
>>>> Yes? In other words, if an antenna puts a weak signal in one end
>>>> of the coax, the signal that reaches the radio receiver will be
>>>> stronger if the coax is RG400 than if it is RG58.
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking at 10 feet of coax from the GPS and comm antennas to
>>>> the receivers, including service loops. I am looking at 20 feet
>>>> for the VOR/GS antenna. The transponder antenna will be less than
>>>> 10 feet.
>>>>
>>>> At those distances, does RG400 vs RG58 matter? How do I evaluate it?
>>>>
>>>> And then there is the LMR-195 that Bob just showed us. How does
>>>> that fit in?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -- Art Z.
>>>>
>>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
>
>
>Attached is a diagram showing the implementation of these relays to
>allow me to continue to use my SPST (1-1) ON-OFF-ON landing gear
>up/down switch as per my original design.
Could you publish the complete schematic
showing supply, switchgear, motor and limit
switches (if any). I'm having a hard
time putting my head around the need
for a 3 pole relay in the first place . . .
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Bob,
I've attached the entire schematic here for clarity. I was reluctant to add all
of it earlier since this is the result of Marc Zeitlin's work over the past
year to improve the canard electric nose gear system. This modified system shown
is specifically Jack Wilhelmson's from eznoselift.com.
In the diagram, everything to the right of the P1 connector is Jack's original
system. Everything to the left (virtually all of it) is Marc's new system. The
one issue I've been asking about on the Cozy forum is how to tie back in the
backup battery (in red, lower right corner) that was/is a part of Jack's original
system, but left out of Marc's new variant since Marc has a mechanical means
of lowering the gear in case of an electrical failure.
This diagram is my latest version, showing my swapping out the required 3PDT gear
up/down switch with the DPDT and SPDT relays to allow me to use my original
SPST switch.
Thanks!
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466680#466680
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/nose_gearmzeitlin_aex_123.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Relay failure modes |
| From: | "reaper" <grimmer.de(at)gmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
>
> We've studied some contactor failures due
> to manufacturing error . . . a few more due
> to electrical abuse (starter contactors down
> stream of a soggy battery). But for the most
> part, kept a cap-checked and charge battery
> installed and even that risk drops dramatically.
> Others were subject to moisture ingress due
> to location and poor choice of installation
> orientation.
>
>
> Bob . . .
I'm installing my battery contactor (Cole Hersee) 'cap down'.
It seems extremely unlikely that G loading would 'open' the contactor,
but my question is what would be the system repercussions
should a battery contactor open while the alternator was
under normal system load?
Would the crowbar overvoltage protect the avionics?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466684#466684
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solder Station |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
I received the FX888D-23BY. So far in my life I've had 30w irons you plug in and
wait till it melts solder. This one is a joy relative to that, I set the temp,
maybe 650F is good... it gets to that in 20s. I suppose it's great for my hobby
use.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at Finish Kit
Continental Titan IOX-360, 8.5:1, vertical sump, SDSEFI EM-5, injectors in heads.
Aeroelectric Z-12.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466686#466686
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solder Station |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
I received the FX888D-23BY. So far in my life I've had 30w irons you plug in and
wait till it melts solder. This one is a joy relative to that, I set the temp,
maybe 650F is good... it gets to that in 20s. I suppose it's great for my hobby
use.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at Finish Kit
Continental Titan IOX-360, 8.5:1, vertical sump, SDSEFI EM-5, injectors in heads.
Aeroelectric Z-12.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466687#466687
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solder Station |
Forgive me, but i had to go and check: the Metcal is at temperature and melting
solder five seconds after power on.
On Feb 26, 2017, at 21:45, johnbright wrote:
I received the FX888D-23BY. So far in my life I've had 30w irons you plug in and
wait till it melts solder. This one is a joy relative to that, I set the temp,
maybe 650F is good... it gets to that in 20s. I suppose it's great for my hobby
use.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at Finish Kit
Continental Titan IOX-360, 8.5:1, vertical sump, SDSEFI EM-5, injectors in heads.
Aeroelectric Z-12.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466687#466687
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stuart Hutchison <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware supplies (was Coaxial Cable) |
Nothing to do with Coax Charlie, which is why I changed the subject line, but there
were references to good enough in relation to other components.
"Harbour Freight Aerospace" was just an attempt at humour (we call it Bunnings
Aerospace here in Aus), but I see Harbour Freight only sells tools, not so much
hardware my bad.
Nope, self righteous rants dont float my boat, I just thought this was an open
forum where we can all share constructive ideas.
Very Respectfully, Stu
> On 27 Feb 2017, at 05:54, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure what Harbor Freight {anything} has to do with RG58a/u coax that's
FAA certified for a/c use, but if self-righteous rants float your boat...
>
> On 2/26/2017 2:36 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes the temptation to order from Harbour Freight Aerospace is strong,
but its important to ask yourself and perhaps the forum whether a part is critical
before deciding. FMEA applies to everything we do, not just the electrics.
For example, many regular greases doesnt fare well in freezing conditions
and mild steel (non-hardened) axel washers have been known to gall and lock up
a wheel, with potentially disastrous consequences.
>>
>> Yes, Tefzel wires all round for me please Id rather not have to endure acrid
PVC fumes if my wiring cooks off there would be enough to contend with already.
Having experienced numerous in-flight overheats in electronic systems on
the P-3 Orion (Kapton wiring), my cockpit will be well ventilated with efficient
inflow plus smoke removal (exit) doors as well since I cant open the slider
canopy in-flight. Call me crazy, but iPad/iPhone overheat (in rarified air,
poor ventilation and direct sunlight) concerns me too, so I am designing a lightweight
stainless steel, smoke and flame proof sleeve with an external ventilation
tube to contain the device if a thermal runaway were to occur.
>>
>> V/R Stu
>>
>>
>>> On 25 Feb 2017, at 03:25, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm with Charlie. There are huge differences with the other examples you cite,
such as hardware store fasteners vs AN hardware.
>>> The difference in performance and safety between RG58 and RG400 is minuscule
for a very real price difference.
>>> RG58 has been the accepted aircraft coax for at least 50 yrs. AFAIK RG400 didn't
become recommended until after the turn of the century. Mainly over performance
with WAAS GPS, not safety, not anything else that matters for other avionics.
>>> I'll not argue Tefzel vs automotive wire. There is a huge durability difference
there, as well as insulation thickness difference.
>>> OTOH I have inspected many aircraft with RG58 installed 50-60 yrs ago and it
is still performing fine. Unlike the general wiring that was used back then.
>>>
>>> On 2/24/2017 9:02 AM, Robert McCallum wrote:
>>>> Charlie;
>>>>
>>>> I've followed your many posts and generally "good opinions" on many
>>>> subjects over a lengthy period of time and respect those opinions and
>>>> advice, but in this case I'm curious.
>>>>
>>>> Did you wire your bird with automotive PVC wire because it was "good
>>>> enough" or did you use Tefzel insulated wire because that's what is
>>>> recognized as "correct" current practice? Did you use "hardware store"
>>>> hardware because it's probably "good enough" or did you use correct "AN
>>>> hardware"? Did you use proper "braided hoses" (Aeroquip style) or did
>>>> you use "good enough" rubber hoses?
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit mystified why you seem to be advocating "good enough" RG-58
>>>> when "better" (by how much may be debatable) RG-400 is readily available
>>>> for a small overall increase in $$$$. Wouldn't it seem that doing "the
>>>> best we know how" be the most prudent "best" approach?? There is no
>>>> labour difference, the fittings are essentially the same, the only
>>>> actual "difference" might be a hundred dollars or so which in the
>>>> overall scheme of things is peanuts for the average finished project?
>>>> There's also "pride of workmanship" and the self satisfaction of doing
>>>> it right as opposed to "good enough". Just my alternate view two cents
>>>> worth.
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully
>>>>
>>>> Bob McC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>>>> From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: February 24, 2017 at 9:06 AM
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are links to cable specs for RG58a/u (stranded; note that RG58
>>>>> can be had with solid center conductor, so beware when ordering), and
>>>>> RG400. I picked this site/brand to get both sets of specs in the same
>>>>> format.
>>>>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/28-rg58
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/128-rg400
>>>>>
>>>>> Relevant data:
>>>>> 400's center conductor is 0.0384" vs 58's 0.0355"
>>>>>
>>>>> dielectric (center insulation) is the same dia, but 400 has marginally
>>>>> better properties; relevant only at the extreme high end of design
>>>>> use: capacitance of 400 is 29.4pF/ft, vs 58's 30.8pF/ft
>>>>>
>>>>> test freq of 400 is 12.4 GHz, vs 58's 1 GHz (but we use the cable at a
>>>>> max of ~1 GHz)
>>>>>
>>>>> 400's loss at 1 GHz is 14.7 dB/100ft; 58's is 22.6 dB/100ft
>>>>> (unfortunately, I had to pull this spec from other sources; it doesn't
>>>>> show up in the linked pages)
>>>>>
>>>>> Doing the math, for a 10 foot run (more than enough to mount the
>>>>> antenna on the belly of most planes), 400's loss would be 1.47dB vs
>>>>> 58's 2.26dB. For those that don't know, dB's are a logarithmic
>>>>> measurement. 0.79dB of difference is so small that it could get lost
>>>>> in the noise of connector quality, installation technique, phase of
>>>>> the moon...
>>>>>
>>>>> At comm & nav frequencies (~100 MHz; 1/10 thefrequency), the spread
>>>>> would be even smaller.
>>>>>
>>>>> Biggest difference is the outer jacket material; 400 is rated to 200
>>>>> C, while 58 is PVC rated to 85 C. Unless you're bonding it to your
>>>>> cylinder head, that shouldn't be a big factor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, 400 is 'better'. But is 58 good enough? There are planes flying
>>>>> with 58 that is still good after 40 years.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Charlie
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Art Zemon < art(at)zemon.name
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been following this thread because I, too, am trying to
>>>>> decide which coax to buy for my plane. I'm a computer engineer; I
>>>>> shied away from EE in college and especially antenna design
>>>>> because... well... I heard that antenna designers were a special
>>>>> kind of crazy.. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, though, if I understand correctly, in the context of an
>>>>> installation in a homebuilt airplane, the biggest difference
>>>>> between RG58 and RG400 seems to be that the RG400 is less loss-y.
>>>>> Yes? In other words, if an antenna puts a weak signal in one end
>>>>> of the coax, the signal that reaches the radio receiver will be
>>>>> stronger if the coax is RG400 than if it is RG58.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking at 10 feet of coax from the GPS and comm antennas to
>>>>> the receivers, including service loops. I am looking at 20 feet
>>>>> for the VOR/GS antenna. The transponder antenna will be less than
>>>>> 10 feet.
>>>>>
>>>>> At those distances, does RG400 vs RG58 matter? How do I evaluate it?
>>>>>
>>>>> And then there is the LMR-195 that Bob just showed us. How does
>>>>> that fit in?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -- Art Z.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | The color of the hen house is not necessarily a sign |
of bad omelettes.
Was in Harbor Freight a few days ago and found
a package of tie-wraps that were specifically
labeled as "Dupont 6.6 nylon" and "UV exposure".
I think I'd used these with confidence.
I'm in process of cleaning things up a
bit and renewing some old stock items.
Will probably pick some of these up
next trip.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
At 04:40 PM 2/26/2017, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I've attached the entire schematic here for clarity. I was
>reluctant to add all of it earlier since this is the result of Marc
>Zeitlin's work over the past year to improve the canard electric
>nose gear system. This modified system shown is specifically Jack
>Wilhelmson's from eznoselift.com.
>
>In the diagram, everything to the right of the P1 connector is
>Jack's original system. Everything to the left (virtually all of
>it) is Marc's new system.
How was the original system found wanting?
> The one issue I've been asking about on the Cozy forum is how to
> tie back in the backup battery (in red, lower right corner) that
> was/is a part of Jack's original system, but left out of Marc's new
> variant since Marc has a mechanical means of lowering the gear in
> case of an electrical failure.
If plan-b is mechanically independent
of electrical system then why a 'backup'
electrical circuit?
When was the last time anyone suffered
a bad day in the cockpit from failure of
an purposefully maintained battery?
>This diagram is my latest version, showing my swapping out the
>required 3PDT gear up/down switch with the DPDT and SPDT relays to
>allow me to use my original SPST switch.
This drawing is labeled for a flap system
but is applicable to any PM motor driven
mechanism with limit switches.
http://tinyurl.com/jefoakh
It's not clear to me what advantages
are realized with the added complexity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Relay failure modes |
>
>I'm installing my battery contactor (Cole Hersee) 'cap down'.
That's fine.
>It seems extremely unlikely that G loading would 'open' the contactor,
Change 'unlikely' to 'impossible'
>
>but my question is what would be the system repercussions
>should a battery contactor open while the alternator was
>under normal system load?
Not a thing. You probably won't know the
contactor is open until you turn on the
master during next pre-flight (depending
on sequencing of switches).
>Would the crowbar overvoltage protect the avionics?
If the alternator were seriously unstable
sans battery . . . but this is unlikely.
If you have Klieg Lights on the wings or an
electro-hydraulic landing gear system, then
you may stall the system when those accessories
are activated . . . but unless you make some
LARGE changes in electrical system demands
before landing, you'll probably be unaware
of the loss of a battery contactor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solder Station |
At 08:45 PM 2/26/2017, you wrote:
>
>
>I received the FX888D-23BY. So far in my life I've had 30w irons you
>plug in and wait till it melts solder. This one is a joy relative to
>that, I set the temp, maybe 650F is good... it gets to that in 20s.
>I suppose it's great for my hobby use.
that's about how long it takes my Metcal RFG-30
power supplies to warm up a 'electronics' tip.
The big honker chisel tips a bit longer. BTW,
after 40+ years of sifting through soldering
iron holders, this one is my favorite:
Emacs!
You can't buy them any more but the stand is from
Radio Shack . . one could probably fabricate or
purchase something similar elsewhere.
Took the base cover off and filled the cavity
with a 'potting compound' consisting of shot
shell pellets mixed with just enough epoxy to
make them really stick together (Plaster of
Paris might work as well). When the
epoxy sets, put the base cover back on. The
wet-sponge-tip-cleaner was replaced with
a wad of stainless steel pot scrubber. It
provides a good mechanical cleaning while
taking little heat out of the tip. It's also
easy to clean as bits of solder and tip-scum
shake right out of it.
I've been using this holder for close to
20 years with no urges to replace it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Relay failure modes |
| From: | "reaper" <grimmer.de(at)gmail.com> |
Great
I'm using a 2-10 per Z-11P for Batt/Alt so I guess
I would notice on shutdown.
Thanks!
dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466709#466709
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
>
> How was the original system found wanting?
The automatic extension system on the original system only had one parameter: to
drive the gear to extend when a preset airspeed, normally 90 knots, was reached
as the aircraft decreased airspeed. It's simply an optional automatic feature
to prevent a gear-up landing.
Recently, Marc Zeitlin concluded a 1-year effort to modify this automatic extension
system to add more parameters and eliminate the annoyances inherent to the
single-parameter system, i.e. gear deployment during slow flight and stall practice.
Marc added a lower speed parameter to create an upper and lower bracket for the
airspeed to ensure that it must be above 40 knots for the system to operate.
This is was to eliminate another annoyance of the system in that a circuit breaker
had to pulled on the ground lest the system kick in with an ensuing uncommanded
raising of the nose when the master switch was flipped on. Of course,
due to CG reasons, we canard types like to keep our nose towards the pavement
when the aircraft is not moving.
Finally, to ensure it was simply an emergency backup for landing, Marc added a
laser altimeter into the system and dialed it in to allow system operation only
at or below 350 ft AGL. In other words, no more system nuisance deployments
on high angle/slow climbouts.
>
> If plan-b is mechanically independent
> of electrical system then why a 'backup'
> electrical circuit?
There are different versions of the EZnoselift nose gear system. One backup system
is a mechanical setup where a ratchet wrench is used to ratchet the front
gear down if one experiences an electrical system failure. Another backup system
variant employs a small 1.2A battery that is used as an emergency power source
to get the gear down in case of an electrical system failure. Marc has
the mechanical backup system, and I have the backup battery system.
The reasons for picking either (or none) backup version is of course personal preference.
I chose the battery backup because it weighs considerably less, takes
up no panel space as does the mechanical unit, and most importantly --for
me-- if I'm working any non-standard issue while in the process of landing, I
don't want to be messing around with a ratchet (which itself weighs as much as
the small backup battery) and spending time getting the gear down when the flick
of a switch will do it for me.
> It's not clear to me what advantages
> are realized with the added complexity.
I'm not sure about the complexity of the system inherent to its design, either
this version or the previous version. I do understand my goals and requirements,
and how those stack up to availability of technology. I had the original
system with its auto extension system. I was willing to accept its deficiencies
for what it provided. After testing the backup battery I was also pleased
that for a very small battery and 4 wires I had a viable backup for nose gear
deployment separate from ship's power. When Marc developed his new auto extension
system with more parameters, it fit the bill of exactly the type of system
I was looking for (except no inclusion of the backup battery). Thus, through
Marc's design, technology caught up to my preferred requirements.
In regards to adding the two relays in place of one switch, I'll chalk it up managing
effort within the project itself. I have motivation to implement Marc's
new design for the features it offers, but I am not overly motivated to rip
out a lot of previous work simply to eliminate a bit of acceptable complexity
(in my book) in comparison to the effort required if I didn't add that complexity.
In short, yes, I want the best systems possible ... but moreover, I want to get
this bird in the air before I'm too old to fly it!
Thanks!
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466712#466712
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Airdog77 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > How was the original system found wanting?
>
>
> The automatic extension system on the original system only had one
> parameter: to drive the gear to extend when a preset airspeed, normally 90
> knots, was reached as the aircraft decreased airspeed. It's simply an
> optional automatic feature to prevent a gear-up landing.
>
> Recently, Marc Zeitlin concluded a 1-year effort to modify this automatic
> extension system to add more parameters and eliminate the annoyances
> inherent to the single-parameter system, i.e. gear deployment during slow
> flight and stall practice.
>
> Marc added a lower speed parameter to create an upper and lower bracket
> for the airspeed to ensure that it must be above 40 knots for the system to
> operate. This is was to eliminate another annoyance of the system in that
> a circuit breaker had to pulled on the ground lest the system kick in with
> an ensuing uncommanded raising of the nose when the master switch was
> flipped on. Of course, due to CG reasons, we canard types like to keep our
> nose towards the pavement when the aircraft is not moving.
>
> Finally, to ensure it was simply an emergency backup for landing, Marc
> added a laser altimeter into the system and dialed it in to allow system
> operation only at or below 350 ft AGL. In other words, no more system
> nuisance deployments on high angle/slow climbouts.
>
>
> >
> > If plan-b is mechanically independent
> > of electrical system then why a 'backup'
> > electrical circuit?
>
>
> There are different versions of the EZnoselift nose gear system. One
> backup system is a mechanical setup where a ratchet wrench is used to
> ratchet the front gear down if one experiences an electrical system
> failure. Another backup system variant employs a small 1.2A battery that
> is used as an emergency power source to get the gear down in case of an
> electrical system failure. Marc has the mechanical backup system, and I
> have the backup battery system.
>
> The reasons for picking either (or none) backup version is of course
> personal preference. I chose the battery backup because it weighs
> considerably less, takes up no panel space as does the mechanical unit, and
> most importantly --for me-- if I'm working any non-standard issue while in
> the process of landing, I don't want to be messing around with a ratchet
> (which itself weighs as much as the small backup battery) and spending time
> getting the gear down when the flick of a switch will do it for me.
>
>
> > It's not clear to me what advantages
> > are realized with the added complexity.
>
>
> I'm not sure about the complexity of the system inherent to its design,
> either this version or the previous version. I do understand my goals and
> requirements, and how those stack up to availability of technology. I had
> the original system with its auto extension system. I was willing to
> accept its deficiencies for what it provided. After testing the backup
> battery I was also pleased that for a very small battery and 4 wires I had
> a viable backup for nose gear deployment separate from ship's power. When
> Marc developed his new auto extension system with more parameters, it fit
> the bill of exactly the type of system I was looking for (except no
> inclusion of the backup battery). Thus, through Marc's design, technology
> caught up to my preferred requirements.
>
> In regards to adding the two relays in place of one switch, I'll chalk it
> up managing effort within the project itself. I have motivation to
> implement Marc's new design for the features it offers, but I am not overly
> motivated to rip out a lot of previous work simply to eliminate a bit of
> acceptable complexity (in my book) in comparison to the effort required if
> I didn't add that complexity.
>
> In short, yes, I want the best systems possible ... but moreover, I want
> to get this bird in the air before I'm too old to fly it!
>
> Thanks!
> Wade
>
> --------
> Airdog
> Wade Parton
> Building Long-EZ 916WP
> www.longezpush.com
>
My experience with retracts is somewhat limited (couple hundred hrs in a
Swift), but something that seems common with backup gear systems is using
an alternative method instead of a duplicate method. I'd assume that the
ratchet method effectively bypasses or ignores the motor itself, while the
backup power path you're using assumes that the motor itself, or its
wiring, won't fail. The Swift I flew (electric pump driving hydraulic
actuators) had a hand-cranked cable system to extend the gear. Nothing
automatic about it, but if you had an electrical *or* hydraulic failure of
any sort, you could still get the gear down.
Is yours a nose-only retract, or all 3 legs? IIRC, the original VariEze
just had a sacrificial pad under the nose, so if you forgot to extend the
gear, you just rubbed off a bit of the pad. Is it different for the Long?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Charlie,
Yes, the ratchet method does bypass the gear motor. So if the electronics on the
gear motor is bad, then you're right in that the backup battery wouldn't of
course help anyway. As I mentioned to Bob, the ratchet system also takes up
a lot of space behind the panel, which there is very little to start with in a
Long-EZ. And again there's the heavier weight of it. As with any design endeavor
on our planes that we build, I had to balance the pros and cons of each
component that could possibly be pressed into use, this being one of them.
Since I only have the conventional Long-EZ retractable nose gear like the Vari-Eze
(vs. all 3 gear retracting), then a nose gear up landing becomes more about
hurt pride and a day in the shop fixing a nose boo-boo. Of course this was
a major deciding factor in going with a small, light backup battery that can be
stuffed into a corner --and in a Long-EZ, that's saying a lot! ;) -- over the
ratchet system.
Here's a quote off of Jack Wilhelmson's EZNoseLift.com site, which I think helps
explain the automatic retraction/extension system (yes, which is normally separate
than the backup battery issue):
"What is the main advantage of the automatic system over the manual system?
The automatic system relieves the pilot of concern about forgetting to extend the
gear due to distractions. A very large percentage of canard pilots have forgotten
to extend the gear. While this is not the major catastrophe that it is
in other aircraft, it is still causes damage to both the aircraft and the pilots
confidence (EGO). I personally have forgotten to put the gear down. It is very
unnerving especially to passengers. Also at large airports it becomes a reportable
incident to the FAA. Some pilots have admitted to forgetting to put the
gear down two or three times."
Although the quote above may not necessarily paint canard pilots in a favorable
light [maybe that's why I'm building one... ha!], it is being honest.
Regards,
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466717#466717
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: crimp tool positioner |
At 11:14 AM 2/26/2017, you wrote:
>m22520/7-02 available at mouser
>
Unless you can find one on eBay or some
such used, they're pretty pricey . . . I'd
made some in the past but couldn't put my hands
on one. Went out to the shop and carved
one out:
Emacs!
3/8" rod stock of alum or steel works. I've used
3/8" grade 3 bolts as material source. The exact
diameter is not critical.
Turn down a 0.156" x 0.368" "smoke stack" on
the end and then drill with #48 drill at least
0.5" deep.
Attach to your Daniels tool with a small dab of
RTV or E6000 . . . just enough to keep it from
falling out.
The positioner you see above placed the crimps
on these pins . . .
Emacs!
. . . right where I wanted them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
>
>In short, yes, I want the best systems possible ... but moreover, I
>want to get this bird in the air before I'm too old to fly it!
>
>Thanks!
>Wade
Understand . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: crimp tool positioner |
At 08:47 AM 2/26/2017, you wrote:
>
>Hi all, Can some one tell me what positioner I need for the
>standard D-sub pins for an MH860 crimp tool? Also known as M22520/7-01
>Thanks
P.S. if you haven't already ordered/purchased one,
you can have the DIY sample laying here on my
desk . . . all my Daniels tools have positioners.
Shoot me an address . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Kannad Integra ELT |
Folks,
Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
Thanks,
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what
am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not
need an external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps
position
or
the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraft
power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly
transmit that gps position without taking minutes to locate the gps
position when activated.
The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad
immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external
antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how
much of this still applies to the current units.
Ken
On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
> hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself,
> what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
I chose the Kannad because it was the smallest and the lightest. As time
has passed, however, I came to desire that my ELT always have my GPS
position ready to send as soon as I hit the button. So I ordered the NEMA
connector for the Kannad that will allow that, but it is a very expensive
part and I have been waiting for it for nearly two months now.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:48 PM, C&K wrote:
>
> A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not need
> an external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps position
> or
> the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraft
> power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly transmit
> that gps position without taking minutes to locate the gps position when
> activated.
>
> The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad
> immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external
> antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how much
> of this still applies to the current units.
>
> Ken
>
> On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
>> hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
>> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- Art Z.
>>
>> --
>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>>
>> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself,
>> what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
That's really good info. Thank you two. I had not realized that the Kannad
did not continually know its location. Since I am building a metal
airplane, I don't think the Kannad's internal antenna will be of any use at
all.
-- Art Z.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> I chose the Kannad because it was the smallest and the lightest. As time
> has passed, however, I came to desire that my ELT always have my GPS
> position ready to send as soon as I hit the button. So I ordered the NEMA
> connector for the Kannad that will allow that, but it is a very expensive
> part and I have been waiting for it for nearly two months now.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:48 PM, C&K wrote:
>
>>
>> A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not need
>> an external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps position
>> or
>> the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraft
>> power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly transmit
>> that gps position without taking minutes to locate the gps position when
>> activated.
>>
>> The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad
>> immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external
>> antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how much
>> of this still applies to the current units.
>>
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what
am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
I've been told that enough signal leaks out that they work just fine in
a metal fuselage.
I don't have a kannad but In Canada we can get an email confirming
satellite reception when testing Elt's and I've never heard a complaint
about kannad reception.
I can say that the satellites pick up tests from an Ack unit in the back
of a metal T hangar just fine so I can believe the kannads function as
claimed.
Ken
On 27/02/2017 10:13 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> That's really good info. Thank you two. I had not realized that the
> Kannad did not continually know its location. Since I am building a
> metal airplane, I don't think the Kannad's internal antenna will be of
> any use at all.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Ken Ryan > wrote:
>
> I chose the Kannad because it was the smallest and the lightest.
> As time has passed, however, I came to desire that my ELT always
> have my GPS position ready to send as soon as I hit the button. So
> I ordered the NEMA connector for the Kannad that will allow that,
> but it is a very expensive part and I have been waiting for it for
> nearly two months now.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:48 PM, C&K > wrote:
>
> >
>
> A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that
> does not need an external antenna but does take several
> minutes to locate its gps position
> or
> the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps
> and aircraft power whenever my master switch is on, and can
> therefore instantly transmit that gps position without taking
> minutes to locate the gps position when activated.
>
> The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from
> the kannad immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH
> loss of an external antenna on competing ELT's is a
> significant concern. I don't know how much of this still
> applies to the current units.
>
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself,
> what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
Hello Art,
it is a fine piece of equipment and the internal antenna is a plus, but
I do not understand your price question as an example:
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/artex11-13989.php
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/av/elts_zack/elt406.php
are several hundred $ cheaper or even less then half the price of the Kannad
Cheers Werner
On 28.02.2017 00:55, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
> hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stuart Hutchison <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
Hey Ken,
Theres an important safety point to clarify.
The RCC will know that you (specifically you) are experiencing an emergency almost
immediately after a serviceable 406 ELT activation, but without a GPS position
they cant know where you are because the satellites can't fix "a rough triangulated
position" in quick time. To fix non-GPS ELTs, a range of multi-role
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites (such as NOAA satellites with a COSPAS/SARSAT
payload) track a network of orbital paths over the Earth (seemingly straight-line
to a ground-based observer). These satellites receive and triangulate
ELT/PLB/EPIRB fixes sent on 406.025 MHz, but the satellite cant tell which side
you are on, so one satellite pass produces both a true and a false Doppler fix
on opposite sides of track. Unless one fix is wildly improbable, first responders
will often wait for a second, corroborating fix to resolve the ambiguity.
Coverage is probably more saturated over the USA than here in Aus, but it
can still take hours to resolve the ambiguity with a second LEO satellite pass
on a different track. The accuracy of the Doppler fix depends on the stability
of the ELT transmission frequency, which is why the old 121.5 / 243.0 MHz
satellite receiver component was decommissioned over a decade ago (and that swept-tone
ELT signals were generic and not unique to a particular platform, plus
there was a 95% false alarm rate). For example, one of our old C-130H ELTs
ejected from the tail in a known location and it took the LEO satellite system
9.5 hours to Doppler fix the initial location. Admittedly that was 121.5 / 243.0
MHz with poor frequency stability, but its the same LEO satellite network
Doppler fixing our modern 406.025MHz signals. ELTs are still required to have
121.5 MHZ (and perhaps 243.0 MHz for military) as a homing signal for the final
rescue itself, but this is why GPS is so important.
Once activated, most modern GPSs will fix themselves in seconds (up to less than
a few minutes depending on almanac download status, which happens via the GPS
satellites) and then append the fix position in the 'long message' format to
the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) via a GEO-stationary satellite (orbiting
at the same rate the Earth rotates in space, so essentially stationary overhead
each continent). In this way an accurate GPS position is simply bounced' off
the GEO satellite to the RCC rather than waiting for passing LEO satellites
to Doppler fix. Before the first GPS fix is achieved the ELT will nevertheless
relay your unique 15 digit HEXID to the RCC (which, BTW, can be programmed to
incorporate the 24-bit address code assigned to the aircrafts ADS-B transponder
if you have one), so the RCC knows you have an emergency almost instantly.
Food for thought:
If you turn the ELT on in flight, it will begin to GPS fix and append the position
in the signal to the RCC, but it could be that first fix takes longer than
you have before reaching the ground/water. If you dont have time to turn the
ELT on, it will probably activate on impact (my Kannad Compact certainly does),
however, success then depends on continued integrity of the coax cable between
the ELT and its antenna, which may be vulnerable to crash damage in your particular
installation (perhaps lightly retained 'service loops' would be wise).
Pre-loading the ELT with aircraft GPS position buys you some time to get your
position off to the RCC on the way down (if you activate the ELT), but either
way, the ELT isnt much use if the aircraft sinks underwater, in which case
you would want to be floating around with a separate GPS PLB attached to you.
My decision was to install an automatic ELT with in-built GPS (non aircraft integrated)
that I intend to activate immediately in an emergency. If the ELT is
damaged, subsequently fails or I have to swim out of the cockpit, I also have
a PLB attached to myself. Militaries the world over do this too (in both ejection
seat and non-ejection seat aircraft).
V/R Stu
> On 28 Feb 2017, at 12:48, C&K wrote:
>
>
> A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not need an
external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps position
> or
> the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraft power
whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly transmit that gps
position without taking minutes to locate the gps position when activated.
>
> The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad immediately
but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external antenna on competing
ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how much of this still applies
to the current units.
>
> Ken
>
> On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several hundred
dollars less expensive than the competition.
>> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- Art Z.
>>
>> --
>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>>
>> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am
I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Daniell <wdaniell.longport(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
Are ELT obligatory in the usa and canada?
Will
On Feb 28, 2017 05:59, "Stuart Hutchison"
wrote:
> stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
>
> Hey Ken,
>
> There=99s an important safety point to clarify.
>
> The RCC will know that you (specifically you) are experiencing an
> emergency almost immediately after a serviceable 406 ELT activation, but
> without a GPS position they can=99t know where you are because the
satellites
> can't fix "a rough triangulated position" in quick time. To fix non-GPS
> ELTs, a range of multi-role Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites (such as NOA
A
> satellites with a COSPAS/SARSAT payload) track a network of orbital paths
> over the Earth (seemingly straight-line to a ground-based observer). The
se
> satellites receive and triangulate ELT/PLB/EPIRB fixes sent on 406.025 MH
z,
> but the satellite can=99t tell which side you are on, so one satell
ite pass
> produces both a true and a false Doppler fix on opposite sides of track.
> Unless one fix is wildly improbable, first responders will often wait for
a
> second, corroborating fix to resolve the ambiguity. Coverage is probably
> more saturated over the USA than here in Aus, but it can still take hours
> to resolve the ambiguity!
> with a second LEO satellite pass on a different track. The accuracy of
> the Doppler fix depends on the stability of the ELT transmission frequenc
y,
> which is why the old 121.5 / 243.0 MHz satellite receiver component was
> decommissioned over a decade ago (and that swept-tone ELT signals were
> generic and not unique to a particular platform, plus there was a 95% fal
se
> alarm rate). For example, one of our old C-130H ELTs ejected from the ta
il
> in a known location and it took the LEO satellite system 9.5 hours to
> Doppler fix the initial location. Admittedly that was 121.5 / 243.0 MHz
> with poor frequency stability, but its the same LEO satellite network
> Doppler fixing our modern 406.025MHz signals. ELTs are still required to
> have 121.5 MHZ (and perhaps 243.0 MHz for military) as a homing signal fo
r
> the final rescue itself, but this is why GPS is so important.
>
> Once activated, most modern GPSs will fix themselves in seconds (up to
> less than a few minutes depending on almanac download status, which happe
ns
> via the GPS satellites) and then append the fix position in the 'long
> message' format to the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) via a
> GEO-stationary satellite (orbiting at the same rate the Earth rotates in
> space, so essentially stationary overhead each continent). In this way an
> accurate GPS position is simply =98bounced' off the GEO satellite t
o the RCC
> rather than waiting for passing LEO satellites to Doppler fix. Before th
e
> first GPS fix is achieved the ELT will nevertheless relay your unique 15
> digit HEXID to the RCC (which, BTW, can be programmed to incorporate the
> 24-bit address code assigned to the aircraft=99s ADS-B transponder
if you
> have one), so the RCC knows you have an emergency almost instantly.
>
> Food for thought:
>
> If you turn the ELT on in flight, it will begin to GPS fix and append the
> position in the signal to the RCC, but it could be that first fix takes
> longer than you have before reaching the ground/water. If you don
=99t have
> time to turn the ELT on, it will probably activate on impact (my Kannad
> Compact certainly does), however, success then depends on continued
> integrity of the coax cable between the ELT and its antenna, which may be
> vulnerable to crash damage in your particular installation (perhaps light
ly
> retained 'service loops' would be wise). Pre-loading the ELT with aircra
ft
> GPS position buys you some time to get your position off to the RCC on th
e
> way down (if you activate the ELT), but either way, the ELT isn=99t
much use
> if the aircraft sinks underwater, in which case you would want to be
> floating around with a separate GPS PLB attached to you.
>
> My decision was to install an automatic ELT with in-built GPS (non
> aircraft integrated) that I intend to activate immediately in an
> emergency. If the ELT is damaged, subsequently fails or I have to swim o
ut
> of the cockpit, I also have a PLB attached to myself. Militaries the wor
ld
> over do this too (in both ejection seat and non-ejection seat aircraft).
>
> V/R Stu
>
>
> > On 28 Feb 2017, at 12:48, C&K wrote:
> >
> >
> > A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not
> need an external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps
> position
> > or
> > the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraf
t
> power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly transm
it
> that gps position without taking minutes to locate the gps position when
> activated.
> >
> > The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad
> immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external
> antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how muc
h
> of this still applies to the current units.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
> hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
> >> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -- Art Z.
> >>
> >> --
> >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
> >>
> >> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself,
> what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Short answer, yes.
However, in the US (I don't know Canadian specifics) even the 1st
generation, circa 1973 ELTs are legal to meet the requirement if they
were installed prior to a specified date. 2nd generation 121.5 ELTs are
required for new installations. 406 units are not required, no upgrade
requirement forecast. It is all up to the aircraft owner what they want
and are willing to pay.
One overriding consideration is that a large portion of the US fleet
must install ADS-B by 2020. It will provide an automatic trace of the
aircraft for all but the first and last few hundred feet above the
ground, depending on proximity to ground receivers. After spending $3000
and up for that equipment, owners may be reluctant to pay another $1000
for a 406 ELT and installation.
On 2/28/2017 4:27 AM, William Daniell wrote:
> Are ELT obligatory in the usa and canada?
> Will
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
What are your requirements, over here (Europe) we carry these:
https://www.flightstore.co.uk/pilot-supplies-c1/safety-survival-c740/plb-and-elt-beacons-c164/mcmurdo-fastfind-220-plb-with-gps-p3878?gclid=CjwKEAiA3NTFBRDKheuO6IG43VQSJAA74F77PECVW8N0D_uBN-h8pwWywiltaxiQikL1P9fY62EjfBoC-3Hw_wcB
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 28 Feb 2017, at 01:31 pm, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Stu
I definitely overstated about triangulation. I concluded that the
benefit of a 406 without immediate gps position was mostly identifying
what aircraft was involved which contributes a lot. In theory if the
alert with an aircraft ID gets out with a 406, coordinating with a
flight plan etc. can quickly locate a 'very' general position which has
some value especially for relatively common landing and takeoff incidents.
Will - I'm not up to date on all the current ELT regs and
interpolations but yes ELT's are mandatory in Canada. There are still
121.5 units in service and also aircraft flying with the units removed
for annual certifications though.
Ken
On 28/02/2017 6:27 AM, William Daniell wrote:
> Are ELT obligatory in the usa and canada?
> Will
>
> On Feb 28, 2017 05:59, "Stuart Hutchison"
> >
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Hey Ken,
>
> Theres an important safety point to clarify.
>
> The RCC will know that you (specifically you) are experiencing an
> emergency almost immediately after a serviceable 406 ELT
> activation, but without a GPS position they cant know where you
> are because the satellites can't fix "a rough triangulated
> position" in quick time. To fix non-GPS ELTs, a range of
> multi-role Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites (such as NOAA
> satellites with a COSPAS/SARSAT payload) track a network of
> orbital paths over the Earth (seemingly straight-line to a
> ground-based observer). These satellites receive and triangulate
> ELT/PLB/EPIRB fixes sent on 406.025 MHz, but the satellite cant
> tell which side you are on, so one satellite pass produces both a
> true and a false Doppler fix on opposite sides of track. Unless
> one fix is wildly improbable, first responders will often wait for
> a second, corroborating fix to resolve the ambiguity. Coverage is
> probably more saturated over the USA than here in Aus, but it can
> still take hours to resolve the ambiguity!
> with a second LEO satellite pass on a different track. The
> accuracy of the Doppler fix depends on the stability of the ELT
> transmission frequency, which is why the old 121.5 / 243.0 MHz
> satellite receiver component was decommissioned over a decade ago
> (and that swept-tone ELT signals were generic and not unique to a
> particular platform, plus there was a 95% false alarm rate). For
> example, one of our old C-130H ELTs ejected from the tail in a
> known location and it took the LEO satellite system 9.5 hours to
> Doppler fix the initial location. Admittedly that was 121.5 /
> 243.0 MHz with poor frequency stability, but its the same LEO
> satellite network Doppler fixing our modern 406.025MHz signals.
> ELTs are still required to have 121.5 MHZ (and perhaps 243.0 MHz
> for military) as a homing signal for the final rescue itself, but
> this is why GPS is so important.
>
> Once activated, most modern GPSs will fix themselves in seconds
> (up to less than a few minutes depending on almanac download
> status, which happens via the GPS satellites) and then append the
> fix position in the 'long message' format to the Rescue
> Coordination Centre (RCC) via a GEO-stationary satellite (orbiting
> at the same rate the Earth rotates in space, so essentially
> stationary overhead each continent). In this way an accurate GPS
> position is simply bounced' off the GEO satellite to the RCC
> rather than waiting for passing LEO satellites to Doppler fix.
> Before the first GPS fix is achieved the ELT will nevertheless
> relay your unique 15 digit HEXID to the RCC (which, BTW, can be
> programmed to incorporate the 24-bit address code assigned to the
> aircrafts ADS-B transponder if you have one), so the RCC knows
> you have an emergency almost instantly.
>
> Food for thought:
>
> If you turn the ELT on in flight, it will begin to GPS fix and
> append the position in the signal to the RCC, but it could be that
> first fix takes longer than you have before reaching the
> ground/water. If you dont have time to turn the ELT on, it will
> probably activate on impact (my Kannad Compact certainly does),
> however, success then depends on continued integrity of the coax
> cable between the ELT and its antenna, which may be vulnerable to
> crash damage in your particular installation (perhaps lightly
> retained 'service loops' would be wise). Pre-loading the ELT with
> aircraft GPS position buys you some time to get your position off
> to the RCC on the way down (if you activate the ELT), but either
> way, the ELT isnt much use if the aircraft sinks underwater, in
> which case you would want to be floating around with a separate
> GPS PLB attached to you.
>
> My decision was to install an automatic ELT with in-built GPS (non
> aircraft integrated) that I intend to activate immediately in an
> emergency. If the ELT is damaged, subsequently fails or I have to
> swim out of the cockpit, I also have a PLB attached to myself.
> Militaries the world over do this too (in both ejection seat and
> non-ejection seat aircraft).
>
> V/R Stu
>
>
> > On 28 Feb 2017, at 12:48, C&K > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does
> not need an external antenna but does take several minutes to
> locate its gps position
> > or
> > the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and
> aircraft power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore
> instantly transmit that gps position without taking minutes to
> locate the gps position when activated.
> >
> > The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the
> kannad immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an
> external antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I
> don't know how much of this still applies to the current units.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is
> several hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
> >>
> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -- Art Z.
> >>
> >> --
> >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
> >>
> >> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for
> myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
Except in limited circumstances, in Canada an ELT (either 121.5MHz or 406MHz) is
required, yes.
On 28Feb2017, at 6:27 AM, William Daniell wrote:
Are ELT obligatory in the usa and canada?
Will
On Feb 28, 2017 05:59, "Stuart Hutchison" wrote:
Hey Ken,
Theres an important safety point to clarify.
The RCC will know that you (specifically you) are experiencing an emergency almost
immediately after a serviceable 406 ELT activation, but without a GPS position
they cant know where you are because the satellites can't fix "a rough triangulated
position" in quick time. To fix non-GPS ELTs, a range of multi-role
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites (such as NOAA satellites with a COSPAS/SARSAT
payload) track a network of orbital paths over the Earth (seemingly straight-line
to a ground-based observer). These satellites receive and triangulate
ELT/PLB/EPIRB fixes sent on 406.025 MHz, but the satellite cant tell which side
you are on, so one satellite pass produces both a true and a false Doppler fix
on opposite sides of track. Unless one fix is wildly improbable, first responders
will often wait for a second, corroborating fix to resolve the ambiguity.
Coverage is probably more saturated over the USA than here in Aus, but it
can still take hours to resolve the ambiguity!
with a second LEO satellite pass on a different track. The accuracy of the Doppler
fix depends on the stability of the ELT transmission frequency, which is
why the old 121.5 / 243.0 MHz satellite receiver component was decommissioned
over a decade ago (and that swept-tone ELT signals were generic and not unique
to a particular platform, plus there was a 95% false alarm rate). For example,
one of our old C-130H ELTs ejected from the tail in a known location and
it took the LEO satellite system 9.5 hours to Doppler fix the initial location.
Admittedly that was 121.5 / 243.0 MHz with poor frequency stability, but its
the same LEO satellite network Doppler fixing our modern 406.025MHz signals.
ELTs are still required to have 121.5 MHZ (and perhaps 243.0 MHz for military)
as a homing signal for the final rescue itself, but this is why GPS is so important.
Once activated, most modern GPSs will fix themselves in seconds (up to less than
a few minutes depending on almanac download status, which happens via the GPS
satellites) and then append the fix position in the 'long message' format to
the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) via a GEO-stationary satellite (orbiting
at the same rate the Earth rotates in space, so essentially stationary overhead
each continent). In this way an accurate GPS position is simply bounced' off
the GEO satellite to the RCC rather than waiting for passing LEO satellites
to Doppler fix. Before the first GPS fix is achieved the ELT will nevertheless
relay your unique 15 digit HEXID to the RCC (which, BTW, can be programmed to
incorporate the 24-bit address code assigned to the aircrafts ADS-B transponder
if you have one), so the RCC knows you have an emergency almost instantly.
Food for thought:
If you turn the ELT on in flight, it will begin to GPS fix and append the position
in the signal to the RCC, but it could be that first fix takes longer than
you have before reaching the ground/water. If you dont have time to turn the
ELT on, it will probably activate on impact (my Kannad Compact certainly does),
however, success then depends on continued integrity of the coax cable between
the ELT and its antenna, which may be vulnerable to crash damage in your particular
installation (perhaps lightly retained 'service loops' would be wise).
Pre-loading the ELT with aircraft GPS position buys you some time to get your
position off to the RCC on the way down (if you activate the ELT), but either
way, the ELT isnt much use if the aircraft sinks underwater, in which case
you would want to be floating around with a separate GPS PLB attached to you.
My decision was to install an automatic ELT with in-built GPS (non aircraft integrated)
that I intend to activate immediately in an emergency. If the ELT is
damaged, subsequently fails or I have to swim out of the cockpit, I also have
a PLB attached to myself. Militaries the world over do this too (in both ejection
seat and non-ejection seat aircraft).
V/R Stu
> On 28 Feb 2017, at 12:48, C&K wrote:
>
>
> A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not need an
external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps position
> or
> the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraft power
whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly transmit that gps
position without taking minutes to locate the gps position when activated.
>
> The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad immediately
but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external antenna on competing
ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how much of this still applies
to the current units.
>
> Ken
>
> On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several hundred
dollars less expensive than the competition.
>> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- Art Z.
>>
>> --
>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>>
>> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am
I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
>
>
===================================
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
===================================
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
===================================
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Correct. For the U.S., ELT requirements are detailed in FAR 91.207.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/jhl8hfm
The exception that's most commonly applicable to the Experimental aircraft c
ommunity is that single seat aircraft are exempt. The wisdom of flying alon
e without an emergency transmitter of some kind is another question...
Eric
> On Feb 28, 2017, at 5:31 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Short answer, yes.
> However, in the US (I don't know Canadian specifics) even the 1st generati
on, circa 1973 ELTs are legal to meet the requirement if they were installed
prior to a specified date. 2nd generation 121.5 ELTs are required for new i
nstallations. 406 units are not required, no upgrade requirement forecast. I
t is all up to the aircraft owner what they want and are willing to pay.
> One overriding consideration is that a large portion of the US fleet must i
nstall ADS-B by 2020. It will provide an automatic trace of the aircraft for
all but the first and last few hundred feet above the ground, depending on p
roximity to ground receivers. After spending $3000 and up for that equipment
, owners may be reluctant to pay another $1000 for a 406 ELT and installatio
n.
>
>> On 2/28/2017 4:27 AM, William Daniell wrote:
>> Are ELT obligatory in the usa and canada?
>> Will
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Wade,
There are 3 diodes in your drawing that appear to have their anodes connected together,
even though there is no dot. Are they supposed to be connected? If
so, how can current flow through back to back diodes? I understand that the diode
pointing up is for arc suppression.
How can the AUTO relay be energized when the negative side of its coil is connected
to ground through its own normally open contacts?
What am I missing?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466757#466757
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
Stu,
I do always carry a PLB with me.
Why don't you buy the NEMA adapter so that your Kannad always knows your
GPS position. That way, when you hit that button while going down, SAR will
know exactly where you are. I don't particularly like spending another $342
but it's worth it to me. Alaska is big and it's hard to find lost
airplanes. Many are never found.
Ken
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Stuart Hutchison <
stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> wrote:
> stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
>
> Hey Ken,
>
> There=99s an important safety point to clarify.
>
> The RCC will know that you (specifically you) are experiencing an
> emergency almost immediately after a serviceable 406 ELT activation, but
> without a GPS position they can=99t know where you are because the
satellites
> can't fix "a rough triangulated position" in quick time. To fix non-GPS
> ELTs, a range of multi-role Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites (such as NOA
A
> satellites with a COSPAS/SARSAT payload) track a network of orbital paths
> over the Earth (seemingly straight-line to a ground-based observer). The
se
> satellites receive and triangulate ELT/PLB/EPIRB fixes sent on 406.025 MH
z,
> but the satellite can=99t tell which side you are on, so one satell
ite pass
> produces both a true and a false Doppler fix on opposite sides of track.
> Unless one fix is wildly improbable, first responders will often wait for
a
> second, corroborating fix to resolve the ambiguity. Coverage is probably
> more saturated over the USA than here in Aus, but it can still take hours
> to resolve the ambiguity!
> with a second LEO satellite pass on a different track. The accuracy of
> the Doppler fix depends on the stability of the ELT transmission frequenc
y,
> which is why the old 121.5 / 243.0 MHz satellite receiver component was
> decommissioned over a decade ago (and that swept-tone ELT signals were
> generic and not unique to a particular platform, plus there was a 95% fal
se
> alarm rate). For example, one of our old C-130H ELTs ejected from the ta
il
> in a known location and it took the LEO satellite system 9.5 hours to
> Doppler fix the initial location. Admittedly that was 121.5 / 243.0 MHz
> with poor frequency stability, but its the same LEO satellite network
> Doppler fixing our modern 406.025MHz signals. ELTs are still required to
> have 121.5 MHZ (and perhaps 243.0 MHz for military) as a homing signal fo
r
> the final rescue itself, but this is why GPS is so important.
>
> Once activated, most modern GPSs will fix themselves in seconds (up to
> less than a few minutes depending on almanac download status, which happe
ns
> via the GPS satellites) and then append the fix position in the 'long
> message' format to the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) via a
> GEO-stationary satellite (orbiting at the same rate the Earth rotates in
> space, so essentially stationary overhead each continent). In this way an
> accurate GPS position is simply =98bounced' off the GEO satellite t
o the RCC
> rather than waiting for passing LEO satellites to Doppler fix. Before th
e
> first GPS fix is achieved the ELT will nevertheless relay your unique 15
> digit HEXID to the RCC (which, BTW, can be programmed to incorporate the
> 24-bit address code assigned to the aircraft=99s ADS-B transponder
if you
> have one), so the RCC knows you have an emergency almost instantly.
>
> Food for thought:
>
> If you turn the ELT on in flight, it will begin to GPS fix and append the
> position in the signal to the RCC, but it could be that first fix takes
> longer than you have before reaching the ground/water. If you don
=99t have
> time to turn the ELT on, it will probably activate on impact (my Kannad
> Compact certainly does), however, success then depends on continued
> integrity of the coax cable between the ELT and its antenna, which may be
> vulnerable to crash damage in your particular installation (perhaps light
ly
> retained 'service loops' would be wise). Pre-loading the ELT with aircra
ft
> GPS position buys you some time to get your position off to the RCC on th
e
> way down (if you activate the ELT), but either way, the ELT isn=99t
much use
> if the aircraft sinks underwater, in which case you would want to be
> floating around with a separate GPS PLB attached to you.
>
> My decision was to install an automatic ELT with in-built GPS (non
> aircraft integrated) that I intend to activate immediately in an
> emergency. If the ELT is damaged, subsequently fails or I have to swim o
ut
> of the cockpit, I also have a PLB attached to myself. Militaries the wor
ld
> over do this too (in both ejection seat and non-ejection seat aircraft).
>
> V/R Stu
>
>
> > On 28 Feb 2017, at 12:48, C&K wrote:
> >
> >
> > A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not
> need an external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps
> position
> > or
> > the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraf
t
> power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly transm
it
> that gps position without taking minutes to locate the gps position when
> activated.
> >
> > The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad
> immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external
> antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how muc
h
> of this still applies to the current units.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
> hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
> >> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -- Art Z.
> >>
> >> --
> >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
> >>
> >> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself,
> what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Never mind. I realize that is a holding circuit as long as the switch is in the
UP position. But there is a connecting dot missing, right?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466759#466759
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
Joe,
Yes, that connecting dot is missing!
That's how it was in the original diagram that I copied, and I spent quite a while
trying to figure it out! I actually figured it out --with copious amounts
of head scratching-- after I posted this latest diagram. I'm no electronics
guru, but I had never seen diodes configured like that before on a diagram.
As you may have noted, that relay (which has the 3 diodes treed off of it) is the
heart of the auto gear extend feature and the its coil will not get powered
unless EVERY parameter required occurs [throttle 40 knots &
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466776#466776
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
Joe,
Yes, that connecting dot is missing!
That's how it was in the original diagram that I copied, and I spent quite a while
trying to figure it out! I actually figured it out --with copious amounts
of head scratching-- after I posted this latest diagram. I'm no electronics
guru, but I had never seen diodes configured like that before on a diagram.
As you may have noted, that relay (which has the 3 diodes treed off of it) is the
heart of the auto gear extend feature and the its coil will not get powered
unless EVERY parameter required occurs (throttle less than 10 percent and airspeed
between 40 knots & 90 knots) with the transistor opening to ground by the
laser altimeter when it reaches
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466777#466777
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Daniell <wdaniell.longport(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kannad Integra ELT |
Excellent thanks
I am planning a move from Colombia to the US hence my interest. ELT are
not required for Colombia Class 2 ultralights under which my Europa will be
"certified". So I g
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+57 310 295 0744
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> Except in limited circumstances, in Canada an ELT (either 121.5MHz or
> 406MHz) is required, yes.
>
>
> On 28Feb2017, at 6:27 AM, William Daniell
> wrote:
>
> Are ELT obligatory in the usa and canada?
> Will
>
> On Feb 28, 2017 05:59, "Stuart Hutchison"
> wrote:
> stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
>
> Hey Ken,
>
> There=99s an important safety point to clarify.
>
> The RCC will know that you (specifically you) are experiencing an
> emergency almost immediately after a serviceable 406 ELT activation, but
> without a GPS position they can=99t know where you are because the
satellites
> can't fix "a rough triangulated position" in quick time. To fix non-GPS
> ELTs, a range of multi-role Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites (such as NOA
A
> satellites with a COSPAS/SARSAT payload) track a network of orbital paths
> over the Earth (seemingly straight-line to a ground-based observer). The
se
> satellites receive and triangulate ELT/PLB/EPIRB fixes sent on 406.025 MH
z,
> but the satellite can=99t tell which side you are on, so one satell
ite pass
> produces both a true and a false Doppler fix on opposite sides of track.
> Unless one fix is wildly improbable, first responders will often wait for
a
> second, corroborating fix to resolve the ambiguity. Coverage is probably
> more saturated over the USA than here in Aus, but it can still take hours
> to resolve the ambiguity!
> with a second LEO satellite pass on a different track. The accuracy of
> the Doppler fix depends on the stability of the ELT transmission frequenc
y,
> which is why the old 121.5 / 243.0 MHz satellite receiver component was
> decommissioned over a decade ago (and that swept-tone ELT signals were
> generic and not unique to a particular platform, plus there was a 95% fal
se
> alarm rate). For example, one of our old C-130H ELTs ejected from the ta
il
> in a known location and it took the LEO satellite system 9.5 hours to
> Doppler fix the initial location. Admittedly that was 121.5 / 243.0 MHz
> with poor frequency stability, but its the same LEO satellite network
> Doppler fixing our modern 406.025MHz signals. ELTs are still required to
> have 121.5 MHZ (and perhaps 243.0 MHz for military) as a homing signal fo
r
> the final rescue itself, but this is why GPS is so important.
>
> Once activated, most modern GPSs will fix themselves in seconds (up to
> less than a few minutes depending on almanac download status, which happe
ns
> via the GPS satellites) and then append the fix position in the 'long
> message' format to the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) via a
> GEO-stationary satellite (orbiting at the same rate the Earth rotates in
> space, so essentially stationary overhead each continent). In this way an
> accurate GPS position is simply =98bounced' off the GEO satellite t
o the RCC
> rather than waiting for passing LEO satellites to Doppler fix. Before th
e
> first GPS fix is achieved the ELT will nevertheless relay your unique 15
> digit HEXID to the RCC (which, BTW, can be programmed to incorporate the
> 24-bit address code assigned to the aircraft=99s ADS-B transponder
if you
> have one), so the RCC knows you have an emergency almost instantly.
>
> Food for thought:
>
> If you turn the ELT on in flight, it will begin to GPS fix and append the
> position in the signal to the RCC, but it could be that first fix takes
> longer than you have before reaching the ground/water. If you don
=99t have
> time to turn the ELT on, it will probably activate on impact (my Kannad
> Compact certainly does), however, success then depends on continued
> integrity of the coax cable between the ELT and its antenna, which may be
> vulnerable to crash damage in your particular installation (perhaps light
ly
> retained 'service loops' would be wise). Pre-loading the ELT with aircra
ft
> GPS position buys you some time to get your position off to the RCC on th
e
> way down (if you activate the ELT), but either way, the ELT isn=99t
much use
> if the aircraft sinks underwater, in which case you would want to be
> floating around with a separate GPS PLB attached to you.
>
> My decision was to install an automatic ELT with in-built GPS (non
> aircraft integrated) that I intend to activate immediately in an
> emergency. If the ELT is damaged, subsequently fails or I have to swim o
ut
> of the cockpit, I also have a PLB attached to myself. Militaries the wor
ld
> over do this too (in both ejection seat and non-ejection seat aircraft).
>
> V/R Stu
>
>
> > On 28 Feb 2017, at 12:48, C&K wrote:
> >
> >
> > A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not
> need an external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps
> position
> > or
> > the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraf
t
> power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly transm
it
> that gps position without taking minutes to locate the gps position when
> activated.
> >
> > The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad
> immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external
> antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how muc
h
> of this still applies to the current units.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
> hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
> >> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -- Art Z.
> >>
> >> --
> >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
> >>
> >> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself,
> what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ========================
===========
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.
> matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ========================
===========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ========================
===========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ========================
===========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
> ========================
===========
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Internal Balun Antenna Lead |
Folks,
I goofed and bought a RAMI AV-532 <http://www.rami.com/product/av-532/>
instead of the AV-532L. The installation instructions say that this antenna
requires an "integral balun cable assembly." Had I purchased the 532L, I
would have received the cable assembly.
Is this something that I can build? Or should I cough up $70 and buy one?
Thanks,
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what
am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Internal Balun Antenna Lead |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Read this article:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html
I would go fly the plane without a balun. If you are not satisfied with the reception,
then make and install balun. But why try to make it perfect when it
is already good enough?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466798#466798
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Always check the ground, yet again |
We use flashlights on a daily basis and our battery bill is pretty high
because of it. We're making the leap to rechargeables but our first foray
brought the old lesson about check the grounds first into play as I say,
yet again.
I would say the flashlight maker's name but I think the problem will be
endemic to all that use the 18650 lithium ion battery.
Anyway, the flashlight came in the mail, I put the battery in the charger
and waited for the LED to turn green. Put battery in flashlight, hit the
switch, nothing. Fiddled with it awhile, unscrewed cap/switch and put
battery back in charger for another cycle. Again, no light. I unscrewed the
end again only this time I noticed a white powder coming off the threads.
Examination of the threads with a magnifying glass revealed that the
threads were corroded and a vigorous brushing with a stainless steel brush
fixed the symptom but not the problem.
I compared the new flashlight with a AAA battery powered LED flashlight.
The threads on the 18650 powered flashlight are bare aluminum. They have to
be to complete the ground path for the circuit. The AAA flashlight has a
plastic case that connects up the four batteries and has the ground path
built into it. Two spring loaded pins on the forward end of the case
connect to power and ground rings on a circuit board at the LED end of the
flashlight. The threads are not part of the ground path.
I briefly considered alodining the threads when good sense hit me with the
realization that I do not need another project. A few key strokes and I was
printing out a return label.
So it seems to me that pretty much all the rechargeable aluminum
flashlights that have no other ground path than *unprotected* threads are
going to have this problem sooner or later. I was lucky in that the failure
was immediate. If the manufacturer had put a 1/2 penny desiccant pack in
the case I would probably have thrown it away in a year or two and been
stuck with the bill.
Rick Girard
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Always check the ground, yet again |
I have several flashlights as you describe, both $5 affairs from Banggood an
d some very expensive ones - going back 5 years. No corrosion on any threads
.
I think you got unlucky!
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> We use flashlights on a daily basis and our battery bill is pretty high be
cause of it. We're making the leap to rechargeables but our first foray brou
ght the old lesson about check the grounds first into play as I say, yet aga
in.
> I would say the flashlight maker's name but I think the problem will be en
demic to all that use the 18650 lithium ion battery.
> Anyway, the flashlight came in the mail, I put the battery in the charger a
nd waited for the LED to turn green. Put battery in flashlight, hit the swit
ch, nothing. Fiddled with it awhile, unscrewed cap/switch and put battery ba
ck in charger for another cycle. Again, no light. I unscrewed the end again o
nly this time I noticed a white powder coming off the threads. Examination o
f the threads with a magnifying glass revealed that the threads were corrode
d and a vigorous brushing with a stainless steel brush fixed the symptom but
not the problem.
> I compared the new flashlight with a AAA battery powered LED flashlight. T
he threads on the 18650 powered flashlight are bare aluminum. They have to b
e to complete the ground path for the circuit. The AAA flashlight has a plas
tic case that connects up the four batteries and has the ground path built i
nto it. Two spring loaded pins on the forward end of the case connect to pow
er and ground rings on a circuit board at the LED end of the flashlight. The
threads are not part of the ground path.
> I briefly considered alodining the threads when good sense hit me with the
realization that I do not need another project. A few key strokes and I was
printing out a return label.
> So it seems to me that pretty much all the rechargeable aluminum flashligh
ts that have no other ground path than unprotected threads are going to have
this problem sooner or later. I was lucky in that the failure was immediate
. If the manufacturer had put a 1/2 penny desiccant pack in the case I would
probably have thrown it away in a year or two and been stuck with the bill.
>
> Rick Girard
>
>
> --
> =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Always check the ground, yet again |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
What a strange experience. I have an aluminum 18650-powered flashlight in m
y flight bag that I sourced from one of the offshore discount electronics em
poria. It has a clear anodized finish and no apparent ground path from tail
cap to business end except through the threads. It has been illuminating m
y nighttime preflight walk-arounds for several years now without fail. Very
bright, very reliable, very cheap.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/her9d7w
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Mounting a VOR Antenna |
Folks,
UPS brought my VOR antenna yesterday, a RAMI AV-532
<http://www.rami.com/product/av-532/>. I have a couple of questions about
mounting it. The installation instructions are "terse," to say the least.
Am I right in assuming that neither one of the two studs should come in
contact with the metal fuselage?
How do I seal the antenna to the fuselage so that it is weather proof?
Squirt some RTV under it before bolting it on and then run a bead of RTV
around the outside edge? Just a bead around the outside? Something entirely
different?
Thanks,
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what
am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting a VOR Antenna |
For sealing I used Alex Plus
http://www.dap.com/dap-products-ph/alex-plus-acrylic-latex-caulk-plus-silicone/
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> UPS brought my VOR antenna yesterday, a RAMI AV-532
> <http://www.rami.com/product/av-532/>. I have a couple of questions about
> mounting it. The installation instructions are "terse," to say the least.
>
> Am I right in assuming that neither one of the two studs should come in
> contact with the metal fuselage?
>
> How do I seal the antenna to the fuselage so that it is weather proof?
> Squirt some RTV under it before bolting it on and then run a bead of RTV
> around the outside edge? Just a bead around the outside? Something entirely
> different?
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> *"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what
> am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting a VOR Antenna |
Whoops, didn't read the whole question :(. Bead around the outside edge
after installation.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> For sealing I used Alex Plus
>
> http://www.dap.com/dap-products-ph/alex-plus-acrylic-
> latex-caulk-plus-silicone/
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> UPS brought my VOR antenna yesterday, a RAMI AV-532
>> <http://www.rami.com/product/av-532/>. I have a couple of questions
>> about mounting it. The installation instructions are "terse," to say the
>> least.
>>
>> Am I right in assuming that neither one of the two studs should come in
>> contact with the metal fuselage?
>>
>> How do I seal the antenna to the fuselage so that it is weather proof?
>> Squirt some RTV under it before bolting it on and then run a bead of RTV
>> around the outside edge? Just a bead around the outside? Something entirely
>> different?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- Art Z.
>>
>> --
>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>>
>> *"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself,
>> what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel*
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting a VOR Antenna |
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> UPS brought my VOR antenna yesterday, a RAMI AV-532
> <http://www.rami.com/product/av-532/>. I have a couple of questions about
> mounting it. The installation instructions are "terse," to say the least.
>
> Am I right in assuming that neither one of the two studs should come in
> contact with the metal fuselage?
>
> How do I seal the antenna to the fuselage so that it is weather proof?
> Squirt some RTV under it before bolting it on and then run a bead of RTV
> around the outside edge? Just a bead around the outside? Something entirely
> different?
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
>
> According to the 2nd image on that site, there are 2 mounting holes; those
shouldn't have any issue with their screws contacting the a/c structure.
You can use RTV to seal it to the fuselage, but be sure you get 'sensor
safe' RTV for that use. Typical RTV releases acetic acid, which is
corrosive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV_silicone
I couldn't find the installation docs on the site, but it's logical that
the pair of inner terminals would connect to the balun, and neither of
those should contact the a/c structure. Note that since it's already a 50
ohm antenna, all the balun does is convert the transmission line from
balanced, which is what the 'cat whisker' VOR antenna is, to 'unbalanced',
which would be your coax that runs to the receiver. I think Joe pointed out
that you can just hook the coax center lead to one terminal & the shield to
the other, & go fly. It'll probably work perfectly, until some day you take
it to a real antenna range and hook a multi-kilobuck RF analyzer to it.
Then it won't work right, because that multi-kilobuck tester said it
doesn't.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting a VOR Antenna |
> I think Joe pointed out that you can just hook the coax center
> lead to one terminal & the shield to the other, & go fly. It'll
> probably work perfectly . . .
Cessna flirted with baluns on their vertical fin cat-whiskers
but the experiment didn't last long. I think for the duration of
my tenure there (~5 years) they simply connected the coax shield
and center to the two whiskers.
>. . . until some day you take it to a real antenna range and hook a
>multi-kilobuck RF analyzer to it. Then it won't work right, because
>that multi-kilobuck tester said it doesn't . . .
The balun shown at http://tinyurl.com/yytxwd3 is easy to make
and would keep the $kilo$ tester happy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting a VOR Antenna |
Good Afternoon Art,
I have not been following this discussion, but it appears to me that you have
an antenna that was designed to be mounted in a vertical fn or on the belly of
an airplane very near the aft point of the fuselage. Some years ago, those wre
used at the rear of Bonanzas just barely ahead of the aft bulkhead.
In any case, if it is not mounted quite far away from a flat portion of the fuselage,
it wll have lousy reception.
On the other side of that question, at the range (distance) from the station we
tend to be using such an antennna, a wet noodle would probably work OK. Enroute
most of us use a GPS to figure out where we are. If we are shooting a VOR
approach or an approach using a localizer, we are so close to the transmitting
antenna , it would be hard NOT to get an adequate signal.
What am I missing?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Sent: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 2:54 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mounting a VOR Antenna
Folks,
UPS brought my VOR antenna yesterday, a RAMI AV-532. I have a couple of questions
about mounting it. The installation instructions are "terse," to say the least.
Am I right in assuming that neither one of the two studs should come in contact
with the metal fuselage?
How do I seal the antenna to the fuselage so that it is weather proof? Squirt some
RTV under it before bolting it on and then run a bead of RTV around the outside
edge? Just a bead around the outside? Something entirely different?
Thanks,
-- Art Z.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting a VOR Antenna |
Thanks, everybody. I'm glad that I didn't spend a lot of money on a cable
with an internal balun. I will apply a bead of "sensor safe" RTV to the VOR
antenna after mounting it and expect to fly high 'n' dry.
Cheers,
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what
am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mounting a VOR Antenna |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Old Bob,
You are probably correct for "most" VOR/Loc approaches, but some, rather
than being within 10-12 mi of the transmitter, go more than 20 nm from
the VOR and would probably do a lot of hunting with the needle at that
range. While we do use GPS a lot, a lot of aircraft do not have a
certified GPS in the panel, so the VOR is the "legal" nav method, and
some airways still have 100 or slightly more nm from VOR at the
changeover point. A good antenna with good install will receive that
100nm no sweat at say 10,000 ft.
On 3/2/2017 3:09 PM, bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Art,
>
> I have not been following this discussion, but it appears to me that
> you have an antenna that was designed to be mounted in a vertical fn or
> on the belly of an airplane very near the aft point of the fuselage.
> Some years ago, those wre used at the rear of Bonanzas just barely ahead
> of the aft bulkhead.
>
> In any case, if it is not mounted quite far away from a flat portion of
> the fuselage, it wll have lousy reception.
>
> On the other side of that question, at the range (distance) from the
> station we tend to be using such an antennna, a wet noodle would
> probably work OK. Enroute most of us use a GPS to figure out where we
> are. If we are shooting a VOR approach or an approach using a localizer,
> we are so close to the transmitting antenna , it would be hard NOT to
> get an adequate signal.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
> To: aeroelectric-list
> Sent: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 2:54 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mounting a VOR Antenna
>
> Folks,
>
> UPS brought my VOR antenna yesterday, a RAMI AV-532
> <http://www.rami.com/product/av-532/>. I have a couple of questions
> about mounting it. The installation instructions are "terse," to say the
> least.
>
> Am I right in assuming that neither one of the two studs should come in
> contact with the metal fuselage?
>
> How do I seal the antenna to the fuselage so that it is weather proof?
> Squirt some RTV under it before bolting it on and then run a bead of RTV
> around the outside edge? Just a bead around the outside? Something
> entirely different?
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting a VOR Antenna |
Good Evening Kelly,
My point, not well made, is that the type of antenna he is using will not have
a good reception pattern mounted close to the ground plane of the airframe. However.
it will work adequately close to the VOR or Localizer transmitter. I still
like the blades on the tail, but they are expensive.
The antenna in question will work quite well mounted on the fixed vertical tail
feather of a Tri Pacer!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 6:27 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mounting a VOR Antenna
Old Bob,
You are probably correct for "most" VOR/Loc approaches, but some, rather
than being within 10-12 mi of the transmitter, go more than 20 nm from
the VOR and would probably do a lot of hunting with the needle at that
range. While we do use GPS a lot, a lot of aircraft do not have a
certified GPS in the panel, so the VOR is the "legal" nav method, and
some airways still have 100 or slightly more nm from VOR at the
changeover point. A good antenna with good install will receive that
100nm no sweat at say 10,000 ft.
On 3/2/2017 3:09 PM, bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Art,
>
> I have not been following this discussion, but it appears to me that
> you have an antenna that was designed to be mounted in a vertical fn or
> on the belly of an airplane very near the aft point of the fuselage.
> Some years ago, those wre used at the rear of Bonanzas just barely ahead
> of the aft bulkhead.
>
> In any case, if it is not mounted quite far away from a flat portion of
> the fuselage, it wll have lousy reception.
>
> On the other side of that question, at the range (distance) from the
> station we tend to be using such an antennna, a wet noodle would
> probably work OK. Enroute most of us use a GPS to figure out where we
> are. If we are shooting a VOR approach or an approach using a localizer,
> we are so close to the transmitting antenna , it would be hard NOT to
> get an adequate signal.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
> To: aeroelectric-list
> Sent: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 2:54 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mounting a VOR Antenna
>
> Folks,
>
> UPS brought my VOR antenna yesterday, a RAMI AV-532
> <http://www.rami.com/product/av-532/>. I have a couple of questions
> about mounting it. The installation instructions are "terse," to say the
> least.
>
> Am I right in assuming that neither one of the two studs should come in
> contact with the metal fuselage?
>
> How do I seal the antenna to the fuselage so that it is weather proof?
> Squirt some RTV under it before bolting it on and then run a bead of RTV
> around the outside edge? Just a bead around the outside? Something
> entirely different?
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting a VOR Antenna |
Good Evening Kelly
If I may make another comment, I think you will find that most low altitude VOR
airways have the VORs less tham one hundred miles apart.
Back in the nineties, I had to do some testing to get some blade antennas approved.
The FEDs only asked that I check the reception pattern 50 mles from the station
at ten thousand feet or less.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: bobsv35b <bobsv35b(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 6:46 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mounting a VOR Antenna
Good Evening Kelly,
My point, not well made, is that the type of antenna he is using will not have
a good reception pattern mounted close to the ground plane of the airframe. However.
it will work adequately close to the VOR or Localizer transmitter. I still
like the blades on the tail, but they are expensive.
The antenna in question will work quite well mounted on the fixed vertical tail
feather of a Tri Pacer!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 6:27 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mounting a VOR Antenna
Old Bob,
You are probably correct for "most" VOR/Loc approaches, but some, rather
than being within 10-12 mi of the transmitter, go more than 20 nm from
the VOR and would probably do a lot of hunting with the needle at that
range. While we do use GPS a lot, a lot of aircraft do not have a
certified GPS in the panel, so the VOR is the "legal" nav method, and
some airways still have 100 or slightly more nm from VOR at the
changeover point. A good antenna with good install will receive that
100nm no sweat at say 10,000 ft.
On 3/2/2017 3:09 PM, bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Art,
>
> I have not been following this discussion, but it appears to me that
> you have an antenna that was designed to be mounted in a vertical fn or
> on the belly of an airplane very near the aft point of the fuselage.
> Some years ago, those wre used at the rear of Bonanzas just barely ahead
> of the aft bulkhead.
>
> In any case, if it is not mounted quite far away from a flat portion of
> the fuselage, it wll have lousy reception.
>
> On the other side of that question, at the range (distance) from the
> station we tend to be using such an antennna, a wet noodle would
> probably work OK. Enroute most of us use a GPS to figure out where we
> are. If we are shooting a VOR approach or an approach using a localizer,
> we are so close to the transmitting antenna , it would be hard NOT to
> get an adequate signal.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
> To: aeroelectric-list
> Sent: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 2:54 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mounting a VOR Antenna
>
> Folks,
>
> UPS brought my VOR antenna yesterday, a RAMI AV-532
> <http://www.rami.com/product/av-532/>. I have a couple of questions
> about mounting it. The installation instructions are "terse," to say the
> least.
>
> Am I right in assuming that neither one of the two studs should come in
> contact with the metal fuselage?
>
> How do I seal the antenna to the fuselage so that it is weather proof?
> Squirt some RTV under it before bolting it on and then run a bead of RTV
> around the outside edge? Just a bead around the outside? Something
> entirely different?
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bending a SS VOR antenna |
| From: | "whodja" <whodja(at)gmail.com> |
Any recommendations on bending a SS VOR antenna? Based on a modified mount my antennas
come out of the mount at 90 and I would like to bend them to 45. Heat
or no heat?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466821#466821
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | M27500 Shielded Wire For Strobe |
Greetings,
I am wiring a Velocity composite aircraft.
For my Whelen HDACF strobe light circuit I was planning on using the gold
colored copper strand lamp cord from Home Depot... just kidding... I am
actually planning on using Tefzel M22759/16 wire 18 guage from the CB to
the overhead switch and then from the switch way back to the strobe unit
mounted on the firewall (pusher airplane).
Then... I read "somewhere" that the M27500 Shielded wire is recommended for
this application so as to suppress the noise.
Is this really necessary?
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: M27500 Shielded Wire For Strobe |
At 07:58 AM 3/3/2017, you wrote:
>Greetings,=C2
>
>I am wiring a Velocity composite aircraft.=C2
>
>For my Whelen HDACF strobe light circuit I was
>planning on using the gold colored copper strand
>lamp cord from Home Depot... just kidding... I
>am actually planning on using Tefzel M22759/16
>wire 18 guage from the CB to the overhead switch
>and then from the switch way back to the strobe
>unit mounted on the firewall (pusher airplane).=C2
>
>Then... I read "somewhere" that the M27500
>Shielded wire is recommended for this
>application so as to suppress the noise.=C2
>
>Is this really necessary?=C2
Shielding of wires breaks only ONE kind
of noise propagation mode. This mode is very weak
and then only applies to certain kinds of
fast rising antagonists. No such antagonists exist
on the DC power line to any modern piece of
electronics . . . if it DOES demonstrate such
antagonists, then those will be CONDUCTED into
the rest of the system whether the wire is shielded
or not . . . short answer:
No
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: M27500 Shielded Wire For Strobe |
Wow... Bob and Simon I am very grateful for your time. I cannot contribute
much back to this forum however on other forums where I have some tid bits
of ignorance to expound upon I try to help where I can so as to "cyber pay
it forward".
Yes it seemed odd to me to have to shield a DC supply wire to the power
inputs of a DC unit. Output wires from the strobe box to the strobe lights
on the wings could have a argument.
I will certainly twist the power feed wire pairs as suggested for this box.
I also have two Light Speed Plasma III ignition units and two aircraft
batteries. Since Klaus recommends running the POS and NEG wires directly
from the battery terminals (through a reset able CB) to the units I will
also twist those pairs.
My power feeds from the associated CB to the radios is a very small run and
there is no negative wire nearby to twist so I guess that is a wash.
I do have some other wires from DC CBs to switches and then to appliances
such as landing /taxi/beacon /voltage regulators and some of those wires
runs will be bundled next to the XPNDR /ADS-B /NAV/COM coaxial cables
(using the coaxial cable Bob recommended). I suppose the shield on the coax
will do the trick.
Bill Hunter
On Mar 3, 2017 09:56, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:58 AM 3/3/2017, you wrote:
>
> Greetings,=C3=82
>
> I am wiring a Velocity composite aircraft.=C3=82
>
> For my Whelen HDACF strobe light circuit I was planning on using the gold
> colored copper strand lamp cord from Home Depot... just kidding... I am
> actually planning on using Tefzel M22759/16 wire 18 guage from the CB to
> the overhead switch and then from the switch way back to the strobe unit
> mounted on the firewall (pusher airplane).=C3=82
>
> Then... I read "somewhere" that the M27500 Shielded wire is recommended
> for this application so as to suppress the noise.=C3=82
>
> Is this really necessary?=C3=82
>
>
> Shielding of wires breaks only ONE kind
> of noise propagation mode. This mode is very weak
> and then only applies to certain kinds of
> fast rising antagonists. No such antagonists exist
> on the DC power line to any modern piece of
> electronics . . . if it DOES demonstrate such
> antagonists, then those will be CONDUCTED into
> the rest of the system whether the wire is shielded
> or not . . . short answer:
>
> No
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Cozy Nose Gear circuit is attached. I do not have a Cozy.
If switch is in "UP" position and airspeed is greater than 40 and less than 90
and if throttle is closed and if altitude is less than 350 feet, then "AUTO" relay
will energize and hold. The "UP" relay will drop out (if it was energized).
The "DOWN" relay will energize. The "AUTO" relay will remain energized and
holding until the switch is moved to the center, off, position or moved to
the down position. "Auto down" is disabled when switch is off.
Comments and criticism welcome.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466838#466838
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cozy_nose_gear_185.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: M27500 Shielded Wire For Strobe |
At 01:13 PM 3/3/2017, you wrote:
>Wow... Bob and Simon I am very grateful for your
>time. I cannot contribute much back to this
>forum however on other forums where I have some
>tid bits of ignorance to expound upon I try to
>help where I can so as to "cyber pay it forward".=C2
>
>Yes it seemed odd to me to have to shield a DC
>supply wire to the power inputs of a DC unit.
>Output wires from the strobe box to the strobe
>lights on the wings could have a argument.=C2
>
>I will certainly twist the power feed wire pairs as suggested for this
box.=C2
>
>I also have two Light Speed Plasma III ignition
>units and two aircraft batteries. Since Klaus
>recommends running the POS and NEG wires
>directly from the battery terminals (through a
>reset able CB) to the units I will also twist those pairs.=C2
That's a bit of OVERKILL . . . strike that . . .
it's a LOT of overkill. Klaus and I had
had some discussions about it and he didn't
disagree with me but still seems to get some kind
of comfort/satisfaction from running wires directly
to batteries.
Failure mode effects analysis and simple probability
studies demonstrate that each ignition simply needs
its own power source with no chance of single failure
bringing down both ignition systems. A prime example
of yet another flavor of poor FMEA is illustrated
here: http://tinyurl.com/msfmldj
If I were putting Lightspeed (or any other pair
of engine support accessories) in a TC aircraft,
I think my DARs would be happy with one ignition
powered from the battery bus on its own breaker/fuse
and powering the other from the main bus . . it
too powered by its own protection. Ground the
accessories locally (metal airplane) or to the
grounding hub on the firewall (see Figure Z-15).
Twisting the power/ground pairs is of no value
in reduction of noise. If the accessory dumps
and excessive level of noise back to the bus then
shielding/twisting won't help . . . furhter, the
product would not pass DO-160 qualification
testing for installation on a TC aircraft.
>My power feeds from the associated CB to the
>radios is a very small run and there is no
>negative wire nearby to twist so I guess that is a wash.=C2
Scrap the twisting thing . . .
>I do have some other wires from DC CBs to
>switches and then to appliances such as landing
>/taxi/beacon /voltage regulators and some of
>those wires runs will be bundled next to the
>XPNDR /ADS-B /NAV/COM coaxial cables (using the
>coaxial cable Bob recommended). I suppose the
>shield on the coax will do the trick.=C2
Your filtering apples out of your sack of
oranges. Shields on coaxes have a completely
different task . . . they have nothing in
common with shielding as a noise abatement
device. Coaxes bundled with virtually
any other wires raises no concerns for
inter-system interference.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: M27500 Shielded Wire For Strobe |
Thanks Bob for the valuable information!!!
Bill Hunter
On Mar 3, 2017 16:55, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 01:13 PM 3/3/2017, you wrote:
>
> Wow... Bob and Simon I am very grateful for your time. I cannot contribut
e
> much back to this forum however on other forums where I have some tid bit
s
> of ignorance to expound upon I try to help where I can so as to "cyber pa
y
> it forward".=C3=82
>
> Yes it seemed odd to me to have to shield a DC supply wire to the power
> inputs of a DC unit. Output wires from the strobe box to the strobe light
s
> on the wings could have a argument.=C3=82
>
> I will certainly twist the power feed wire pairs as suggested for this
> box.=C3=82
>
> I also have two Light Speed Plasma III ignition units and two aircraft
> batteries. Since Klaus recommends running the POS and NEG wires directly
> from the battery terminals (through a reset able CB) to the units I will
> also twist those pairs.=C3=82
>
>
> That's a bit of OVERKILL . . . strike that . . .
> it's a LOT of overkill. Klaus and I had
> had some discussions about it and he didn't
> disagree with me but still seems to get some kind
> of comfort/satisfaction from running wires directly
> to batteries.
>
> Failure mode effects analysis and simple probability
> studies demonstrate that each ignition simply needs
> its own power source with no chance of single failure
> bringing down both ignition systems. A prime example
> of yet another flavor of poor FMEA is illustrated
> here: http://tinyurl.com/msfmldj
>
> If I were putting Lightspeed (or any other pair
> of engine support accessories) in a TC aircraft,
> I think my DARs would be happy with one ignition
> powered from the battery bus on its own breaker/fuse
> and powering the other from the main bus . . it
> too powered by its own protection. Ground the
> accessories locally (metal airplane) or to the
> grounding hub on the firewall (see Figure Z-15).
>
> Twisting the power/ground pairs is of no value
> in reduction of noise. If the accessory dumps
> and excessive level of noise back to the bus then
> shielding/twisting won't help . . . furhter, the
> product would not pass DO-160 qualification
> testing for installation on a TC aircraft.
>
> My power feeds from the associated CB to the radios is a very small run
> and there is no negative wire nearby to twist so I guess that is a wash.
=C3=82
>
>
> Scrap the twisting thing . . .
>
>
> I do have some other wires from DC CBs to switches and then to appliances
> such as landing /taxi/beacon /voltage regulators and some of those wires
> runs will be bundled next to the XPNDR /ADS-B /NAV/COM coaxial cables
> (using the coaxial cable Bob recommended). I suppose the shield on the co
ax
> will do the trick.=C3=82
>
>
> Your filtering apples out of your sack of
> oranges. Shields on coaxes have a completely
> different task . . . they have nothing in
> common with shielding as a noise abatement
> device. Coaxes bundled with virtually
> any other wires raises no concerns for
> inter-system interference.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A friend of mine is building a plane with an 8 cylinder automotive engine. I noticed
that he had installed a 100 amp ANL fuse in series with the battery cable.
The fuse is located 6 inches from the battery and all battery current will
go through that fuse including starter current. I asked my friend if that 100
amp ANL will handle the starter current. His response was, "It's a 35 amp
battery." I told him that a 100 amp ANL might not handle starting current. He
said that if it doesn't, he will replace it with a 150 amp.
I think that the fuse will need to be bigger, like 200 amp or more. Actually
I do not think that there should be a fuse in series with the battery cable at
all. It is one more thing to fail and it adds resistance to the battery cranking
circuit. How can I convince my friend that fuse is not necessary or even
desired? If he will not change his mind, what size ANL fuse should he use?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466858#466858
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY FUSE |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
Tell him to crank it for 20 seconds and check the temperature of the ANL??
If he was serious about "It's a 35 amp battery", the larger implications
are scary for someone trying to run an automotive engine!
A few guys put the blinders on by putting all their dollars and faith in
a particular vendor who may not be giving the best advice, they may be
unreceptive to any other ideas. Some guys just have to learn the hard
way but assure him that an ANL in the ground circuit is not standard
practice. And don't put yourself in the position where a friend or
lawyer will claim you oversaw the project.
Does his second engine ground path provide a current path to the
alternator? That reduces the chance that he will notice if the ANL pops
during a successful engine start though. He does have a second heavy
grounding strap/wire on his electric dependent engine??
FWIW with a crude meter I used to see well over 100 amps cranking sixes
and eights although it pulses heavily at each compression stroke. DC
(no typo) clamp on meters can be had for under $20. these days on ebay
but they are not very useful for pulsating loads like a starter. The 100
ANL will probably work ...for awhile. And hopefully he'll be on the
ground when it goes bad. I've also seen some 4 cylinder engines that
turn over faster and draw more current than the slower cranking larger
engines.
Ken
On 04/03/2017 11:21 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> A friend of mine is building a plane with an 8 cylinder automotive engine. I
noticed that he had installed a 100 amp ANL fuse in series with the battery cable.
The fuse is located 6 inches from the battery and all battery current will
go through that fuse including starter current. I asked my friend if that
100 amp ANL will handle the starter current. His response was, "It's a 35 amp
battery." I told him that a 100 amp ANL might not handle starting current.
He said that if it doesn't, he will replace it with a 150 amp.
> I think that the fuse will need to be bigger, like 200 amp or more. Actually
I do not think that there should be a fuse in series with the battery cable
at all. It is one more thing to fail and it adds resistance to the battery
cranking circuit. How can I convince my friend that fuse is not necessary or
even desired? If he will not change his mind, what size ANL fuse should he use?
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466858#466858
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY FUSE |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I should have been more specific about the battery cable. He put the ANL in the
positive cable, not the ground cable.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466862#466862
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY FUSE |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
The battery cable doesn't need protection. If it shorts, it will be a
very short term welding cable. As I'm sure you are trying to persuade,
the ANL should go in the alternator power output cable, and be sized
appropriate to the alternator capacity. Battery size is mostly irrelevant.
The battery/starter cables only need to carry big current during
cranking, and fusing that circuit makes zero sense. If they fail during
cranking, it will be on the ground, and not a hazard to pilot or pax.
On 3/4/2017 12:00 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> I should have been more specific about the battery cable. He put the ANL in
the positive cable, not the ground cable.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466862#466862
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY FUSE |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
One thing that wasn't mentioned in the other responses...
I'm sure you're aware -- but your friend clearly is not -- that a "35-amp battery"
is in no way limited to a maximum current output of 35 amps. That number
is an expression of battery capacity: in this case 35 ampere-hours.
A battery's ability to grunt large output currents depends on its internal resistance,
which will vary with chemistry, physical construction, temperature, age,
and so on. A lead-acid starting battery is typically capable of supplying
hundreds of amps.
Eric
user9253 wrote:
> A friend of mine is building a plane with an 8 cylinder automotive engine. I
noticed that he had installed a 100 amp ANL fuse in series with the battery cable.
The fuse is located 6 inches from the battery and all battery current will
go through that fuse including starter current. I asked my friend if that
100 amp ANL will handle the starter current. His response was, "It's a 35 amp
battery." [SNIP]
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466889#466889
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Eye protection required |
This slip of paper came with my transponder antenna. Today I have learned
that I need eye protection to read AC43.13-2A =F0=9F=98=8E
-- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY FUSE |
At 10:21 AM 3/4/2017, you wrote:
>
>A friend of mine is building a plane with an 8 cylinder automotive
>engine. I noticed that he had installed a 100 amp ANL fuse in
>series with the battery cable. The fuse is located 6 inches from
>the battery and all battery current will go through that fuse
>including starter current. I asked my friend if that 100 amp ANL
>will handle the starter current. His response was, "It's a 35 amp
>battery." I told him that a 100 amp ANL might not handle starting
>current. He said that if it doesn't, he will replace it with a 150 amp.
> I think that the fuse will need to be bigger, like 200 amp or
> more. Actually I do not think that there should be a fuse in
> series with the battery cable at all. It is one more thing to fail
> and it adds resistance to the battery cranking circuit. How can I
> convince my friend that fuse is not necessary or even desired? If
> he will not change his mind, what size ANL fuse should he use?
Fuses are cheap, after he pops the first one,
he'll discover that upsizing the limiter is
indicated.
Over a century of experience and product
evolution it was rationally deduced that
fat wires in light aircraft do not benefit
from the addition of over current protection.
Consider that hard-fault protection for
battery excited fat-wires can exceed 1000
amps. Okay, what's a hard fault? Get out
your hammers, chisels and pry-bars. What
would you do to create a connection to any
'grounded' feature of the aircraft such
that great amounts of current can flow . . .
for seconds if not tens of seconds?
Experience and experiments tell us
that inadvertent and tentative contact
of fat wires against anything 'grounded'
is orders of magnitude more likely to burn
away the conductors . . . with no observable
damage to the fat-wire.
I share your concerns but perhaps for not
the same reasons. Clearly, this gentleman
doesn't have a very good grasp of the simple-
ideas behind the performance and selection of
components. It seem likely that the conversation
you had with him about a battery fuse could
be repeated many times over concerning other
aspects of the build.
Perhaps the best thing we can do for him
is get him a copy of the 'Connection and
see how or if it changes his levels of
curiosity/awareness. I'll donate one to
the cause. Send me you mailing address.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY FUSE |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bob and others, thanks for your input. My friend already has a copy of your book.
Thanks for the offer. I will quote some of the comments to my friend (and
leave out others that he might take offense to).
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466902#466902
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Allen <billallensworld(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY FUSE |
I think that this maybe an example of how what is appropriate standard
practice in one industry is not appropriate in another. International
safety standards for autos require that, in the event of an impact
sufficient to trigger the airbags, certain other items are also activated,
amongst which is the automatic battery disconnect. Most vehicles also have
separate feeds/fusible links for the starter and consumers, with just the
battery feed to the starter becoming disconnected in an impact.
Other inappropriate (to aviation) items are fault detection which place the
engine management in "limp mode" which will get a car home at low speed,
but cause a forced landing in an aircraft.
There are many other reasons why auto engines have a much higher risk of
failure than aircraft engines, but to successfully transfer an auto engine
to an aviation environment requires a much deeper understanding of the
environment and operation of both than would at first appear. I hope your
friend has done his homework.
Bill Allen
LongEzDiesel G-LEZE
CozyIV G-BYLZ
VariEze N2CR
On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 at 21:27, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:21 AM 3/4/2017, you wrote:
>
>
> A friend of mine is building a plane with an 8 cylinder automotive
> engine. I noticed that he had installed a 100 amp ANL fuse in series with
> the battery cable. The fuse is located 6 inches from the battery and all
> battery current will go through that fuse including starter current. I
> asked my friend if that 100 amp ANL will handle the starter current. His
> response was, "It's a 35 amp battery." I told him that a 100 amp ANL might
> not handle starting current. He said that if it doesn't, he will replace
> it with a 150 amp.
> I think that the fuse will need to be bigger, like 200 amp or more.
> Actually I do not think that there should be a fuse in series with the
> battery cable at all. It is one more thing to fail and it adds resistance
> to the battery cranking circuit. How can I convince my friend that fuse is
> not necessary or even desired? If he will not change his mind, what size
> ANL fuse should he use?
>
>
> Fuses are cheap, after he pops the first one,
> he'll discover that upsizing the limiter is
> indicated.
>
> Over a century of experience and product
> evolution it was rationally deduced that
> fat wires in light aircraft do not benefit
> from the addition of over current protection.
> Consider that hard-fault protection for
> battery excited fat-wires can exceed 1000
> amps. Okay, what's a hard fault? Get out
> your hammers, chisels and pry-bars. What
> would you do to create a connection to any
> 'grounded' feature of the aircraft such
> that great amounts of current can flow . . .
> for seconds if not tens of seconds?
>
> Experience and experiments tell us
> that inadvertent and tentative contact
> of fat wires against anything 'grounded'
> is orders of magnitude more likely to burn
> away the conductors . . . with no observable
> damage to the fat-wire.
>
> I share your concerns but perhaps for not
> the same reasons. Clearly, this gentleman
> doesn't have a very good grasp of the simple-
> ideas behind the performance and selection of
> components. It seem likely that the conversation
> you had with him about a battery fuse could
> be repeated many times over concerning other
> aspects of the build.
>
> Perhaps the best thing we can do for him
> is get him a copy of the 'Connection and
> see how or if it changes his levels of
> curiosity/awareness. I'll donate one to
> the cause. Send me you mailing address.
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Troubleshooting Assistance Radio |
| From: | "Jim Heekin" <heekin(at)knights.ucf.edu> |
Folks,
I would really appreciate some advice I've been wandering in the wilderness for
a couple of days now.
Original condition of the radio stack: KMA-24 audio panel, two KX-155s (comm 1
and 2), NAT AA80-001 intercom, Narco 150 transponder and TCI digitizer.
The mission was to replace the Narco 150 with an NGT-9000 for compliance with the
ADS-B mandate. Because of the NGTs enhanced display, I positioned it at the
top of the radio stack just below the KMA-24 audio panel. The two KX-155s were
moved down a notch to a position just below the NGT.
In the process I took the opportunity to remove a significant amount of orphan
wire that remained after previous avionics upgrades, both behind the panel and
in the floor.
The good news the NGT checks out and works as advertised. The more challenging
news I've lost the ability to transmit voice modulation from the KX-155s.
The intercom functions properly from all four positions in the aircraft using various
headsets. The radios transmit when the buttons on the yokes are pushed.
The intercom indicates transmission (light shows green) and a signal is getting
out (I can key the airports weather advisory report with four clicks). But,
no voice transmission results when the transmit button is keyed and there
is no sidetone in the headsets.
The standby mic wired into the intercom system for emergency power outage does
not seem to function for voice transmission either.
Initially, I thought I may have disturbed the connections between the intercom
and the audio panel in the process of removing and lowering the KX-155s. I removed
both the audio panel and the intercom and put a tracer on the logical wires
(radio mic hi, radio keyline and radio audio hi in the intercom harness). All
indicated continuity from the intercom harness into the audio panel connector.
I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on next steps that I might check or
try. I can post the pin configurations for each appliance if that would be helpful
to the analysis.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466943#466943
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Troubleshooting Assistance Radio |
If the TX lights come on the KX's and your intercom is working great between headsets
just sitting there, it almost has to be the Mic Audio Hi wires for the
KX's (either between the radios and the KMA or between the KMA and the NAT).
I'd look between the NAT and the KMA first...
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Heekin
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 1:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Troubleshooting Assistance Radio
-->
Folks,
I would really appreciate some advice I've been wandering in the wilderness for
a couple of days now.
Original condition of the radio stack: KMA-24 audio panel, two KX-155s (comm 1
and 2), NAT AA80-001 intercom, Narco 150 transponder and TCI digitizer.
The mission was to replace the Narco 150 with an NGT-9000 for compliance with the
ADS-B mandate. Because of the NGTs enhanced display, I positioned it at the
top of the radio stack just below the KMA-24 audio panel. The two KX-155s were
moved down a notch to a position just below the NGT.
In the process I took the opportunity to remove a significant amount of orphan
wire that remained after previous avionics upgrades, both behind the panel and
in the floor.
The good news the NGT checks out and works as advertised. The more challenging
news I've lost the ability to transmit voice modulation from the KX-155s.
The intercom functions properly from all four positions in the aircraft using various
headsets. The radios transmit when the buttons on the yokes are pushed.
The intercom indicates transmission (light shows green) and a signal is getting
out (I can key the airports weather advisory report with four clicks). But,
no voice transmission results when the transmit button is keyed and there
is no sidetone in the headsets.
The standby mic wired into the intercom system for emergency power outage does
not seem to function for voice transmission either.
Initially, I thought I may have disturbed the connections between the intercom
and the audio panel in the process of removing and lowering the KX-155s. I removed
both the audio panel and the intercom and put a tracer on the logical wires
(radio mic hi, radio keyline and radio audio hi in the intercom harness). All
indicated continuity from the intercom harness into the audio panel connector.
I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on next steps that I might check or
try. I can post the pin configurations for each appliance if that would be helpful
to the analysis.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466943#466943
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)wi.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
All,
I'm building a simple day/ VFR airplane with Z-17 as the basis for my
electric system. I noticed that the battery/ alternator switch is a
two-throw switch wired as "Off-battery-alternator", presumably to be
able to start on battery power and bring the alternator online once the
engine is running. Other drawings (Z-13/8 for example) use a simple
single-throw switch to bring battery and alternator on together. I've
flown with a Z-13-type system in my RV-6 for 13 years so I have faith in it.
Why the different switch design in Z-17? Is there something about the
PM dynamo alternator that requires it to be off during engine start? Is
it because Z-17 doesn't use a master contactor? Would there be any harm
in starting with the PM alternator online?
Thanks
Jeff Point
Milwaukee WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
I always thought that the reason for split switches, etc, was so you could turn
off the alternator without turning off the battery. I always start with the
alternator on.......just my 2 cents.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Point
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:50 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch
All,
I'm building a simple day/ VFR airplane with Z-17 as the basis for my electric
system. I noticed that the battery/ alternator switch is a two-throw switch wired
as "Off-battery-alternator", presumably to be able to start on battery power
and bring the alternator online once the engine is running. Other drawings
(Z-13/8 for example) use a simple single-throw switch to bring battery and alternator
on together. I've flown with a Z-13-type system in my RV-6 for 13 years
so I have faith in it.
Why the different switch design in Z-17? Is there something about the PM dynamo
alternator that requires it to be off during engine start? Is it because Z-17
doesn't use a master contactor? Would there be any harm in starting with the
PM alternator online?
Thanks
Jeff Point
Milwaukee WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Would there be any harm in starting with the PM alternator online?
No, in fact that is common practice and is recommended.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466963#466963
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Switch Panel Layout |
| From: | "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com> |
Hi-
Some time ago Bob published a sample switch panel layout that showed switches and
labels. I generally copied one of the examples and am now ready to label my
panel but I can't find Bob's drawing. I have searched the archives and found
a link that I think used to put to the drawing but now it just takes me to the
Aeroelectric website and I can't find the drawing there either.
I could come up with my own label wording etc but as usual what Bob showed was
very succinct, clear and concise and they looked really nice.
If someone could help point me in the right direction to find this I would be very
grateful.
Thanks!
--------
Jim McChesney
Tucson, AZ
RV-7A Finishing Kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466967#466967
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch Panel Layout |
| From: | "rvtach" <rvtach(at)msn.com> |
Ok, never mind. After posting this I went back one more time and immediately found
what I was looking for. Go figure. I have spent 2+ hours looking for this.
Sorry to take the groups time. Here's the link:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_PDF/Switches.pdf
--------
Jim McChesney
Tucson, AZ
RV-7A Finishing Kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466968#466968
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
At 07:46 AM 3/7/2017, you wrote:
>
>
> > Would there be any harm in starting with the PM alternator online?
>No, in fact that is common practice and is recommended.
Actually, it's six-of-on, half-dozen-of-the-other.
A bit of history:
The first electrical systems to be installed on aircraft
used generators . . . just like the ones on cars, tractors
and trucks. These were simply shunt wound, DC MOTORS being
PUSHED with mechanical energy into the shaft such that they
became GENERATORS.
They required rather sophisticated regulators that not
only maintained the target bus voltage but limited
output current (to prevent commutator and armature
over-heat) and provided reverse current disconnect
so that a NON rotating generator did not revert to
it's roots as a motor and run the battery down after
the engine stopped. These electro-mechanical analogs
to modern electronics are exceedingly clever creations
of the era.
Emacs!
Generators were self-exciting (meaning that they would come
on line with a simple input of mechanical energy (engine running)
and flipping the field supply switch to ON. Further, they
would run well without a battery on line.
Modern starter-generators on turbine aircraft retain traits
of their ancestors and they too run well without having a
battery on line.
Hence, aircraft with any form of generator will generally
have BOTH battery master and generator control switches.
Interestingly enough, the Beech Bonanza STILL has independent
BATTERY and ALTERNATOR switches . . . which is another
story.
When we started putting alternators on TC aircraft (mid 60s)
it was discovered that (1) the alternators did not self
excite at ramp idle rpm and (2) voltage regulation dynamics
were not as comfortable as the generators being replaced.
Cessna (and others) were 'upgrading' the panel styles to incorporate
rocker switches.
Cessna approached Carling to supply a split-rocker switch that
would (1) provide battery and alternator control in one device,
(2) allow battery only operations and (3) prevent alternator
only operations.
http://tinyurl.com/zbo3yg6
Nowadays, many if not most alternators will self excite at
less than cruise rpms . . . voltage regulation dynamics
are improved too . . . so it is less problematic to consider
alternator-only ops. Given the inherent reliability of
the artfully maintained battery, there is really no demontrable
value in planning to accommodate alternator only ops . . . but
it is not outside the realm of possibility . . . indeed, the
POH for Bonanzas (and I think Barons) speak to this option.
Now, how about the differences between the single-throw and
three-throw options depicted in the Z-figures?
EITHER approach is perfectly satisfactory. The single throw
switch prevents alternator-only ops while a PULLABLE circuit
breaker offers a means for breaking alternator field supply
for battery-only ops on the ground. The three throw switch
emulates the split-rocker switch functionality and design
goals adopted by the TC aircraft guys . . . a philosophy
that persists to this day.
MYTHBUSTING: In some circles it has been believed and taught
that turning an alternator ON/OFF while the engine is running
is a bad thing . . . puts lots of stresses on shafts, shear
couplings, gear trains, etc. etc. It has also been reputed
to induce radio zapping transients into the electrical system.
In a word . . . HOGWASH.
I've spent hundreds of hours evaluating alternator/battery/
airplane symbiosis in both in the lab and on airplanes. I've
conducted, witnessed and instrumented hundreds of switching
combinations of battery, alternators and system loads under
the full constellation of conditions.
There is no foundation in physics or practice for the admonition
to start the engine with the alternator switch ON. Leaving
it OFF does relive the battery of about 3A of parasitic load
during cranking . . . a trivial concern.
The short answer: Use which ever MASTER DC PWR switch
philosophy floats ur boat. Either will perform as advertised.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
| From: | iiNet <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
Why is it recommended Joe?
Kind Regards, Stu
Sent from my iPhone
> On 8 Mar 2017, at 00:46, user9253 wrote:
>
>
>
>> Would there be any harm in starting with the PM alternator online?
> No, in fact that is common practice and is recommended.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466963#466963
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Recommended so that the pilot does not forget to turn it on.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466988#466988
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stuart Hutchison <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
Thanks Joe.
Id be interested to know yours and Bob's thoughts on the legitimacy of an article
I read in the club house a few years back.
The author explained that aeroplane alternators seem have a higher rate of failure
compared to motor vehicle alternators that are also more commonly subjected
to mud, water and dust ingress. His reasoning was that in a car the alternator
field is isolated during the start sequence (as are the lights and most other
power hungry devices that add to the battery load) until the key is released
to its normal position. By contrast, when cranking an aeroplane engine with
the alternator field excited, the voltage regulator senses a substantial sag
in bus voltage and attempts to draw max output from the alternator to fix the
problem before the alternator has sufficient RPM to provide the required output.
I reasoned that this was why some manufacturers have split or separate alternator
switches. Any truth to this concept then?
Cheers, Stu
> On 8 Mar 2017, at 13:11, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> Recommended so that the pilot does not forget to turn it on.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466988#466988
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)wi.rr.com> |
Thanks for the detailed answer Bob, that makes a lot of sense. One of
my design goals is to keep the switch position and function as similar
as I can to my other airplane, especially the power and ignition
switches. A single throw it will be.
Jeff Point
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Thanks Joe. Id be interested to know yours and Bob's thoughts on the legitimacy
of an article I read in the club house a few years back.
I am no expert on alternators. But it would seem to me that maximum field current
for several seconds should not cause premature failure.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467014#467014
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
>The author explained that aeroplane alternators seem have a higher
>rate of failure compared to motor vehicle alternators that are also
>more commonly subjected to mud, water and dust ingress. His
>reasoning was that in a car the alternator field is isolated during
>the start sequence (as are the lights and most other power hungry
>devices that add to the battery load) until the key is released to
>its normal position. By contrast, when cranking an aeroplane engine
>with the alternator field excited, the voltage regulator senses a
>substantial sag in bus voltage and attempts to draw max output from
>the alternator to fix the problem before the alternator has
>sufficient RPM to provide the required output. I reasoned that this
>was why some manufacturers have split or separate alternator
>switches. Any truth to this concept then?
"higher rates of failure" is not very descriptive
of cause and effect. While it's true that some
alternators in aircraft have been problematic,
most of my encounters have been grounded in
design or manufacturing defect. We used to break
a lot of brackets on some installations. Piper's
love affair with the Chrysler 'pancake' alternators
led to short service life on attach brackets. An
alternator I conducted failure analysis on a
few months back had press fit diodes pushed into
oversized holes at odd angles using a hand-tool
as opposed to the recommended hydraulic press.
Emacs!
The diodes were deprived of good heat sinking and in
some cases, good electrical conductivity.
The last task I mounted in TC aviation concerned alternators
that wouldn't stay on line . . . a problem I'd worked at
least two previous times over 30 years. Focus
of the investigation was on alternators that had
demonstrated problems over the years, but in this case
it was the regulator's o.v. sense system that was
overly sensitive to normal brush noise from this
alternator . . . they struggled for weeks to "filter"
the field leads (with limited success) while in fact,
it was the regulator that needed to be changed out.
At the same time, alternators supplied by B&C (and
no doubt others) have an exceedingly low return
rate.
The hypothesis offered in the article is without
foundation in physics or practice. If the author
went to the lab, he would not be able to reproduce
a failure by duplication of conditions cited in the
hypothesis.
It's all physics. For every failure there IS a
combination of conditions leading up to that failure.
Proper operations of switches by crew are exceedingly
unlikely to be in the chorus of conditions. Joe is
correct, a few seconds of full-field operation is
of no particular hardship on an alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Starter Hesitation |
| From: | "RV7ASask" <rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net> |
I posted the questions below on the Lycoming List and received some good advice.
I would like to pose the questions again to my learned friends on the Aeroelectric
List to see if I can get a little more insite.
"I have a Sky-Tec starter on a Lycoming IO360. It has always started the engine
BUT lately when I push the START button there is a pause. Sometimes it is a long
pause then it kicks in. Sometimes I release the button and try again. I have
a fear it will not start one time when I am a long way from maintenance or
from home. Is this a symptom of something worse to come? Should I be concerned?"
Thanks
David Lamb
RV7A C-FLAM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467023#467023
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Starter Hesitation |
"I have a Sky-Tec starter on a Lycoming IO360. It has always started the en
gine BUT lately when I push the START button there is a pause. Sometimes it
is a long pause then it kicks in. Sometimes I release the button and try a
gain. I have a fear it will not start one time when I am a long way from ma
intenance or from home. Is this a symptom of something worse to come? Shoul
d I be concerned?"
When you say =9Cpause=9D, does this mean nothing happens, or t
here is only
a click, or there is a click and the starter spins up but does not engage
the flywheel gear? A bit more explanation is in order.
Yes, it may get worse, and yes you should be concerned.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There could be a mechanical problem with the engine or starter. If those have
been ruled out, next check for voltage drops in the starter circuit. It is much
easier to find bad connections when the circuit is under heavy load. Disconnect
the starter motor and connect a heavy load in its place. While current
is flowing, measure the voltage between the battery positive post and the positive
terminal at the starter end. And then measure voltage between the battery
negative post and starter ground.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467028#467028
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Magnetometer Near Transponder Antenna |
Hi cyber Friends!!!
I am building a composite pusher airplane and due to the rather large size
of the Dynon SV ADAHRS it is it difficult to find a suitable installation
location. Dynon sells a remote magnetometer MAG-236 however the box size
is the same (both units share the exact same box). The Skyview will not
work with another vendors unit because of the proprietary nature of the
network.
In the nose I have a landing light, autopilot servos, and an electric trim
motor. In the tail I have an engine with electronic ignition and strobe
power box.
The the most convenient location for my SV-ADAHRS-200 is under the back
seat and I could install it onto the ground plane of the transponder ...
the transponder antenna is mounted onto this aluminum ground plane and then
the transponder antenna is stuck straight down through the airplane
floorboard so that it sticks out from the belly of the airplane so this
ground olane would be a convenient installation rack.
Would the transponder antenna cause magnetic interference if mounted in
this manner? The cable to the transponder will of course be shielded.
The kids will be seated back there and they will have all of their various
digital gear (iPads, etc) fired up and chargers plugged in however I do not
know much magnetic interference the iPads and chargers will cause 2 feet
away from the unit under their seat.
Any suggestions?
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
On Mar 8, 2017 10:59 AM, "user9253" wrote:
There could be a mechanical problem with the engine or starter. If those
have been ruled out, next check for voltage drops in the starter circuit.
It is much easier to find bad connections when the circuit is under heavy
load. Disconnect the starter motor and connect a heavy load in its place.
While current is flowing, measure the voltage between the battery positive
post and the positive terminal at the starter end. And then measure
voltage between the battery negative post and starter ground.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467028#467028
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
| From: | "RV7ASask" <rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net> |
The "pause" is absolute silence. Nothing. It could be as long as four or five seconds
then rotation.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467031#467031
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
I had something a little similar: it turned out to be a weak battery. I surmised
that the starter was trying to turn the engine against the oil bead, or static
friction of the pistons. Perhaps differentiating it from your case, sometimes
it would stall after half a revolution for a second or two, until the compression
in the cylinders was released.
Try moving the prop by hand back and forth a quarter turn before starting, see
if that eases the situation. That might give you a clue. And if not a weak battery,
then excessive voltage drop in the lines.
On 8Mar2017, at 2:27 PM, RV7ASask wrote:
The "pause" is absolute silence. Nothing. It could be as long as four or five seconds
then rotation.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467031#467031
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Magnetometer Near Transponder Antenna |
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
It's not just electrical currents you have to watch out for. Any item with an appreciable
amount of soft iron content will cause issues. Aside from it's own
residual magnetic field the mere presence of a local magnetically permeable object
distorts the direction of the very weak Earth's field that your magentometer
is trying to sense.
Something that might cause an issue, for instance, would be a toolbox put on the
back seat.
There will be some kind of self-calibration procedure, but that won't help much
if the putative toolbox moves in flight.
On 8Mar2017, at 2:18 PM, William Hunter wrote:
Hi cyber Friends!!!
I am building a composite pusher airplane and due to the rather large size of the
Dynon SV ADAHRS it is it difficult to find a suitable installation location.
Dynon sells a remote magnetometer MAG-236 however the box size is the same
(both units share the exact same box). The Skyview will not work with another
vendors unit because of the proprietary nature of the network.
In the nose I have a landing light, autopilot servos, and an electric trim motor.
In the tail I have an engine with electronic ignition and strobe power box.
The the most convenient location for my SV-ADAHRS-200 is under the back seat and
I could install it onto the ground plane of the transponder ... the transponder
antenna is mounted onto this aluminum ground plane and then the transponder
antenna is stuck straight down through the airplane floorboard so that it sticks
out from the belly of the airplane so this ground olane would be a convenient
installation rack.
Would the transponder antenna cause magnetic interference if mounted in this manner?
The cable to the transponder will of course be shielded.
The kids will be seated back there and they will have all of their various digital
gear (iPads, etc) fired up and chargers plugged in however I do not know much
magnetic interference the iPads and chargers will cause 2 feet away from the
unit under their seat.
Any suggestions?
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
On Mar 8, 2017 10:59 AM, "user9253" wrote:
There could be a mechanical problem with the engine or starter. If those have
been ruled out, next check for voltage drops in the starter circuit. It is much
easier to find bad connections when the circuit is under heavy load. Disconnect
the starter motor and connect a heavy load in its place. While current
is flowing, measure the voltage between the battery positive post and the positive
terminal at the starter end. And then measure voltage between the battery
negative post and starter ground.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467028#467028
===================================
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
===================================
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
===================================
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Magnetometer Near Transponder Antenna |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
While it can be challenging to find magnetically quiet areas on certain
aircraft, the Dynon Skyview ADAHRS is NOT large in size. The units are
smaller than a pack of cigarettes. Usually the separate magnetometer can
be located near a wing tip if there isn't a quiet area in the fuselage.
I built a shelf at the top of my fuselage to keep mine away from moving
cables, flight controls and other electrics.
On 3/8/2017 1:03 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> It's not just electrical currents you have to watch out for. Any item with an
appreciable amount of soft iron content will cause issues. Aside from it's own
residual magnetic field the mere presence of a local magnetically permeable
object distorts the direction of the very weak Earth's field that your magentometer
is trying to sense.
>
> Something that might cause an issue, for instance, would be a toolbox put on
the back seat.
>
> There will be some kind of self-calibration procedure, but that won't help much
if the putative toolbox moves in flight.
>
>
> On 8Mar2017, at 2:18 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>
> Hi cyber Friends!!!
>
> I am building a composite pusher airplane and due to the rather large size of
the Dynon SV ADAHRS it is it difficult to find a suitable installation location.
Dynon sells a remote magnetometer MAG-236 however the box size is the same
(both units share the exact same box). The Skyview will not work with another
vendors unit because of the proprietary nature of the network.
>
> In the nose I have a landing light, autopilot servos, and an electric trim motor.
In the tail I have an engine with electronic ignition and strobe power box.
>
> The the most convenient location for my SV-ADAHRS-200 is under the back seat
and I could install it onto the ground plane of the transponder ... the transponder
antenna is mounted onto this aluminum ground plane and then the transponder
antenna is stuck straight down through the airplane floorboard so that it
sticks out from the belly of the airplane so this ground olane would be a convenient
installation rack.
>
> Would the transponder antenna cause magnetic interference if mounted in this
manner? The cable to the transponder will of course be shielded.
>
> The kids will be seated back there and they will have all of their various digital
gear (iPads, etc) fired up and chargers plugged in however I do not know
much magnetic interference the iPads and chargers will cause 2 feet away from
the unit under their seat.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> THANKS!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2017 10:59 AM, "user9253" wrote:
>
> There could be a mechanical problem with the engine or starter. If those have
been ruled out, next check for voltage drops in the starter circuit. It is
much easier to find bad connections when the circuit is under heavy load. Disconnect
the starter motor and connect a heavy load in its place. While current
is flowing, measure the voltage between the battery positive post and the positive
terminal at the starter end. And then measure voltage between the battery
negative post and starter ground.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467028#467028
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
David;
Sounds like a faulty starter switch/button which is not sending the "start"
signal to the solenoid. If the start signal was going to the solenoid you'd at
least have a "click". With absolutely nothing, dead silence, the circuit must be
open before the solenoid somewhere. The most likely suspect being the starter
button/switch. OR, possibly a ground issue for the solenoid. where it isn't
being grounded properly and therefore not pulling in. Sometimes dirty switch
contacts or dubious grounds "make" on their own after a short period as tiny
currents, clean or burn away the high resistance connection allowing the
necessary current to then flow.
Bob McC
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: RV7ASask <rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net>
> Date: March 8, 2017 at 2:27 PM
>
>
>
> The "pause" is absolute silence. Nothing. It could be as long as four or
> five seconds then rotation.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467031#467031
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
This same sort of thing just happened to me. Turn the key, and
nothing but the firewall solenoid clunking. Turn it a couple
more times and everything was great.
I replaced the starter and then things were fine, but, I did
one thing in the meantime. The old starter was wired per
Van's plans where you have both the fat wire and the other
wire running from the firewall solenoid to the starter solenoid.
So one big terminal and one small terminal on each end...jumper
removed on the starter.
The new starter I wired with just the single fat wire.
Since it was an NL starter, you have to wire them with
just the fat wire.
With that, everything works fine.
And, bench testing the starter for both the solenoid action,
and the combined solenoid+spin worked just fine many many
times during the test.
So ultimately I'm guessing I wasn't making good contact
on the small terminal of the firewall solenoid. I can't
remember if that was the "S" terminal or not off hand as I
type this.
Anyway, just something to consider.
Tim
On 03/08/2017 02:32 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: RV7ASask
> Date:03/08/2017 2:27 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter Hesitation
>
>
> The "pause" is absolute silence. Nothing. It could be as long as four or
> five seconds then rotation.
>
> David
>
> If not even a click, that points to the start switch, or a sticking
> start solenoid.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467031#467031
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Magnetometer Near Transponder Antenna |
Kelly,
Thanks for the information. Are you running a Skyview?
The Skyview system has a remote mounted ADAHRS-200 box (both attitude and
compass) and also an optional SV-MAG-236 remote mounted magnetic compass for
challenging installations where the location of the ADAHRS is too
magnetically noisy.
Sadly, both boxes listed above use the exact same design case and its
dimensions are 2.60 inches front/back (plus some for the serial connector),
4.71 inches side to side, and 1.22 inches tall. If they offered a cigarette
box sixed gizmo then I would be super happy however the SV-MAG-236 is all
they have to offer and the space I have out at my strake end is too small.
I really do not want to have to get involved in carving out a chunk of my
wing foam...that would suck.
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magnetometer Near Transponder Antenna
-->
While it can be challenging to find magnetically quiet areas on certain
aircraft, the Dynon Skyview ADAHRS is NOT large in size. The units are
smaller than a pack of cigarettes. Usually the separate magnetometer can be
located near a wing tip if there isn't a quiet area in the fuselage.
I built a shelf at the top of my fuselage to keep mine away from moving
cables, flight controls and other electrics.
On 3/8/2017 1:03 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
> -->
>
> It's not just electrical currents you have to watch out for. Any item with
an appreciable amount of soft iron content will cause issues. Aside from
it's own residual magnetic field the mere presence of a local magnetically
permeable object distorts the direction of the very weak Earth's field that
your magentometer is trying to sense.
>
> Something that might cause an issue, for instance, would be a toolbox put
on the back seat.
>
> There will be some kind of self-calibration procedure, but that won't help
much if the putative toolbox moves in flight.
>
>
> On 8Mar2017, at 2:18 PM, William Hunter
wrote:
>
> Hi cyber Friends!!!
>
> I am building a composite pusher airplane and due to the rather large size
of the Dynon SV ADAHRS it is it difficult to find a suitable installation
location. Dynon sells a remote magnetometer MAG-236 however the box size is
the same (both units share the exact same box). The Skyview will not work
with another vendors unit because of the proprietary nature of the network.
>
> In the nose I have a landing light, autopilot servos, and an electric trim
motor. In the tail I have an engine with electronic ignition and strobe
power box.
>
> The the most convenient location for my SV-ADAHRS-200 is under the back
seat and I could install it onto the ground plane of the transponder ... the
transponder antenna is mounted onto this aluminum ground plane and then the
transponder antenna is stuck straight down through the airplane floorboard
so that it sticks out from the belly of the airplane so this ground olane
would be a convenient installation rack.
>
> Would the transponder antenna cause magnetic interference if mounted in
this manner? The cable to the transponder will of course be shielded.
>
> The kids will be seated back there and they will have all of their various
digital gear (iPads, etc) fired up and chargers plugged in however I do not
know much magnetic interference the iPads and chargers will cause 2 feet
away from the unit under their seat.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> THANKS!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2017 10:59 AM, "user9253" wrote:
> -->
>
> There could be a mechanical problem with the engine or starter. If those
have been ruled out, next check for voltage drops in the starter circuit.
It is much easier to find bad connections when the circuit is under heavy
load. Disconnect the starter motor and connect a heavy load in its place.
While current is flowing, measure the voltage between the battery positive
post and the positive terminal at the starter end. And then measure voltage
between the battery negative post and starter ground.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467028#467028
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
I don't know if this helps, but it is a characteristic of LiFePO4 batteries
that under some conditions performance will improve when a load is applied.
Presumably the load warms things up, resistance drops, and voltage rises,
but that explanation is just this neophyte's guess. So, given this
behavior.....
.....it is possible that the battery is heating up from the load, and then
finally reaching the point where it will spin the prop. A fresh battery
would be the answer
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> This same sort of thing just happened to me. Turn the key, and
> nothing but the firewall solenoid clunking. Turn it a couple
> more times and everything was great.
>
> I replaced the starter and then things were fine, but, I did
> one thing in the meantime. The old starter was wired per
> Van's plans where you have both the fat wire and the other
> wire running from the firewall solenoid to the starter solenoid.
> So one big terminal and one small terminal on each end...jumper
> removed on the starter.
>
> The new starter I wired with just the single fat wire.
> Since it was an NL starter, you have to wire them with
> just the fat wire.
>
> With that, everything works fine.
>
> And, bench testing the starter for both the solenoid action,
> and the combined solenoid+spin worked just fine many many
> times during the test.
>
> So ultimately I'm guessing I wasn't making good contact
> on the small terminal of the firewall solenoid. I can't
> remember if that was the "S" terminal or not off hand as I
> type this.
>
> Anyway, just something to consider.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 03/08/2017 02:32 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: RV7ASask
>> Date:03/08/2017 2:27 PM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter Hesitation
>>
>> >
>>
>> The "pause" is absolute silence. Nothing. It could be as long as four or
>> five seconds then rotation.
>>
>> David
>>
>> If not even a click, that points to the start switch, or a sticking
>> start solenoid.
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467031#467031
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Magnetometer Near Transponder Antenna |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Yes, I have a Skyview system. Yes, the box is a little fatter than
cigarette pack, but not by much. I have both the ADAHRS-200 and 201 for
redundancy. I don't know how you would package them much smaller,
especially the ADAHRS to make the necessary static and pitot connections.
On 3/8/2017 2:52 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>
> Kelly,
>
> Thanks for the information. Are you running a Skyview?
>
> The Skyview system has a remote mounted ADAHRS-200 box (both attitude and
> compass) and also an optional SV-MAG-236 remote mounted magnetic compass for
> challenging installations where the location of the ADAHRS is too
> magnetically noisy.
>
> Sadly, both boxes listed above use the exact same design case and its
> dimensions are 2.60 inches front/back (plus some for the serial connector),
> 4.71 inches side to side, and 1.22 inches tall. If they offered a cigarette
> box sixed gizmo then I would be super happy however the SV-MAG-236 is all
> they have to offer and the space I have out at my strake end is too small.
> I really do not want to have to get involved in carving out a chunk of my
> wing foam...that would suck.
>
> ..
>
> Cheers!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 12:29 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magnetometer Near Transponder Antenna
>
> -->
>
> While it can be challenging to find magnetically quiet areas on certain
> aircraft, the Dynon Skyview ADAHRS is NOT large in size. The units are
> smaller than a pack of cigarettes. Usually the separate magnetometer can be
> located near a wing tip if there isn't a quiet area in the fuselage.
> I built a shelf at the top of my fuselage to keep mine away from moving
> cables, flight controls and other electrics.
>
>
> On 3/8/2017 1:03 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>> -->
>>
>> It's not just electrical currents you have to watch out for. Any item with
> an appreciable amount of soft iron content will cause issues. Aside from
> it's own residual magnetic field the mere presence of a local magnetically
> permeable object distorts the direction of the very weak Earth's field that
> your magentometer is trying to sense.
>>
>> Something that might cause an issue, for instance, would be a toolbox put
> on the back seat.
>>
>> There will be some kind of self-calibration procedure, but that won't help
> much if the putative toolbox moves in flight.
>>
>>
>> On 8Mar2017, at 2:18 PM, William Hunter
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi cyber Friends!!!
>>
>> I am building a composite pusher airplane and due to the rather large size
> of the Dynon SV ADAHRS it is it difficult to find a suitable installation
> location. Dynon sells a remote magnetometer MAG-236 however the box size is
> the same (both units share the exact same box). The Skyview will not work
> with another vendors unit because of the proprietary nature of the network.
>>
>> In the nose I have a landing light, autopilot servos, and an electric trim
> motor. In the tail I have an engine with electronic ignition and strobe
> power box.
>>
>> The the most convenient location for my SV-ADAHRS-200 is under the back
> seat and I could install it onto the ground plane of the transponder ... the
> transponder antenna is mounted onto this aluminum ground plane and then the
> transponder antenna is stuck straight down through the airplane floorboard
> so that it sticks out from the belly of the airplane so this ground olane
> would be a convenient installation rack.
>>
>> Would the transponder antenna cause magnetic interference if mounted in
> this manner? The cable to the transponder will of course be shielded.
>>
>> The kids will be seated back there and they will have all of their various
> digital gear (iPads, etc) fired up and chargers plugged in however I do not
> know much magnetic interference the iPads and chargers will cause 2 feet
> away from the unit under their seat.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> THANKS!!!
>>
>> Bill Hunter
>>
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2017 10:59 AM, "user9253" wrote:
>> -->
>>
>> There could be a mechanical problem with the engine or starter. If those
> have been ruled out, next check for voltage drops in the starter circuit.
> It is much easier to find bad connections when the circuit is under heavy
> load. Disconnect the starter motor and connect a heavy load in its place.
> While current is flowing, measure the voltage between the battery positive
> post and the positive terminal at the starter end. And then measure voltage
> between the battery negative post and starter ground.
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467028#467028
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===================================
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ===================================
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | D-Sub Connectors and |
Hi All,
I am wiring my Infinity Grips to my panel and I want to install them with a
connector as opposed to hard wired.
I bought this D-Sub 15 pin connector:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007R2JGOU/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie
=UTF8&psc=1
I do not like the connectors with the metal tap on something so small (makes
me use too many bad words in the process) so I would greatly prefer to use
the M39029/58-360 and M39029/57-354 connectors because I already have the
Eclipse crimp tool.
Does anyone know if these connectors will insert into the D-Sub 15 pin
connector I purchased? If not what connector should I buy to use with the
M39029/XXXX?
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub Connectors and |
I am not recommending this for your airplane, but when I have to take small-gauge
wire into a screw terminal, I strip twice the length, double it back, and give
it a gentle twist.
That way you're working with twice the amount of wire as before for the screw to
grab.
Hope someone can answer your pin contact question, but just throwing that out for
future consideration.
Daniel
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 7:07 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am wiring my Infinity Grips to my panel and I want to install them with a
> connector as opposed to hard wired.
>
> I bought this D-Sub 15 pin connector:
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007R2JGOU/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie
> =UTF8&psc=1
>
> I do not like the connectors with the metal tap on something so small (makes
> me use too many bad words in the process) so I would greatly prefer to use
> the M39029/58-360 and M39029/57-354 connectors because I already have the
> Eclipse crimp tool.
>
> Does anyone know if these connectors will insert into the D-Sub 15 pin
> connector I purchased? If not what connector should I buy to use with the
> M39029/XXXX?
>
> THANKS!!!
>
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub Connectors and |
At 07:07 PM 3/8/2017, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi All,
>
>I am wiring my Infinity Grips to my panel and I want to install them with a
>connector as opposed to hard wired.
>
>I bought this D-Sub 15 pin connector:
>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007R2JGOU/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie
>=UTF8&psc=1
>
>I do not like the connectors with the metal tap on something so small (makes
>me use too many bad words in the process) so I would greatly prefer to use
>the M39029/58-360 and M39029/57-354 connectors because I already have the
>Eclipse crimp tool.
>
>Does anyone know if these connectors will insert into the D-Sub 15 pin
>connector I purchased? If not what connector should I buy to use with the
>M39029/XXXX?
>
It should be fine . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub Connectors and |
That is the answer I was looking for. Thanks Bob!!! That is the answer I
was looking for. Thanks Bob!!
Bill Hunter
On Mar 8, 2017 6:25 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:07 PM 3/8/2017, you wrote:
>
> billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am wiring my Infinity Grips to my panel and I want to install them with a
> connector as opposed to hard wired.
>
> I bought this D-Sub 15 pin connector:
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007R2JGOU/ref=oh_aui_
> search_detailpage?ie
> =UTF8&psc=1
>
> I do not like the connectors with the metal tap on something so small
> (makes
> me use too many bad words in the process) so I would greatly prefer to use
> the M39029/58-360 and M39029/57-354 connectors because I already have the
> Eclipse crimp tool.
>
> Does anyone know if these connectors will insert into the D-Sub 15 pin
> connector I purchased? If not what connector should I buy to use with the
> M39029/XXXX?
>
>
> It should be fine . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | edward Clegg <edwclg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
Let me ask this. Does this happen only when the engine is hot?
If so I'll relate my 2 cents
Ed Clegg
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM user9253 wrote:
>
> There could be a mechanical problem with the engine or starter. If those
> have been ruled out, next check for voltage drops in the starter circuit.
> It is much easier to find bad connections when the circuit is under heavy
> load. Disconnect the starter motor and connect a heavy load in its place.
> While current is flowing, measure the voltage between the battery positive
> post and the positive terminal at the starter end. And then measure
> voltage between the battery negative post and starter ground.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467028#467028
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
| From: | "RV7ASask" <rv7alamb(at)sasktel.net> |
"Let me ask this. Does this happen only when the engine is hot?
If so I'll relate my 2 cents"
No, the last start, a couple of days ago, was the first for a couple of months
and there was a long "pause". Last year this pause was happening with both a hot
and a cold engine,
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467086#467086
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
Although I have this engine time on my GRT EIS I would like to have this alr
eady installed additional system on my RV-6A which has a zero time rebuilt L
ycoming.
I have a master key and start button which I believe should be spliced into t
he starter switch from the lamp, which being red when engine isn't running w
ill also serve as a reminder to shut it off after the flight.
Then I should wire from the Hobbs meter to my fuse panel. Could someone ple
ase confirm for my pace of mind?
Thanks,
RonBurnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stuart Hutchison <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-17 battery/ alternator switch |
Thanks Joe & Bob.
I=99ve bought lots of parts from B&C, but in this case my
PlanePower 70A (internally regulated) also seems very well made, with
cooling air intake through the windings, hot air extracted by fans at
both front and back ends, plus a ram-air cooling duct directly targeting
the potted regulator.
The mounting brackets are very solid too, so hopefully the drive belt is
the only part I=99ll ever have to replace.
V/R, Stu
> On 9 Mar 2017, at 04:12, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>> The author explained that aeroplane alternators seem have a higher
rate of failure compared to motor vehicle alternators that are also more
commonly subjected to mud, water and dust ingress. His reasoning was
that in a car the alternator field is isolated during the start sequence
(as are the lights and most other power hungry devices that add to the
battery load) until the key is released to its normal position. By
contrast, when cranking an aeroplane engine with the alternator field
excited, the voltage regulator senses a substantial sag in bus voltage
and attempts to draw max output from the alternator to fix the problem
before the alternator has sufficient RPM to provide the required output.
I reasoned that this was why some manufacturers have split or separate
alternator switches. Any truth to this concept then?
>
> "higher rates of failure" is not very descriptive
> of cause and effect. While it's true that some
> alternators in aircraft have been problematic,
> most of my encounters have been grounded in
> design or manufacturing defect. We used to break
> a lot of brackets on some installations. Piper's
> love affair with the Chrysler 'pancake' alternators
> led to short service life on attach brackets. An
> alternator I conducted failure analysis on a
> few months back had press fit diodes pushed into
> oversized holes at odd angles using a hand-tool
> as opposed to the recommended hydraulic press.
>
>
> <8e94c69.jpg>
>
> The diodes were deprived of good heat sinking and in
> some cases, good electrical conductivity.
>
> The last task I mounted in TC aviation concerned alternators
> that wouldn't stay on line . . . a problem I'd worked at
> least two previous times over 30 years. Focus
> of the investigation was on alternators that had
> demonstrated problems over the years, but in this case
> it was the regulator's o.v. sense system that was
> overly sensitive to normal brush noise from this
> alternator . . . they struggled for weeks to "filter"
> the field leads (with limited success) while in fact,
> it was the regulator that needed to be changed out.
>
> At the same time, alternators supplied by B&C (and
> no doubt others) have an exceedingly low return
> rate.
>
> The hypothesis offered in the article is without
> foundation in physics or practice. If the author
> went to the lab, he would not be able to reproduce
> a failure by duplication of conditions cited in the
> hypothesis.
>
> It's all physics. For every failure there IS a
> combination of conditions leading up to that failure.
> Proper operations of switches by crew are exceedingly
> unlikely to be in the chorus of conditions. Joe is
> correct, a few seconds of full-field operation is
> of no particular hardship on an alternator.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | edward Clegg <edwclg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Hesitation |
Mine has been doing it for the past 750 hours. I changed out the s relay
with a Sky Tech and it has not done it as much. It only happens when the
engine is hot
Ed
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:43 PM RV7ASask wrote:
>
> "Let me ask this. Does this happen only when the engine is hot?
> If so I'll relate my 2 cents"
>
> No, the last start, a couple of days ago, was the first for a couple of
> months and there was a long "pause". Last year this pause was happening
> with both a hot and a cold engine,
>
> David
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467086#467086
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs wiring |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
You are on the right track if my interpretation of your post is correct. But I
can not say for sure until seeing a complete schematic of your proposed circuit
including the master switch and battery contactor. A picture is worth a thousand
words.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467106#467106
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs wiring |
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
Ron, starter switch is not wired to Hobbs meter.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Ron Burnett wrote:
>
> Although I have this engine time on my GRT EIS I would like to have this already
installed additional system on my RV-6A which has a zero time rebuilt Lycoming.
>
> I have a master key and start button which I believe should be spliced into the
starter switch from the lamp, which being red when engine isn't running will
also serve as a reminder to shut it off after the flight.
>
> Then I should wire from the Hobbs meter to my fuse panel. Could someone please
confirm for my pace of mind?
>
> Thanks,
>
> RonBurnett
>
>
>
>
>
> May you have the Lord's blessings today!
> Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs wiring |
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
Joe,
Don't have picture so will try to describe. I have converted from a Subaru back
to a Lycoming, so I have a keyed master switch and EFII ignition. The whole
system comes alive with the key, but has a switch that bypasses all if necessary.
Trying to tie in a Hobbs bought and in panel but never hooked up before. Now I
have the oil pressure activated switch teed into the VDO oil pressure sender
for the GRT EIS.
Thanks,
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 7:55 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> You are on the right track if my interpretation of your post is correct. But
I can not say for sure until seeing a complete schematic of your proposed circuit
including the master switch and battery contactor. A picture is worth a
thousand words.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467106#467106
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs wiring |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
What might be the advantage of a hobbs in a plane that cannot be used
for hire? Just curious.
Seems like tach would be more than sufficient.
A hobbs will accelerate when maintenance is required, make the aircraft
look higher time than it really is, etc. Not to mention the extra
complexity and potential failure points.
Certainly your choice to do if you want one.
On 3/11/2017 6:09 AM, Ron Burnett wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> Don't have picture so will try to describe. I have converted from a Subaru back
to a Lycoming, so I have a keyed master switch and EFII ignition. The whole
system comes alive with the key, but has a switch that bypasses all if necessary.
>
> Trying to tie in a Hobbs bought and in panel but never hooked up before. Now
I have the oil pressure activated switch teed into the VDO oil pressure sender
for the GRT EIS.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron Burnett
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs wiring |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Ron,
It doesn't matter where the 12 volt supply comes from as long as it goes on and
off with the battery contactor. Just connect 12 volts to the hobbs meter and
to the indicator light as pictured in your original post. This advice is based
on the assumption that the switch in your picture is an oil pressure switch.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467166#467166
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs wiring |
Most TC aircraft Hobbes meters don't get switched via the battery master. Too easy
to hide time by flying with the master off.
> On Mar 11, 2017, at 9:39 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> Ron,
> It doesn't matter where the 12 volt supply comes from as long as it goes on and
off with the battery contactor. Just connect 12 volts to the hobbs meter and
to the indicator light as pictured in your original post. This advice is based
on the assumption that the switch in your picture is an oil pressure switch.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467166#467166
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs wiring |
At 09:31 AM 3/11/2017, you wrote:
>
>Most TC aircraft Hobbes meters don't get switched via the battery
>master. Too easy to hide time by flying with the master off.
Correct. Most folks are unaware of the fact that
tens of thousands of Cessnas had an always hot
battery bus right at the battery contactor. It
feed two fuses . . . one for the Hobbs meter controlled
through an oil pressure switch . . . the other for
the electric clock.
If one would like to add a low oil pressure warning
light, then the hobbs feeder needs to drive from
a controlled source. In OBAM aircraft a good alternative
feed is the e-bus.
Now the low oil pressure light (and perhaps warning buzzer)
serves four functions. It monitors oil pressure, it controls
the Hobbs meter to measure ENGINE RUN time, it gives warning
at shut down that both the DC master and E-Bus alternate
feed switches are open.
See . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zlpjzuc
If you have an engine fitted with a PM alternator
(a la Rotax or SD-8 standby) one COULD fabricate a
circuit to watch for the existence of AC voltage
on the alternator winding and use this signal to
control the Hobbs and offer warnings for DC power
shutdown . . . you just wouldn't have oil pressure
warning.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs wiring |
At 11:07 AM 3/11/2017, you wrote:
>At 09:31 AM 3/11/2017, you wrote:
>>
>>Most TC aircraft Hobbes meters don't get switched via the battery
>>master. Too easy to hide time by flying with the master off.
>
> Correct. Most folks are unaware of the fact that
> tens of thousands of Cessnas had an always hot
> battery bus right at the battery contactor. It
> feed two fuses . . . one for the Hobbs meter controlled
> through an oil pressure switch . . . the other for
> the electric clock
Hmmm . . . not always two fuses . . . seems the 1976
C-172 drove the Hobbs and clock from the same fuse
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hobbs wiring |
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
My only tach is provided by the EIS.
I do not have an engine tach.
Thanks.
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 11, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> What might be the advantage of a hobbs in a plane that cannot be used for hire?
Just curious.
> Seems like tach would be more than sufficient.
> A hobbs will accelerate when maintenance is required, make the aircraft look
higher time than it really is, etc. Not to mention the extra complexity and potential
failure points.
> Certainly your choice to do if you want one.
>
>> On 3/11/2017 6:09 AM, Ron Burnett wrote:
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Don't have picture so will try to describe. I have converted from a Subaru
back to a Lycoming, so I have a keyed master switch and EFII ignition. The whole
system comes alive with the key, but has a switch that bypasses all if necessary.
>>
>> Trying to tie in a Hobbs bought and in panel but never hooked up before. Now
I have the oil pressure activated switch teed into the VDO oil pressure sender
for the GRT EIS.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ron Burnett
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
I have a Velocity (pusher) that has the original design with two NACA
scoops in the roof of the airplane and this provides good cooling in flight
however on the ground and at low altitudes it is a bit lacking during times
with hot OAT (where I fly).
Since I recently retrofitted a turbocharger intercooler I also installed a
third cooling air scoop and dual 10 inch Spal automobile cooling fans that
blast 650 CFM each and these fans will both cool the intake air charge and
they will also add supplemental cooling to the engine when energized.
So will this new design I will have solved my hot OAT ground/low altitude
cooling issue however I am concerned that during really cold operations it
might be too much engine cooling.
Is it possible to reverse the fans and the airflow so when it is really
cold outside the fans will prevent the third cooling duct from providing
too much cooling air to the engine?
The fans have a on/off switch that utelize a relay (on relay for each fan)
to complete the circuit to electrify the fans... in other words each fan
has a heavy gauge wire with an inline fuse for protection and there is a
cockpit panel CB protected "accessory feed" (sorry... automotive term.)
that provides power through the ON/OFF switch to the automotive relay and
when the switch is ON the accessory feed completes the circuit and the
relay closes its contacts and the circuit for the heavy gauge wire is
completed and the fans run.
So is it possible to design a system that can reverse the fans?
This system would have to utilize four relays (two for each fan) that would
change both the 12 VDC power feed and the ground for each fan.
I imagine that there is a duplex relay box out there in the world for such
a need.
Does anyone know of such a design /contraption?
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
At 12:11 PM 3/12/2017, you wrote:
>I have a Velocity (pusher) that has the original
>design with two NACA scoops in the roof of the
>airplane and this provides good cooling in
>flight however on the ground and at low
>altitudes it is a bit lacking during times with hot OAT (where I fly).=C2
>
>Since I recently retrofitted a turbocharger
>intercooler I also installed a third cooling air
>scoop and dual 10 inch Spal automobile cooling
>fans that blast 650 CFM each and these fans will
>both cool the intake air charge and they will
>also add supplemental cooling to the engine when energized. =C2
>
>So will this new design I will have solved my
>hot OAT ground/low altitude =C2 cooling issue
>however I am concerned that during really cold
>operations it might be too much engine cooling.=C2
>
>Is it possible to reverse the fans and the
>airflow so when it is really cold outside the
>fans will prevent the third cooling duct from
>providing too much cooling air to the engine?=C2
Need more info. Are these permanent magnet
motor driven fans? I.e. TWO wires coming
out that can be driven either polarity.
One connection produces CCW rotation, reversed
connection produces CW rotation.
>The fans have a on/off switch that utelize a
>relay (on relay for each fan) =C2 to complete the
>circuit to electrify the fans... in other words
>each fan has a heavy gauge wire with an inline
>fuse for protection and there is a cockpit panel
>CB protected "accessory feed" (sorry...
>automotive term.) that provides power through
>the ON/OFF switch to the automotive relay and
>when the switch is ON the accessory feed
>completes the circuit and the relay closes its =C2
>contacts and the circuit for the heavy gauge
>wire is completed and the fans run.=C2
These sound like modern, automotive fans
that are most likely brushless motors. To reverse
rotation, you need access to the inner workings
of the electronics . . . generally hard if not
totally impractical.
Can you give us a link to the description of the
products? how much current do they draw?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
Instead of reversing the fans I would try reducing the exit size where the
cooling ait leaves the cowl. This could be as simple as tapeing over part
ot the exit.
Another way to keep the engine warm during cold conditions that is commonly
done to RV av is to cover up to one half ot the oil cooler inlet with a
removable plate.
On Mar 12, 2017 12:13, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
At 12:11 PM 3/12/2017, you wrote:
I have a Velocity (pusher) that has the original design with two NACA
scoops in the roof of the airplane and this provides good cooling in flight
however on the ground and at low altitudes it is a bit lacking during times
with hot OAT (where I fly).=C3=82
Since I recently retrofitted a turbocharger intercooler I also installed a
third cooling air scoop and dual 10 inch Spal automobile cooling fans that
blast 650 CFM each and these fans will both cool the intake air charge and
they will also add supplemental cooling to the engine when energized. =C3
=82
So will this new design I will have solved my hot OAT ground/low altitude
=C3=82
cooling issue however I am concerned that during really cold operations it
might be too much engine cooling.=C3=82
Is it possible to reverse the fans and the airflow so when it is really
cold outside the fans will prevent the third cooling duct from providing
too much cooling air to the engine?=C3=82
Need more info. Are these permanent magnet
motor driven fans? I.e. TWO wires coming
out that can be driven either polarity.
One connection produces CCW rotation, reversed
connection produces CW rotation.
The fans have a on/off switch that utelize a relay (on relay for each fan)
=C3=82 to complete the circuit to electrify the fans... in other words each
fan
has a heavy gauge wire with an inline fuse for protection and there is a
cockpit panel CB protected "accessory feed" (sorry... automotive term.)
that provides power through the ON/OFF switch to the automotive relay and
when the switch is ON the accessory feed completes the circuit and the
relay closes its =C3=82 contacts and the circuit for the heavy gauge wire i
s
completed and the fans run.=C3=82
These sound like modern, automotive fans
that are most likely brushless motors. To reverse
rotation, you need access to the inner workings
of the electronics . . . generally hard if not
totally impractical.
Can you give us a link to the description of the
products? how much current do they draw?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
My guess is that if you can just turn the fans off, that'll be
sufficient to prevent any "over-cooling". Can you be a bit more
specific about which scenarios you're concerned about? Perhaps on the
ground in cold weather taking too long for the oil and cylinders to
warm up before takeoff?
Henry
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:21 PM, don van santen wrote:
> Instead of reversing the fans I would try reducing the exit size where the
> cooling ait leaves the cowl. This could be as simple as tapeing over part ot
> the exit.
> Another way to keep the engine warm during cold conditions that is commonly
> done to RV av is to cover up to one half ot the oil cooler inlet with a
> removable plate.
>
> On Mar 12, 2017 12:13, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> wrote:
>
> At 12:11 PM 3/12/2017, you wrote:
>
> I have a Velocity (pusher) that has the original design with two NACA scoops
> in the roof of the airplane and this provides good cooling in flight however
> on the ground and at low altitudes it is a bit lacking during times with hot
> OAT (where I fly).
>
> Since I recently retrofitted a turbocharger intercooler I also installed a
> third cooling air scoop and dual 10 inch Spal automobile cooling fans that
> blast 650 CFM each and these fans will both cool the intake air charge and
> they will also add supplemental cooling to the engine when energized.
>
> So will this new design I will have solved my hot OAT ground/low altitude
> cooling issue however I am concerned that during really cold operations it
> might be too much engine cooling.
>
> Is it possible to reverse the fans and the airflow so when it is really cold
> outside the fans will prevent the third cooling duct from providing too much
> cooling air to the engine?
>
>
> Need more info. Are these permanent magnet
> motor driven fans? I.e. TWO wires coming
> out that can be driven either polarity.
>
> One connection produces CCW rotation, reversed
> connection produces CW rotation.
>
>
> The fans have a on/off switch that utelize a relay (on relay for each fan)
> to complete the circuit to electrify the fans... in other words each fan has
> a heavy gauge wire with an inline fuse for protection and there is a cockpit
> panel CB protected "accessory feed" (sorry... automotive term.) that
> provides power through the ON/OFF switch to the automotive relay and when
> the switch is ON the accessory feed completes the circuit and the relay
> closes its contacts and the circuit for the heavy gauge wire is completed
> and the fans run.
>
>
> These sound like modern, automotive fans
> that are most likely brushless motors. To reverse
> rotation, you need access to the inner workings
> of the electronics . . . generally hard if not
> totally impractical.
>
> Can you give us a link to the description of the
> products? how much current do they draw?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
Bob and Henry,
Thank you for your willingness to help.
> Need more info. Are these permanent magnet motor driven fans? I.e.
TWO wires coming
out that can be driven either polarity. ...These sound like modern,
automotive fans
that are most likely brushless motors. To reverse rotation, you need
access to the inner workings of the electronics . . . generally hard
if not totally impractical.
The aftermarket automotive fans are electrically insulated and are
designed to be reversible and mounted on a plastic shroud and they have
a red and a black wire coming out of the back. I bench tested the fans
and they turn backwards when the polarity is reversed.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004LY3Z9Y/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpa
ge?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I have attached a PDF document of the wire diagram. If the AeroElectric
server does not allow for attachments then this image link might work:
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.corvetteforum.com-vbulletin/730x780/80-s
pal_wiring_diagram_78eade2fe4e5395ef98534dbc5f50f97483be5ee.jpg
I am using the bottom dual fan design however this wire diagram shows
the ground wire of the relay to be connected to a Normally Open
temperature actuated switch that is installed in the lower radiator of a
car installation with the intent that when the radiator coolant gets
above a certain temperature the thermos-switch will close and the relay
coil wire will be grounded and the relay contacts close and the 12VDC
power will flow to the fan motors. My relay coil wire will always be
grounded and therefore the 12VDC "accessory" feed will be switched on or
off to energize the relay coil.
During hot weather ground operations and low indicated airspeed, the
Velocity with the propeller in the back has very little engine cooling
airflow and some airplanes have engine overheating concerns during long
taxi and initial climb.
During cold weather operations, the Velocity with the Lycoming only has
one oil cooler and this is located in the nose compartment. Outside ram
air is pushed through this oil cooler and either ducted outboard or when
the pilot needs heat inside the cabin, the outlet of the oil cooler is
ducted into the cabin and used for heat. Some Velocity builders report
poor cabin heating from this system in very cold OAT because they have
trouble keeping their engine warmed up enough to allow the oil to be to
be diverted to the oil cooler up front.
With these two fans and new intake scoop I will certainly have solved
the ground/low IAS cooling problem however with this new 1 inch by 14
inch additional engine cooling air intake scoop, I will have amplified
this cold OAT problem.
If the fans can be reversed then during cold weather operations, they
will blow backwards and stall out the ram air coming down this new scoop
with the only weight penalty being a couple of extra relays and some
wiring.
THANKS AGAIN!!!
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henry
Hallam
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans
-->
My guess is that if you can just turn the fans off, that'll be
sufficient to prevent any "over-cooling". Can you be a bit more
specific about which scenarios you're concerned about? Perhaps on the
ground in cold weather taking too long for the oil and cylinders to warm
up before takeoff?
Henry
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:21 PM, don van santen
wrote:
> Instead of reversing the fans I would try reducing the exit size where
> the cooling ait leaves the cowl. This could be as simple as tapeing
> over part ot the exit.
> Another way to keep the engine warm during cold conditions that is
> commonly done to RV av is to cover up to one half ot the oil cooler
> inlet with a removable plate.
>
> On Mar 12, 2017 12:13, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> wrote:
>
> At 12:11 PM 3/12/2017, you wrote:
>
> I have a Velocity (pusher) that has the original design with two NACA
> scoops in the roof of the airplane and this provides good cooling in
> flight however on the ground and at low altitudes it is a bit lacking
> during times with hot OAT (where I fly).=C3=82
>
> Since I recently retrofitted a turbocharger intercooler I also
> installed a third cooling air scoop and dual 10 inch Spal automobile
> cooling fans that blast 650 CFM each and these fans will both cool the
> intake air charge and they will also add supplemental cooling to the
> engine when energized. =C3=82
>
> So will this new design I will have solved my hot OAT ground/low
> altitude =C3=82 cooling issue however I am concerned that during
really
> cold operations it might be too much engine cooling.=C3=82
>
> Is it possible to reverse the fans and the airflow so when it is
> really cold outside the fans will prevent the third cooling duct from
> providing too much cooling air to the engine?=C3=82
>
>
> Need more info. Are these permanent magnet
> motor driven fans? I.e. TWO wires coming
> out that can be driven either polarity.
>
> One connection produces CCW rotation, reversed
> connection produces CW rotation.
>
>
> The fans have a on/off switch that utelize a relay (on relay for each
> fan) =C3=82 to complete the circuit to electrify the fans... in other
words
> each fan has a heavy gauge wire with an inline fuse for protection and
> there is a cockpit panel CB protected "accessory feed" (sorry...
> automotive term.) that provides power through the ON/OFF switch to the
> automotive relay and when the switch is ON the accessory feed
> completes the circuit and the relay closes its =C3=82 contacts and the
> circuit for the heavy gauge wire is completed and the fans run.=C3=82
>
>
> These sound like modern, automotive fans
> that are most likely brushless motors. To reverse
> rotation, you need access to the inner workings
> of the electronics . . . generally hard if not
> totally impractical.
>
> Can you give us a link to the description of the
> products? how much current do they draw?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
billhuntersemail(at)gmail wrote:
> The aftermarket automotive fans are electrically insulated and are designed to
be reversible and mounted on a plastic shroud and they have a red and a black
wire coming out of the back. I bench tested the fans and they turn backwards
when the polarity is reversed.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004LY3Z9Y/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Quoting from the Amazon listing: "Blades and polarity of the wiring can be reversed
and it becomes a pusher fan."
I take this to mean that you must reverse *both* the polarity of the power supply
*and* the mounting of the blade rotor on its shaft to make the fan operate
in reverse. Those blades don't look like they'll move air very well if you simply
rotate them in the reverse direction; they appear very much optimized for
their direction of rotation.
Do the fans' instructions say anything about installing them for reverse operation?
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467217#467217
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Quoting again from Amazon, this time from one of the reviews of these fans: "I
changed these from "pullers" to "pushers" by flipping the blades and wiring it
opposite of the instructions..."
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467218#467218
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
Hi Bill,
Good job testing that they work in reverse on the bench. It might be
worth measuring how much current they draw at 14.4V - the Amazon page
suggests 25A, which is a hefty pair of fans, and a potentially a
significant chunk of your alternator's capacity!
Instead of the relays in your diagram, one option is to just use a
high-current On-Off-On 3-position DPDT switch such as one of these:
http://www.digikey.com/short/325mhp
Referring to the schematic symbol for the DPDT on page 2 of this
datasheet: http://www.nkkswitches.com/pdf/stoggleshighcap.pdf ,
2 = Protected (fuse or CB) +14V
5 = Ground
1 = 6 = Motor red
3 = 4 = Motor black
You can see it graphically here: https://www.eleinmec.com/figures/012_02.gif
If you want to keep the wires in the panel skinny (might be desirable
for a pusher), you can achieve a similar effect with a DPDT relay (to
swap between forward and reverse), an SPST relay (to switch off and
on), with the coils enabled by either two separate SPST switches or a
single SPDT On-Off-On switch with a diode to let the second "On"
position power both relays. Let me know if you need a diagram :)
Regardless of whether you use a high-current switch or relays, you
should also place a suitable bidirectional TVS diode across the motor
terminals to help suppress arcs in the switch/relay contacts:
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/littelfuse-inc/TP5KP15CA/F7654CT-ND/6174274
Good luck,
Henry
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:46 PM, William Hunter
wrote:
> Bob and Henry,
>
> Thank you for your willingness to help.
>
>> Need more info. Are these permanent magnet motor driven fans? I.e. TWO wires
coming
> out that can be driven either polarity. ...These sound like modern, automotive
fans
> that are most likely brushless motors. To reverse rotation, you need access
to the inner workings of the electronics . . . generally hard if not totally
impractical.
>
> The aftermarket automotive fans are electrically insulated and are designed to
be reversible and mounted on a plastic shroud and they have a red and a black
wire coming out of the back. I bench tested the fans and they turn backwards
when the polarity is reversed.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004LY3Z9Y/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>
> I have attached a PDF document of the wire diagram. If the AeroElectric server
does not allow for attachments then this image link might work:
>
> https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.corvetteforum.com-vbulletin/730x780/80-spal_wiring_diagram_78eade2fe4e5395ef98534dbc5f50f97483be5ee.jpg
>
>
> I am using the bottom dual fan design however this wire diagram shows the ground
wire of the relay to be connected to a Normally Open temperature actuated
switch that is installed in the lower radiator of a car installation with the
intent that when the radiator coolant gets above a certain temperature the thermos-switch
will close and the relay coil wire will be grounded and the relay
contacts close and the 12VDC power will flow to the fan motors. My relay coil
wire will always be grounded and therefore the 12VDC "accessory" feed will be
switched on or off to energize the relay coil.
>
> During hot weather ground operations and low indicated airspeed, the Velocity
with the propeller in the back has very little engine cooling airflow and some
airplanes have engine overheating concerns during long taxi and initial climb.
>
> During cold weather operations, the Velocity with the Lycoming only has one oil
cooler and this is located in the nose compartment. Outside ram air is pushed
through this oil cooler and either ducted outboard or when the pilot needs
heat inside the cabin, the outlet of the oil cooler is ducted into the cabin
and used for heat. Some Velocity builders report poor cabin heating from this
system in very cold OAT because they have trouble keeping their engine warmed
up enough to allow the oil to be to be diverted to the oil cooler up front.
>
> With these two fans and new intake scoop I will certainly have solved the ground/low
IAS cooling problem however with this new 1 inch by 14 inch additional
engine cooling air intake scoop, I will have amplified this cold OAT problem.
>
> If the fans can be reversed then during cold weather operations, they will blow
backwards and stall out the ram air coming down this new scoop with the only
weight penalty being a couple of extra relays and some wiring.
>
> THANKS AGAIN!!!
> ..
>
> Cheers!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henry Hallam
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:55 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans
>
> -->
>
> My guess is that if you can just turn the fans off, that'll be sufficient to
prevent any "over-cooling". Can you be a bit more specific about which scenarios
you're concerned about? Perhaps on the ground in cold weather taking too
long for the oil and cylinders to warm up before takeoff?
>
> Henry
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:21 PM, don van santen wrote:
>> Instead of reversing the fans I would try reducing the exit size where
>> the cooling ait leaves the cowl. This could be as simple as tapeing
>> over part ot the exit.
>> Another way to keep the engine warm during cold conditions that is
>> commonly done to RV av is to cover up to one half ot the oil cooler
>> inlet with a removable plate.
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2017 12:13, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> wrote:
>>
>> At 12:11 PM 3/12/2017, you wrote:
>>
>> I have a Velocity (pusher) that has the original design with two NACA
>> scoops in the roof of the airplane and this provides good cooling in
>> flight however on the ground and at low altitudes it is a bit lacking
>> during times with hot OAT (where I fly).
>>
>> Since I recently retrofitted a turbocharger intercooler I also
>> installed a third cooling air scoop and dual 10 inch Spal automobile
>> cooling fans that blast 650 CFM each and these fans will both cool the
>> intake air charge and they will also add supplemental cooling to the
>> engine when energized.
>>
>> So will this new design I will have solved my hot OAT ground/low
>> altitude cooling issue however I am concerned that during really
>> cold operations it might be too much engine cooling.
>>
>> Is it possible to reverse the fans and the airflow so when it is
>> really cold outside the fans will prevent the third cooling duct from
>> providing too much cooling air to the engine?
>>
>>
>> Need more info. Are these permanent magnet
>> motor driven fans? I.e. TWO wires coming
>> out that can be driven either polarity.
>>
>> One connection produces CCW rotation, reversed
>> connection produces CW rotation.
>>
>>
>> The fans have a on/off switch that utelize a relay (on relay for each
>> fan) to complete the circuit to electrify the fans... in other words
>> each fan has a heavy gauge wire with an inline fuse for protection and
>> there is a cockpit panel CB protected "accessory feed" (sorry...
>> automotive term.) that provides power through the ON/OFF switch to the
>> automotive relay and when the switch is ON the accessory feed
>> completes the circuit and the relay closes its contacts and the
>> circuit for the heavy gauge wire is completed and the fans run.
>>
>>
>> These sound like modern, automotive fans
>> that are most likely brushless motors. To reverse
>> rotation, you need access to the inner workings
>> of the electronics . . . generally hard if not
>> totally impractical.
>>
>> Can you give us a link to the description of the
>> products? how much current do they draw?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Bill
If you have a brushed motor you can reverse rotation by reversing leads. That said
chances are the motor is timed for forward rotation. If you reverse rotation
you will have retarded timing that will burn motor up in short order.
Best way to check timing is remove fan and run motor at a lower voltage, perhaps
6 to 9 volts and measure the amp draw. Then reverse leads and measure amp draw.
Some motors you need to mutilate to readjust timing, but when amp draw is
exactly the same, your motor is neutral timed and can be run in both directions.
Chances are that the motor has a 5 to 10 degree advance that will just trash the
motor if run reversed for any length of time, excuse the pun.
Ron Parigoris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467233#467233
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
Wow...this is most helpful!!!
Very good information about the design timing of the fans and that some DC fans
cannot simply be wired up in reverse because they burn up...who knew?!?!? Obviously
Ron (and others) did!!!
So I will "trash" the current fans and seek out fans that advertise "reversible"
as they should be neutral timed (and I will verify prior to installing).
> Let me know if you need a diagram : )
Henry, Yes PLEASE : 0
I think it is imperative (safety and weight wise) to go with the skinny wire approach
and to utilize a DPDT relay to operate the fans. Yes...PLEASE...I would
greatly appreciate your assistance in getting a wire diagram and part numbers
of the relay(s) and the location of the TVS diode. Who knew there was such a
thing as a bidirectional TVS diode (rhetorical question).
I have RockRack switches on order and the one I want to use for this fan system
is a ON OFF ON switch. Aircraft Spruce does not advertise anything about how
many poles or throws (Grrrrr) however I have a picture of the back of the switch
and it has 10 terminal spades on the back and since the switch has two LEDs
that can be wired up and illuminated when the switch is full up or full down,
that takes 4 of the 10 spades and with 6 spades left over I ass-u-me it is a
DPDT switch.
So in other words it would be most excellent on a hot OAT day to simply push the
one RockRack switch fully UP for takeoff and have the top switch LED light up
and the fans run as pullers for cooling, then when at altitude and the CHTs
are a bit too cold to push the switch to center OFF position and the LEDs are
black and the fans stop, and then when flying in really cold OAT or during descent
to push the single RockRack switch fully DOWN and the bottom LED lights and
the fans run as pushers to blow back against the ram air through my third large
cooling scoop.
This ad from eBay Aircraft Parts Supply states that these automotive fans are reversible
and each fan draws 80 watts so I believe both combined will draw less
than 15 Amps (of course I will need to verify both the actual load and that
the load is the same forward and backwards prior to proceeding).
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DUAL-6-INCH-ELECTRIC-RADIATOR-COOLING-FANS-PUSH-IN-PROBE-THERMOSTAT-2-PACK-FAN-/331828470556
This is really a fun learning experience and I cannot thank you enough for your
willingness to help!!! I will be happy to give rides in my airplane when (if)
I ever get it put together!!!
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henry Hallam
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans
-->
Hi Bill,
Good job testing that they work in reverse on the bench. It might be worth measuring
how much current they draw at 14.4V - the Amazon page suggests 25A, which
is a hefty pair of fans, and a potentially a significant chunk of your alternator's
capacity!
Instead of the relays in your diagram, one option is to just use a high-current
On-Off-On 3-position DPDT switch such as one of these:
http://www.digikey.com/short/325mhp
Referring to the schematic symbol for the DPDT on page 2 of this
datasheet: http://www.nkkswitches.com/pdf/stoggleshighcap.pdf ,
2 = Protected (fuse or CB) +14V
5 = Ground
1 = 6 = Motor red
3 = 4 = Motor black
You can see it graphically here: https://www.eleinmec.com/figures/012_02.gif
If you want to keep the wires in the panel skinny (might be desirable for a pusher),
you can achieve a similar effect with a DPDT relay (to swap between forward
and reverse), an SPST relay (to switch off and on), with the coils enabled
by either two separate SPST switches or a single SPDT On-Off-On switch with a
diode to let the second "On"
position power both relays. Let me know if you need a diagram :)
Regardless of whether you use a high-current switch or relays, you should also
place a suitable bidirectional TVS diode across the motor terminals to help suppress
arcs in the switch/relay contacts:
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/littelfuse-inc/TP5KP15CA/F7654CT-ND/6174274
Good luck,
Henry
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:46 PM, William Hunter wrote:
> Bob and Henry,
>
> Thank you for your willingness to help.
>
>> Need more info. Are these permanent magnet motor driven fans? I.e.
>> TWO wires coming
> out that can be driven either polarity. ...These sound like modern, automotive
fans
> that are most likely brushless motors. To reverse rotation, you need access
to the inner workings of the electronics . . . generally hard if not totally
impractical.
>
> The aftermarket automotive fans are electrically insulated and are designed to
be reversible and mounted on a plastic shroud and they have a red and a black
wire coming out of the back. I bench tested the fans and they turn backwards
when the polarity is reversed.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004LY3Z9Y/ref=oh_aui_search_detailp
> age?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>
> I have attached a PDF document of the wire diagram. If the AeroElectric server
does not allow for attachments then this image link might work:
>
>
> https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.corvetteforum.com-vbulletin/730x780/8
> 0-spal_wiring_diagram_78eade2fe4e5395ef98534dbc5f50f97483be5ee.jpg
>
>
> I am using the bottom dual fan design however this wire diagram shows the ground
wire of the relay to be connected to a Normally Open temperature actuated
switch that is installed in the lower radiator of a car installation with the
intent that when the radiator coolant gets above a certain temperature the thermos-switch
will close and the relay coil wire will be grounded and the relay
contacts close and the 12VDC power will flow to the fan motors. My relay coil
wire will always be grounded and therefore the 12VDC "accessory" feed will be
switched on or off to energize the relay coil.
>
> During hot weather ground operations and low indicated airspeed, the Velocity
with the propeller in the back has very little engine cooling airflow and some
airplanes have engine overheating concerns during long taxi and initial climb.
>
> During cold weather operations, the Velocity with the Lycoming only has one oil
cooler and this is located in the nose compartment. Outside ram air is pushed
through this oil cooler and either ducted outboard or when the pilot needs
heat inside the cabin, the outlet of the oil cooler is ducted into the cabin
and used for heat. Some Velocity builders report poor cabin heating from this
system in very cold OAT because they have trouble keeping their engine warmed
up enough to allow the oil to be to be diverted to the oil cooler up front.
>
> With these two fans and new intake scoop I will certainly have solved the ground/low
IAS cooling problem however with this new 1 inch by 14 inch additional
engine cooling air intake scoop, I will have amplified this cold OAT problem.
>
> If the fans can be reversed then during cold weather operations, they will blow
backwards and stall out the ram air coming down this new scoop with the only
weight penalty being a couple of extra relays and some wiring.
>
> THANKS AGAIN!!!
> ..
>
> Cheers!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Henry Hallam
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:55 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans
>
> -->
>
> My guess is that if you can just turn the fans off, that'll be sufficient to
prevent any "over-cooling". Can you be a bit more specific about which scenarios
you're concerned about? Perhaps on the ground in cold weather taking too
long for the oil and cylinders to warm up before takeoff?
>
> Henry
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:21 PM, don van santen wrote:
>> Instead of reversing the fans I would try reducing the exit size
>> where the cooling ait leaves the cowl. This could be as simple as
>> tapeing over part ot the exit.
>> Another way to keep the engine warm during cold conditions that is
>> commonly done to RV av is to cover up to one half ot the oil cooler
>> inlet with a removable plate.
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2017 12:13, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> wrote:
>>
>> At 12:11 PM 3/12/2017, you wrote:
>>
>> I have a Velocity (pusher) that has the original design with two NACA
>> scoops in the roof of the airplane and this provides good cooling in
>> flight however on the ground and at low altitudes it is a bit lacking
>> during times with hot OAT (where I fly).
>>
>> Since I recently retrofitted a turbocharger intercooler I also
>> installed a third cooling air scoop and dual 10 inch Spal automobile
>> cooling fans that blast 650 CFM each and these fans will both cool
>> the intake air charge and they will also add supplemental cooling to
>> the engine when energized.
>>
>> So will this new design I will have solved my hot OAT ground/low
>> altitude cooling issue however I am concerned that during really
>> cold operations it might be too much engine cooling.
>>
>> Is it possible to reverse the fans and the airflow so when it is
>> really cold outside the fans will prevent the third cooling duct from
>> providing too much cooling air to the engine?
>>
>>
>> Need more info. Are these permanent magnet
>> motor driven fans? I.e. TWO wires coming
>> out that can be driven either polarity.
>>
>> One connection produces CCW rotation, reversed
>> connection produces CW rotation.
>>
>>
>> The fans have a on/off switch that utelize a relay (on relay for each
>> fan) to complete the circuit to electrify the fans... in other
>> words each fan has a heavy gauge wire with an inline fuse for
>> protection and there is a cockpit panel CB protected "accessory feed" (sorry...
>> automotive term.) that provides power through the ON/OFF switch to
>> the automotive relay and when the switch is ON the accessory feed
>> completes the circuit and the relay closes its contacts and the
>> circuit for the heavy gauge wire is completed and the fans run.
>>
>>
>> These sound like modern, automotive fans
>> that are most likely brushless motors. To reverse
>> rotation, you need access to the inner workings
>> of the electronics . . . generally hard if not
>> totally impractical.
>>
>> Can you give us a link to the description of the
>> products? how much current do they draw?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net |
Getting back to the Tach vs Hobbs
My Pitts had a Tach calibrated for 2450 RPM to equal an hour.
Flight time was only accurate if you kept that RPM. Most times I was throttled
back to 1900 and 2000 rpm to fly cross country with slower planes. When I accumulated
500 hrs plus on the Tach the actual flight time was over 700 hours. If
you want accurate flight time for logging, oil changes, and maintenance you should
definitely use Hobbs time.
Bobby
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
That just brings up the debate...should your maintenance be based on
clock time, or accumulated rpms? If you are at low power, low rpms, you
probably prefer the latter.
On 3/13/2017 8:38 AM, BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> Getting back to the Tach vs Hobbs
> My Pitts had a Tach calibrated for 2450 RPM to equal an hour.
> Flight time was only accurate if you kept that RPM. Most times I was
> throttled back to 1900 and 2000 rpm to fly cross country with slower
> planes. When I accumulated 500 hrs plus on the Tach the actual flight
> time was over 700 hours. If you want accurate flight time for logging,
> oil changes, and maintenance you should definitely use Hobbs time.
>
> Bobby
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
In Canada maintenance time is based on aggregate flight time, strictly wheels-up
to wheels-down, so you have to use a clock or wristwatch even if you have a
Hobbs meter. What does the FAA require?
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> That just brings up the debate...should your maintenance be based on clock time,
or accumulated rpms? If you are at low power, low rpms, you probably prefer
the latter.
>
>> On 3/13/2017 8:38 AM, BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> Getting back to the Tach vs Hobbs
>> My Pitts had a Tach calibrated for 2450 RPM to equal an hour.
>> Flight time was only accurate if you kept that RPM. Most times I was
>> throttled back to 1900 and 2000 rpm to fly cross country with slower
>> planes. When I accumulated 500 hrs plus on the Tach the actual flight
>> time was over 700 hours. If you want accurate flight time for logging,
>> oil changes, and maintenance you should definitely use Hobbs time.
>>
>> Bobby
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Shankland" <tshankland(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
I'm flying a Zenith Zodiac 610HD with a Status Subaru engine. During the
build I decided I didn't want two sensors for oil pressure attached to the
engine. The idea of a T fitting with two sensors vibrating gave me thoughts
cracked fittings. My solution was to use the existing oil pressure gage. The
gage is electric and it is not difficult to determine the voltage present at
the gage input that indicates that the engine is running. I built a small
circuit that monitors that voltage turns the Hobbs meter on when a
sufficient pressure is present. This way the Hobbs only runs when the engine
is running and not just when the master switch is on.
Tim Shankland
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly McMullen
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tack vs Hobbs
That just brings up the debate...should your maintenance be based on
clock time, or accumulated rpms? If you are at low power, low rpms, you
probably prefer the latter.
On 3/13/2017 8:38 AM, BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> Getting back to the Tach vs Hobbs
> My Pitts had a Tach calibrated for 2450 RPM to equal an hour.
> Flight time was only accurate if you kept that RPM. Most times I was
> throttled back to 1900 and 2000 rpm to fly cross country with slower
> planes. When I accumulated 500 hrs plus on the Tach the actual flight
> time was over 700 hours. If you want accurate flight time for logging,
> oil changes, and maintenance you should definitely use Hobbs time.
>
> Bobby
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Bill,
The eBay fans have the same problem; their blades must be flipped on the shaft
to reverse airflow. Quoting from the listing: "Blade and wiring can be reversed
to make the fans air pushers."
You're probably going to find that this is a common problem. Most fans with injection
molded plastic blade rotors will be CFD-optimized for direction of rotation,
and they may not work well if only the motor is reversed.
It might be worth asking the fan manufacturer if a motor-only reversal just presents
a minor efficiency loss or if it could harm the motor. Don't forget to
consider the additional load presented by ram air. If your NACA duct is working
well, that could be substantial, especially against a blade that's turning
the wrong direction.
The fans may rely on the airflow they generate to cool themselves. If you use
the fans to stall airflow, will their motors overheat?
Have you considered just installing a butterfly or knife valve in the tubing from
your duct to cut off airflow if it's too cold? It could be operated by a simple
push/pull cable that would allow you to modulate airflow by partially closing
the valve. The only electrical change you would need is a cutout switch
that removes fan power if the valve isn't fully open.
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467251#467251
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Reversible Spal Cooling Fans |
Has any consideration been given to eliminating the use of the fan in cold
weather and putting a =9CPlug=9D in the extra air intake. The
plug could be fabricated perhaps as a door or a foam plug. I am not famili
ar with the aircraft and the cooling mods thus far made, but there may be a
nother alternative, rather than being hung up on the fan issue.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
One can always fit a squat switch on the landing gear. I set my EIS
tach threshold so it does not accumulate time below a specific rpm such
that it ignores warm up and ground maneuvering. With my geared engine,
it also ignores flight time when I do power off landings though.
My most successful option by far though was to marry a former tower
controller who just can't break the habit of recording off and on
times... ;)
Ken
On 13/03/2017 12:33 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> In Canada maintenance time is based on aggregate flight time, strictly wheels-up
to wheels-down, so you have to use a clock or wristwatch even if you have
a Hobbs meter. What does the FAA require?
>
>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>
>> That just brings up the debate...should your maintenance be based on clock time,
or accumulated rpms? If you are at low power, low rpms, you probably prefer
the latter.
>>
>>> On 3/13/2017 8:38 AM, BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>> Getting back to the Tach vs Hobbs
>>> My Pitts had a Tach calibrated for 2450 RPM to equal an hour.
>>> Flight time was only accurate if you kept that RPM. Most times I was
>>> throttled back to 1900 and 2000 rpm to fly cross country with slower
>>> planes. When I accumulated 500 hrs plus on the Tach the actual flight
>>> time was over 700 hours. If you want accurate flight time for logging,
>>> oil changes, and maintenance you should definitely use Hobbs time.
>>>
>>> Bobby
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
>> In Canada maintenance time is based on aggregate flight time, strictly wh
eels-up to wheels-down, so you have to use a clock or wristwatch even if you
have a Hobbs meter. What does the FAA require?
For private aircraft in Canada (excepting 604) I can't think of a single mai
ntenance item that is required to be done on a time basis. Yes you have to t
otal the air time in the Journey Log (which any most handheld GPSs will keep
track of for you), but since all required maintenance is based on calendar t
imes, you can use whatever hourly time measure you want to when deciding wha
t maintenance to do.
Sebastien
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 12:14, C&K wrote:
>
>
> One can always fit a squat switch on the landing gear. I set my EIS tach t
hreshold so it does not accumulate time below a specific rpm such that it i
gnores warm up and ground maneuvering. With my geared engine, it also ignore
s flight time when I do power off landings though.
> My most successful option by far though was to marry a former tower contro
ller who just can't break the habit of recording off and on times... ;)
> Ken
>
>> On 13/03/2017 12:33 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>>
>> In Canada maintenance time is based on aggregate flight time, strictly wh
eels-up to wheels-down, so you have to use a clock or wristwatch even if you
have a Hobbs meter. What does the FAA require?
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote
:
>>>
.com>
>>>
>>> That just brings up the debate...should your maintenance be based on clo
ck time, or accumulated rpms? If you are at low power, low rpms, you probabl
y prefer the latter.
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2017 8:38 AM, BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Getting back to the Tach vs Hobbs
>>>> My Pitts had a Tach calibrated for 2450 RPM to equal an hour.
>>>> Flight time was only accurate if you kept that RPM. Most times I was
>>>> throttled back to 1900 and 2000 rpm to fly cross country with slower
>>>> planes. When I accumulated 500 hrs plus on the Tach the actual flight
>>>> time was over 700 hours. If you want accurate flight time for logging,
>>>> oil changes, and maintenance you should definitely use Hobbs time.
>>>>
>>>> Bobby
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
I wasn't suggesting that Canadian aircraft are subject to any particular maintenance
or inspection requirements. Rather, that when they are, the relevant "run
time" that has to be accounted for is wheels-up to wheels-down.
Let me as the question again: when the FAA mandates usage-based inspection or maintenance
(for instance, mandatory 100 hour inspections for aircraft used for
instruction) - what is the time that is counted towards those 100 hours? Is it
engine run time, or air time, or tach time, or some other measure?
On 13Mar2017, at 4:17 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>> In Canada maintenance time is based on aggregate flight time, strictly wheels-up
to wheels-down, so you have to use a clock or wristwatch even if you have
a Hobbs meter. What does the FAA require?
For private aircraft in Canada (excepting 604) I can't think of a single maintenance
item that is required to be done on a time basis. Yes you have to total
the air time in the Journey Log (which any most handheld GPSs will keep track
of for you), but since all required maintenance is based on calendar times, you
can use whatever hourly time measure you want to when deciding what maintenance
to do.
Sebastien
On Mar 13, 2017, at 12:14, C&K wrote:
>
> One can always fit a squat switch on the landing gear. I set my EIS tach threshold
so it does not accumulate time below a specific rpm such that it ignores
warm up and ground maneuvering. With my geared engine, it also ignores flight
time when I do power off landings though.
> My most successful option by far though was to marry a former tower controller
who just can't break the habit of recording off and on times... ;)
> Ken
>
> On 13/03/2017 12:33 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>>
>> In Canada maintenance time is based on aggregate flight time, strictly wheels-up
to wheels-down, so you have to use a clock or wristwatch even if you have
a Hobbs meter. What does the FAA require?
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That just brings up the debate...should your maintenance be based on clock
time, or accumulated rpms? If you are at low power, low rpms, you probably prefer
the latter.
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2017 8:38 AM, BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Getting back to the Tach vs Hobbs
>>>> My Pitts had a Tach calibrated for 2450 RPM to equal an hour.
>>>> Flight time was only accurate if you kept that RPM. Most times I was
>>>> throttled back to 1900 and 2000 rpm to fly cross country with slower
>>>> planes. When I accumulated 500 hrs plus on the Tach the actual flight
>>>> time was over 700 hours. If you want accurate flight time for logging,
>>>> oil changes, and maintenance you should definitely use Hobbs time.
>>>>
>>>> Bobby
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroEl====================================================bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> _==========================; - NEW MATRONICS LIST W===================================================http://www.matronics.com/contr===========================================
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: King KX145 pin out, pin 10 |
| From: | "stickid" <piney(at)mts.net> |
I am looking for a manual for the KX-145 and wondering if you would be able to
send me a scanned copy please.
Thanks
Bob R
Winnipeg Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467277#467277
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: King KX145 pin out, pin 10 |
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
Bob,
I have a copy of the manual I scanned in several years ago. I scanned
at a high resolution. I believe it fills 5+ DVDs. I sent a copy to Bob
N. He may have created a smaller copy of it. I would be willing to sell
the copy I have, if you're interested in having a paper copy. I also
have a KX-145 and vor head, if you're interested in having one for spare
parts.
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 03/13/2017 10:16 PM, stickid wrote:
>
> I am looking for a manual for the KX-145 and wondering if you would be able to
send me a scanned copy please.
> Thanks
> Bob R
> Winnipeg Canada
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467277#467277
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
alec(at)alecmyers.com wrote:
> Let me as the question again: when the FAA mandates usage-based inspection or
maintenance (for instance, mandatory 100 hour inspections for aircraft used for
instruction) - what is the time that is counted towards those 100 hours? Is
it engine run time, or air time, or tach time, or some other measure?
When I had a TC aircraft, every shop used tach time. Not a single maintenance facility
ever looked at the hobbs meter unless they needed the total airframe hours.
I can't say if there's a FAR enforcing that though and if there is, which one.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467283#467283
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: King KX145 pin out, pin 10 |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There are optical character recognition (OCR) programs that will convert scanned
documents into text. The size of the text file is a very small fraction of
the file size of the original scanned document. The biggest advantage of a text
file is that a computer can search it for certain key words. A disadvantage
is that the OCR program will make errors that need to be found and corrected.
> I believe it fills 5+ DVDs.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467287#467287
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I converted the schematic diagram into a wiring diagram.
Laser altimeter - https://www.parallax.com/product/28054
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467291#467291
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/landing_gear_joe_7_202.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/landing_gear_joe_7_195.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jim(at)PoogieBearRanch.com> |
<< when the FAA mandates usage-based inspection or maintenance (for
instance, mandatory 100 hour inspections for aircraft used for
instruction) - what is the time that is counted towards those 100 hours?
Is it engine run time, or air time, or tach time, or some other measure?
>>
Simple answer: the only recording device on the "required equipment"
list is the tach. Hobbs meters are optional, and are used to charge
rental customers for their "flight time" (which is truly bogus, because
it's typically about 1.2X the actual flight time for a training flight).
Because tach time was the only "guaranteed to be present" way to measure
time, in the US, all "time-interval" inspections are based on tach time,
including ADs with "every 100 hours" or "every 500 hours" intervals.
And to the OP: please note that "tach" (with an "H") is short for
"tachometer", not "tackometer"... LOL
Jim Parker
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: King KX145 pin out, pin 10 |
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
Given the number of diagrams, graphs, tables, etc, I don't think the
manual is a good candidate for conversion by OCR software.
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 03/14/2017 08:03 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> There are optical character recognition (OCR) programs that will convert scanned
documents into text. The size of the text file is a very small fraction of
the file size of the original scanned document. The biggest advantage of a
text file is that a computer can search it for certain key words. A disadvantage
is that the OCR program will make errors that need to be found and corrected.
>> I believe it fills 5+ DVDs.
>
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467287#467287
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gilles St-Pierre <ranchlaseigneurie(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
Hello
Can it be use for landing on glassy water....for float plane..
Thanks for your time
Regards
Gilles
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list
-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of user9253
Sent: March 14, 2017 11:38:10 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay?
I converted the schematic diagram into a wiring diagram.
Laser altimeter - https://www.parallax.com/product/28054
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467291#467291
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/landing_gear_joe_7_202.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/landing_gear_joe_7_195.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Can it be use for landing on glassy water....for float plane..
Gee, I do not know. Try calling the laser altimeter manufacturer. I have never
used their product. I just drew the diagram for Wade, the original poster of
this thread. I assume that you only want the altimeter feature and not the
gear extend.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467298#467298
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
At 03:32 PM 3/13/2017, you wrote:
>
>I wasn't suggesting that Canadian aircraft are subject to any
>particular maintenance or inspection requirements. Rather, that when
>they are, the relevant "run time" that has to be accounted for is
>wheels-up to wheels-down.
>
>Let me as the question again: when the FAA mandates usage-based
>inspection or maintenance (for instance, mandatory 100 hour
>inspections for aircraft used for instruction) - what is the time
>that is counted towards those 100 hours? Is it engine run time, or
>air time, or tach time, or some other measure?
Don't know what the suggestion is today but when
we owned 1K1, only our revenue generating aircraft
were subject to 100 hour inspections . . . by what
ever means was fitted to the panel.
The J-3, with no electrical system and rudimentary
tach was serviced based on rental time. An old
Mooney was golden using tach time. The reset of
the TC fleet had hobbs meters . . . some
in addition to tach time but in our neck of the
world, the Hobbs was preferred both for maintenance
and billing practices.
It was explained to me that there was nothing magic
about inspecting every 100.00 plus or minus 0.01
hours. It was only necessary that the inspections
be done regularly in that general time frame.
Of course, tach hours are really engine revolution
counters. Hour recording tachs were spin-offs from
automobile speedometers where revolutions were directly
related to miles traveled.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
Good to know.
Someone else was kind enough to point me towards 14 CFR 1.1:
"Time in service, with respect to maintenance time records, means the time from
the moment anaircraft leaves the surface of the earth until it touches it at
the next point of landing."
On 14Mar2017, at 3:20 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 03:32 PM 3/13/2017, you wrote:
>
> I wasn't suggesting that Canadian aircraft are subject to any particular maintenance
or inspection requirements. Rather, that when they are, the relevant "run
time" that has to be accounted for is wheels-up to wheels-down.
>
> Let me as the question again: when the FAA mandates usage-based inspection or
maintenance (for instance, mandatory 100 hour inspections for aircraft used for
instruction) - what is the time that is counted towards those 100 hours? Is
it engine run time, or air time, or tach time, or some other measure?
Don't know what the suggestion is today but when
we owned 1K1, only our revenue generating aircraft
were subject to 100 hour inspections . . . by what
ever means was fitted to the panel.
The J-3, with no electrical system and rudimentary
tach was serviced based on rental time. An old
Mooney was golden using tach time. The reset of
the TC fleet had hobbs meters . . . some
in addition to tach time but in our neck of the
world, the Hobbs was preferred both for maintenance
and billing practices.
It was explained to me that there was nothing magic
about inspecting every 100.00 plus or minus 0.01
hours. It was only necessary that the inspections
be done regularly in that general time frame.
Of course, tach hours are really engine revolution
counters. Hour recording tachs were spin-offs from
automobile speedometers where revolutions were directly
related to miles traveled.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
You are correct, Sir. One of the rites of passage to being a pilot is to learn
the difference between flight time and time in service. :-)
> Flight time means:
>
> (1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for
the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing;
or
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/1.1
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
>
> "Time in service, with respect to maintenance time records, means the time from
the moment anaircraft leaves the surface of the earth until it touches it at
the next point of landing."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: King KX145 pin out, pin 10 |
At 08:03 AM 3/14/2017, you wrote:
>
>There are optical character recognition (OCR) programs that will
>convert scanned documents into text. The size of the text file is a
>very small fraction of the file size of the original scanned
>document. The biggest advantage of a text file is that a computer
>can search it for certain key words. A disadvantage is that the OCR
>program will make errors that need to be found and corrected.
> > I believe it fills 5+ DVDs.
The KX-145 installation manual I have is
available at http://tinyurl.com/zg3feyc
It has been 'massaged' by Adobe Acrobat for
character recognition and searching.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tack vs Hobbs |
The FAA only requires that time for maintenance purposes be listed from actual
lift off to actual touchdown. The engine recording tachometer has been accepted
as a legal substitute for actual lift off to touch down figure. It all depends
on what you think is most convenient for you. Many helicopters use a switch
on the collective. Others use tach time. Either could probably be supprted at
a hearing.
Almost all airlines use lift off to touch down times.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 14, 2017 6:52 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Tack vs Hobbs
alec(at)alecmyers.com wrote:
> Let me as the question again: when the FAA mandates usage-based inspection or
maintenance (for instance, mandatory 100 hour inspections for aircraft used for
instruction) - what is the time that is counted towards those 100 hours? Is
it engine run time, or air time, or tach time, or some other measure?
When I had a TC aircraft, every shop used tach time. Not a single maintenance facility
ever looked at the hobbs meter unless they needed the total airframe hours.
I can't say if there's a FAR enforcing that though and if there is, which one.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467283#467283
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | About those 'Copper Tops' |
While sitting at the keyboard on more interesting
things, I often have some sample battery running
on cap tests. I've been gathering data to repeat
the experiment I did about ten years ago that
asked "How bad can a flashlight battery be?"
Just finished sucking the precious bodily fluids
out of some Duracell AAs marked with a 2018 Use-By
date. If memory serves, the advertising hype for
this product boasts a 10-year shelf life.
At least this batch of cells are only coughing up
about 1/2 the capacity of a new cell . . . they
demonstrate a higher internal impedance at the
beginning of the discharge cycle.
Does anyone have some Alkaline AAs out there
that are pushing their use-by dates? It would
be interesting to squeeze 'em and see how long
they'll sing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: About those 'Copper Tops' |
Apropos of this, I have a maybe-novel idea about how to test a bunch of competing
battery brands, easily. I don't know if I made this up, or read about it somewhere
but...
Connect them in series, and discharge the battery of cells through a dummy load.
That way, at any given time, they've all passed the same number of electrons/coulombs
of charge. Periodically disconnect the load and measure each cell's
no-load terminal voltage. The cells that die first should be obvious.
What do esteemed list readers think?
On Mar 14, 2017, at 22:26, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
While sitting at the keyboard on more interesting
things, I often have some sample battery running
on cap tests. I've been gathering data to repeat
the experiment I did about ten years ago that
asked "How bad can a flashlight battery be?"
Just finished sucking the precious bodily fluids
out of some Duracell AAs marked with a 2018 Use-By
date. If memory serves, the advertising hype for
this product boasts a 10-year shelf life.
At least this batch of cells are only coughing up
about 1/2 the capacity of a new cell . . . they
demonstrate a higher internal impedance at the
beginning of the discharge cycle.
Does anyone have some Alkaline AAs out there
that are pushing their use-by dates? It would
be interesting to squeeze 'em and see how long
they'll sing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
>From what I understand it's SUPPOSED to provide a good reading over water, but
hasn't been specifically tested yet for that functionality. Some of the canard
folks were asking the same question.
In short, specs say yes, but hasn't been tested on an actual flying canard that
I know of.
Joe, thanks a million for your diagrams and great advice! All of it is super helpful!
Warm Regards,
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467332#467332
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
| From: | "Airdog77" <Airdog77(at)gmail.com> |
>From what I understand it's SUPPOSED to provide a good reading over water, but
hasn't been specifically tested yet for that functionality. Some of the canard
folks were asking the same question.
In short, specs say yes, but hasn't been tested on an actual flying canard that
I know of.
Joe, thanks a million for your diagrams and great advice! All of it is super helpful!
Warm Regards,
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467333#467333
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rod Smith <rodsmith52(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin magnetometer installation considerations |
I'm ready to run wiring in my Bearhawk wings. The only place that remotely meets
Garmin's requirements for magnetometer mounting is in the wing tip. The installation
manual says that if mounted in a metal wing, there should not be local
grounding, all wiring should be twisted pairs. I assume I can use a battery
drill to make twisted pairs. How tightly should the wires be twisted (turns/inch
etc). The only logical place to run the wiring for the magnetometer is in the
same conduit with the rest of the wiring. Does this present a problem?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: King KX145 pin out, pin 10 |
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
The manual I have is the "Maintenance/Overhaul Manual 5110". It
completely fills a 2" ring binder.
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 03/14/2017 01:20 AM, rayj wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I have a copy of the manual I scanned in several years ago. I scanned
> at a high resolution. I believe it fills 5+ DVDs. I sent a copy to Bob
> N. He may have created a smaller copy of it. I would be willing to sell
> the copy I have, if you're interested in having a paper copy. I also
> have a KX-145 and vor head, if you're interested in having one for spare
> parts.
>
> 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 03/13/2017 10:16 PM, stickid wrote:
>>
>> I am looking for a manual for the KX-145 and wondering if you would be
>> able to send me a scanned copy please.
>> Thanks
>> Bob R
>> Winnipeg Canada
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467277#467277
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: About those 'Copper Tops' |
At 11:10 PM 3/14/2017, you wrote:
>
>Apropos of this, I have a maybe-novel idea about how to test a bunch
>of competing battery brands, easily. I don't know if I made this up,
>or read about it somewhere but...
>
>Connect them in series, and discharge the battery of cells through a
>dummy load. That way, at any given time, they've all passed the same
>number of electrons/coulombs of charge. Periodically disconnect the
>load and measure each cell's no-load terminal voltage. The cells
>that die first should be obvious.
This is a useful comparative test for evaluating
the relative condition of an array of cells . . .
with limitations. It doesn't yield 'baseline' data,
i.e. a quantitative measurement of contained
energy. When I did the first pass at this study
I had a nifty $100, 12-Bit DAS purchased
previously for a Beech flight test program.
Pairing this device with an array of AA cell
holders loaded with 5 ohm resistors allowed me
to run batches of cells down at the same time.
The data yielded was analyzed in software I can't
run under Win7 . . . software that coughed up a
scrip file that plotted results to a graph in
AutoCAD.
Emacs!
The Phase II test is being accomplished one cell
at a time using a West Mountain Radio battery
tester and its companion software. The earlier
tests were conducted under a constant resistance
load; Phase II is constant current. In both instances,
the analysis yielded a Watt-Hours value for energy
yielded by each cell.
The disadvantage is lack of batch-processing
capability. The advantage is that software supplied
by WMR runs in my more modern computers and also
yields quantitative data.
Still got a soft spot in my heart for that $low$
DAS. It ran under Win95 off the parallel port
of the laptop. It would gather 1000 samples per
second of 12-bit data. In about two weeks of
hammer-n-sawing at the bench, I had fabricated
and installed a pitch-trim study on the Beechjet
that yielded some really nice data . . . along
with foundation for fixing a problem that was
costing the company $millions$.
Those were exciting times . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin magnetometer installation considerations |
At 09:38 AM 3/15/2017, you wrote:
>I'm ready to run wiring in my Bearhawk wings. The only place that
>remotely meets Garmin's requirements for magnetometer mounting is in
>the wing tip. The installation manual says that if mounted in a
>metal wing, there should not be local grounding, all wiring should
>be twisted pairs. I assume I can use a battery drill to make twisted
>pairs. How tightly should the wires be twisted (turns/inch etc). The
>only logical place to run the wiring for the magnetometer is in the
>same conduit with the rest of the wiring. Does this present a problem?
How many pairs
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: King KX145 pin out, pin 10 |
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
Bob,
Just noticed your subject line.
Looking at the diagram I have I believe #10 is the center of the nav
antenna coax. There are 2 connectors. This is on the longer of the 2,
***NOT*** the one that connects to the KI-205.
If you need more info, let me know.
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 03/13/2017 10:16 PM, stickid wrote:
>
> I am looking for a manual for the KX-145 and wondering if you would be able to
send me a scanned copy please.
> Thanks
> Bob R
> Winnipeg Canada
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467277#467277
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin magnetometer installation considerations |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
SnVzdCBidXkgdHdpc3RlZCBwYWlyIHdpcmUuIEJlZW4gdGhlcmU7IGdvdCB0aGUgVCBzaGlydDsg
d2lzaCBJIGhhZG4ndC4gOy0pCgo8ZGl2Pi0tLS0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIG1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0t
LS08L2Rpdj48ZGl2PkZyb206ICJSb2JlcnQgTC4gTnVja29sbHMsIElJSSIgPG51Y2tvbGxzLmJv
YkBhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMuY29tPiA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PkRhdGU6MDMvMTUvMjAxNyAgMTozNyBQTSAg
KEdNVC0wNjowMCkgPC9kaXY+PGRpdj5UbzogYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNv
bSA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PlN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBBZXJvRWxlY3RyaWMtTGlzdDogR2FybWluIG1hZ25l
dG9tZXRlciBpbnN0YWxsYXRpb24gICBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucyA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pgo8L2Rpdj5B
dCAwOTozOCBBTSAzLzE1LzIwMTcsIHlvdSB3cm90ZToKSSdtIHJlYWR5IHRvIHJ1biB3aXJpbmcg
aW4gbXkgQmVhcmhhd2sgd2luZ3MuIFRoZSBvbmx5IHBsYWNlIHRoYXQgcmVtb3RlbHkgbWVldHMg
R2FybWluJ3MgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGZvciBtYWduZXRvbWV0ZXIgbW91bnRpbmcgaXMgaW4gdGhl
IHdpbmcgdGlwLiBUaGUgaW5zdGFsbGF0aW9uIG1hbnVhbCBzYXlzIHRoYXQgaWYgbW91bnRlZCBp
biBhIG1ldGFsIHdpbmcsIHRoZXJlIHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgbG9jYWwgZ3JvdW5kaW5nLCBhbGwg
d2lyaW5nIHNob3VsZCBiZSB0d2lzdGVkIHBhaXJzLiBJIGFzc3VtZSBJIGNhbiB1c2UgYSBiYXR0
ZXJ5IGRyaWxsIHRvIG1ha2UgdHdpc3RlZCBwYWlycy4gSG93IHRpZ2h0bHkgc2hvdWxkIHRoZSB3
aXJlcyBiZSB0d2lzdGVkICh0dXJucy9pbmNoIGV0YykuIFRoZSBvbmx5IGxvZ2ljYWwgcGxhY2Ug
dG8gcnVuIHRoZSB3aXJpbmcgZm9yIHRoZSBtYWduZXRvbWV0ZXIgaXMgaW4gdGhlIHNhbWUgY29u
ZHVpdCB3aXRoIHRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHRoZSB3aXJpbmcuIERvZXMgdGhpcyBwcmVzZW50IGEgcHJv
YmxlbT8KCiAgSG93IG1hbnkgcGFpcnMKCgogIEJvYiAuIC4gLg=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin magnetometer installation considerations |
Garmin doesn't recommend open non-shielded wire for the GMU (twisted or
not). You'll note from the install manual is specifically calls out a 2
conductor shielded wire and a 3 conductor shielded wire (one of each) run to
the GMU. This is the simplest and cleanest way to do the install as well.the
wires are already twisted, already shielded and can be run together. Look
at page 24-5 in the install manual (rev. AA) for details. The power, Ground
and RS-232 share the three conductor wire with the shield getting sunk to
the signal ground on the GMU. I'd recommend just following that install
guide..after hundreds of these we've wired this way there hasn't been any
issues yet.
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin magnetometer installation
considerations
At 09:38 AM 3/15/2017, you wrote:
I'm ready to run wiring in my Bearhawk wings. The only place that remotely
meets Garmin's requirements for magnetometer mounting is in the wing tip.
The installation manual says that if mounted in a metal wing, there should
not be local grounding, all wiring should be twisted pairs. I assume I can
use a battery drill to make twisted pairs. How tightly should the wires be
twisted (turns/inch etc). The only logical place to run the wiring for the
magnetometer is in the same conduit with the rest of the wiring. Does this
present a problem?
How many pairs
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Who's Got the Time? |
3/15/2017
Hello Fellow Aeroelectric Listers, A recent posting using the subject:
=9CTack vs Hobbs=9D (sic) generated many responses and
opinions.
With that level of interest maybe reading an article discussing the
subject of aeronautical time recording might add to our fellow listers
knowledge.
Please see the article: =9CWho=99s Got The Time?=9D
that can be found on page 36 of the October 2015 issue of Kitplanes
magazine.
If you don=99t have access to that magazine and article I may be
able to provide (upon request) a reasonable copy of the article.
Owen C. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin magnetometer installation considerations |
At 02:34 PM 3/15/2017, you wrote:
>Garmin doesn=92t recommend open non-shielded wire
>for the GMU (twisted or not). You=92ll note from
>the install manual is specifically calls out a 2
>conductor shielded wire and a 3 conductor
>shielded wire (one of each) run to the GMU. This
>is the simplest and cleanest way to do the
>install as well=85the wires are already twisted,
>already shielded and can be run together. Look
>at page 24-5 in the install manual (rev. AA) for
>details. The power, Ground and RS-232 share the
>three conductor wire with the shield getting
>sunk to the signal ground on the GMU. I=92d
>recommend just following that install
>guide=85.after hundreds of these we=92ve wired this
>way there hasn=92t been any issues yet.
>
>Cheers,
>Stein
>
Agreed. I've got a B@%%-load of 3-conductor
shielded. You can use it for both the 2 and
3-conductor pathways . . . just ignore one
wire in the bundle.
How much do you need to make the necessary
runs?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | AEC9005 and AEC9009 etched circuit boards |
Emacs!
I'm still getting the odd request for boards to fabricate the
AEC9009 Audio Isolation Amplifier http://tinyurl.com/z28sc83
and/or
AEC9005 Aux Battery/LV Warn Modules http://tinyurl.com/6mvso29
Had an opportunity to piggy-back some of these boards onto
the order for another program . . . with a bit of an
'upgrade'. Unlike the previous offers, these boards are
solder-masked and silk-screened, hence a bit more expensive.
$25 each for either one postage paid. Email me directly.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Who's Got the Time? |
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
Owen,
Would love to read the article or some quotes from it.
Thanks,
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Owen Baker wrote:
>
> 3/15/2017
>
> Hello Fellow Aeroelectric Listers, A recent posting using the subject:
=9CTack vs Hobbs=9D (sic) generated many responses and opinions.
>
> With that level of interest maybe reading an article discussing the subjec
t of aeronautical time recording might add to our fellow listers knowledge.
>
> Please see the article: =9CWho=99s Got The Time?=9D that
can be found on page 36 of the October 2015 issue of Kitplanes magazine.
>
> If you don=99t have access to that magazine and article I may be abl
e to provide (upon request) a reasonable copy of the article.
>
> Owen C. Baker
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rod Smith <rodsmith52(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin magnetometer installation. |
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- Thank you Stein for the reference to the wir
ing diagram, I hadn't seen it, had only looked in the magnetometer section.
I figured it would require shielded wiring. The twisted pairs I was referr
ing to are for the other wiring in the same wing, a Whelen LED position/str
obe unit and a Facet fuel transfer pump. Whelen wants 20 ga wire for their
unit and I need 16 gauge wire for the pump. I would buy twisted pair wire f
or these but I only see 22 ga twisted pair wire on your website. Maybe the
best option is to use shielded wire for both.=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
Bob, thanks for your offer on shielded wire. I would need 50' total for th
e two runs to the magnetometer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin magnetometer installation. |
At 10:12 AM 3/17/2017, you wrote:
> Thank you Stein for the reference to the wiring diagram, I
> hadn't seen it, had only looked in the magnetometer section. I
> figured it would require shielded wiring. The twisted pairs I was
> referring to are for the other wiring in the same wing, a Whelen
> LED position/strobe unit and a Facet fuel transfer pump. Whelen
> wants 20 ga wire for their unit and I need 16 gauge wire for the
> pump. I would buy twisted pair wire for these but I only see 22 ga
> twisted pair wire on your website. Maybe the best option is to use
> shielded wire for both.
> Bob, thanks for your offer on shielded wire. I would need 50'
> total for the two runs to the magnetometer.
I've sent you a paypal invoice for shipping
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin magnetometer installation. |
For the facet pump I wouldn't worry too much if it were me (it's only a
periodic load anyway). For the strobes, we usually see (and stock) 3
conductor x AWG20 or AWG18 depending on what the mfgr spec's.
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin magnetometer installation.
At 10:12 AM 3/17/2017, you wrote:
Thank you Stein for the reference to the wiring diagram, I hadn't seen
it, had only looked in the magnetometer section. I figured it would require
shielded wiring. The twisted pairs I was referring to are for the other
wiring in the same wing, a Whelen LED position/strobe unit and a Facet fuel
transfer pump. Whelen wants 20 ga wire for their unit and I need 16 gauge
wire for the pump. I would buy twisted pair wire for these but I only see 22
ga twisted pair wire on your website. Maybe the best option is to use
shielded wire for both.
Bob, thanks for your offer on shielded wire. I would need 50' total
for the two runs to the magnetometer.
I've sent you a paypal invoice for shipping
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | PIDG splices redux |
Found a few more red PIDG splices in the
archeological digs . . . also, some folks
did not pick up their orders from the last
offering . . . hence a second offer:
Emacs!
In lots of 25, these venerable products from
AMP are going for $1.60 each . . . or thereabouts.
http://tinyurl.com/jz8vjny
I'm offer these to members of the List in lots of 25
for $10/lot + $3.00 postage. No additional shipping
if you order more than one lot. Email me directly
please . . .
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | "BobD" <rjd(at)bobdawson.plus.com> |
Now that the LAA have approved the use of electronic ASI & Altimeter for backup
purposes as an alternative to steam driven instruments, I am considering installing
a combined unit in my aircraft as a backup to my Dynon Skyview.
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TechnicalLeaflets/Mods%20and%20Repairs/TL%203.20%20EFIS%20in%20LAA%20Aircraft.pdf
The pre-approved one I prefer (on clarity and cost grounds) from the LAA document
is the MGL ASX-1. However, it has one major drawback in that it does not have
a built in battery backup.
Having spoken to a distributor, he suggested a 9V PP3 battery (possibly switchable
in the circuit) would be sufficient for emergency power if the main circuit
failed. However, I would prefer a re-chargeable battery, re-charged through
the aircraft system, so as not to have to worry or check that the backup battery
is maintained in a charged state. Despite trawling the web, and there being
several commercial units and amateur wiring diagrams out there, I have found
none that are specific for incorporating in an aircraft.
I am reasonably competent with a soldering iron, but less so in the theory of such
things, so would be happy to construct my own on a PCB, from a detailed wiring
diagram. Does anyone know of such a diagram, or a suitable lightweight and
cost effective commercial device suitable for installation behind the Control
Panel?
--------
Bob Dawson
XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467484#467484
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:45 AM, BobD wrote:
>
> Now that the LAA have approved the use of electronic ASI & Altimeter for
> backup purposes as an alternative to steam driven instruments, I am
> considering installing a combined unit in my aircraft as a backup to my
> Dynon Skyview.
>
> http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/
> TechnicalLeaflets/Mods%20and%20Repairs/TL%203.20%20EFIS%
> 20in%20LAA%20Aircraft.pdf
>
> The pre-approved one I prefer (on clarity and cost grounds) from the LAA
> document is the MGL ASX-1. However, it has one major drawback in that it
> does not have a built in battery backup.
>
> Having spoken to a distributor, he suggested a 9V PP3 battery (possibly
> switchable in the circuit) would be sufficient for emergency power if the
> main circuit failed. However, I would prefer a re-chargeable battery,
> re-charged through the aircraft system, so as not to have to worry or check
> that the backup battery is maintained in a charged state. Despite trawling
> the web, and there being several commercial units and amateur wiring
> diagrams out there, I have found none that are specific for incorporating
> in an aircraft.
>
> I am reasonably competent with a soldering iron, but less so in the theory
> of such things, so would be happy to construct my own on a PCB, from a
> detailed wiring diagram. Does anyone know of such a diagram, or a suitable
> lightweight and cost effective commercial device suitable for installation
> behind the Control Panel?
>
> --------
> Bob Dawson
> XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ
>
>
> Have you considered placing the battery 'in series' (**sloppy design
speak**) with the supply? If you feed bus voltage to a voltage regulator,
then tie the VR's output to the backup battery and the device, the device
would be electrically isolated from the bus and always powered by the
regulator/backup battery, but the battery would never be discharged.
Idea is to set the regulator at the charge point of the backup. If you use
an adjustable boost-buck 'switching' regulator, your voltage set point
could be the same as your bus voltage, and your backup battery could be the
same voltage but lower current version of your main battery. Noise from the
'switcher' could be an issue, but if using a quality power supply, its
output should be cleaner than an alternator's output. Simply size the PS to
be slightly bigger than the demand of your instrument.
An alternative would be the 9V battery and a linear regulator adjusted to
the minimum acceptable charge voltage for the 9V battery. Less efficient
and more heat, but no noise at all.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
How about this circuit?
Small rechargeable lead acid batteries are available that weight less than 1 pound.
http://www.zbattery.com/Batteries/List-of-All-12Vs
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467490#467490
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/backup_battery_104.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/backup_battery_291.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tcwtech <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
I'm aware that many on this list are interested in rolling their own solutions
to many things, which is all well and good. For those that are interested
in an engineered and proven solution to back-up power for critical avionics I
would recommend you visit our web site and review our IBBS series of products.
They are a self-contained back-up system with an internal smart charger and
power transfer switching. We have been producing these products for 7 years
for the experimental and are on the verge of releasing our TSO'd version.
Thanks for the consideration,
Www.tcwtech.com
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC
610-928-3420
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:04 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> How about this circuit?
> Small rechargeable lead acid batteries are available that weight less than 1
pound.
> http://www.zbattery.com/Batteries/List-of-All-12Vs
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467490#467490
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/backup_battery_104.pdf
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/backup_battery_291.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | "BobD" <rjd(at)bobdawson.plus.com> |
Bob, Thank You and the other contributors for your replies.
Please excuse my ignorance, but having reviewed your IBBS products, even the small
unit at 2.5 lbs seems overkill in terms of my requirement, for a potential
device to power for up to 30 minutes one low power instrument in VFR conditions.
I was hoping to be able to use either rechargeable alkaline, NiCd or NiMH batteries.
I hope my expectations aren't too ambitious, as I assume something like
this is included within the other Instruments mentioned in the LAA leaflet.
Again, the questions are asked because of my limited knowledge
[Rolling Eyes]
--------
Bob Dawson
XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467495#467495
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> |
What I would do. Don't forget an on/off function between aux. battery
and load (not drawn).
Jan de Jong
On 3/21/2017 3:04 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
> How about this circuit?
> Small rechargeable lead acid batteries are available that weight less than 1
pound.
> http://www.zbattery.com/Batteries/List-of-All-12Vs
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467490#467490
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/backup_battery_104.pdf
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/backup_battery_291.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tcwtech <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
Our smallest product is 3 amp-hrs and weighs in at 18 oz.
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC
610-928-3420
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:35 AM, BobD wrote:
>
>
> Bob, Thank You and the other contributors for your replies.
>
> Please excuse my ignorance, but having reviewed your IBBS products, even the
small unit at 2.5 lbs seems overkill in terms of my requirement, for a potential
device to power for up to 30 minutes one low power instrument in VFR conditions.
>
> I was hoping to be able to use either rechargeable alkaline, NiCd or NiMH batteries.
I hope my expectations aren't too ambitious, as I assume something like
this is included within the other Instruments mentioned in the LAA leaflet.
>
> Again, the questions are asked because of my limited knowledge
> [Rolling Eyes]
>
> --------
> Bob Dawson
> XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467495#467495
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
I will Second this thoughtful suggestion.
John Cox,
Retired Airline Avionics tech
On Mar 21, 2017 09:08, "Tcwtech" wrote:
>
> Our smallest product is 3 amp-hrs and weighs in at 18 oz.
>
> Bob Newman
> TCW Technologies, LLC
> 610-928-3420
>
> > On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:35 AM, BobD wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bob, Thank You and the other contributors for your replies.
> >
> > Please excuse my ignorance, but having reviewed your IBBS products, even
> the small unit at 2.5 lbs seems overkill in terms of my requirement, for a
> potential device to power for up to 30 minutes one low power instrument in
> VFR conditions.
> >
> > I was hoping to be able to use either rechargeable alkaline, NiCd or
> NiMH batteries. I hope my expectations aren't too ambitious, as I assume
> something like this is included within the other Instruments mentioned in
> the LAA leaflet.
> >
> > Again, the questions are asked because of my limited knowledge
> > [Rolling Eyes]
> >
> > --------
> > Bob Dawson
> > XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467495#467495
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
You could connect 11 of NiMH AA or AAA cells and 2 diodes all in series. But not
much weight will be saved over a small lead acid battery. The more connections
there are, the greater the chance of failure. Those AA battery holders with
springs are prone to fail. Pre-made 13.2 volt NiMH battery packs are available
for an outrageous price.
> Don't forget an on/off function between aux. battery and load (not drawn).
Good idea.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467500#467500
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
This sealed lead acid battery weighs 12 oz.
Use a schottky diode to minimize voltage drop.
http://www.zbattery.com/Power-Patrol-12v-800mAh-Sealed-SLA1000?sc=2&category=62965
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467501#467501
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
>
>Having spoken to a distributor, he suggested a 9V PP3 battery
>(possibly switchable in the circuit) would be sufficient for
>emergency power if the main circuit failed. However, I would prefer
>a re-chargeable battery, re-charged through the aircraft system, so
>as not to have to worry or check that the backup battery is
>maintained in a charged state.
Be cautious here my friend. Consider ANY battery
you install for ANY purpose on your airplane . . .
batteries are like house plants . . . no, worse
than house plants . . . at least you can SEE when
the sucker has wilted.
Just because you have a set of secondary cells
(rechargeable) supported by an outside energy
source does not eliminate the need for periodic
capacity testing to make sure that battery will
meet mission goals when called upon to do its
task. Another battery, whether rechargeable or
not, becomes another line item on your
ship's preventative maintenance list . . . a line
item that, unlike your tires, cannot be visually
inspected for airworthiness.
Tell us about the rest of your airplane. What
kind of alternator(s), battery(ies), ignition
systems, fuel motivators, etc. Is your engine
electrically dependent? If so, how are you reducing
risk for loss of electromotive incentives to keep
the fan running?
Given that so many OBAM aircraft are being configured
with a great deal of electrical dependency, then
it automatically follows that what ever is planned
to keep you airborne is also adequate to keeping you
right side up and headed in the right direction.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | "BobD" <rjd(at)bobdawson.plus.com> |
Bob, Thanks for responding to my post.
My aircraft is a part built Europa Tri-Gear, with a Rotax 912 ULS engine. I realise
that any battery requires maintenance, I am just looking for something that
will last potentially between annuals, whereas I suspect a normal PP3 battery
would last for less than three months. This battery would also only be required
to power the backup ASI and Altimeter whilst I found somewhere to land (possible
30 minutes in the UK), and would only be called upon in the case of a
total failure to the main electrical system.
The original three devices suggested in the LAA leaflet, whilst having built in
battery backup, are not cost effective in my view.
My thinking is that if nothing economical in both cost and weight is available,
I may as well stick with the steam driven backups of ASI, Altimeter and Compass.
--------
Bob Dawson
XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467515#467515
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
At 07:16 PM 3/22/2017, you wrote:
>
>Bob, Thanks for responding to my post.
>
>My aircraft is a part built Europa Tri-Gear, with a Rotax 912 ULS engine.
Okay, how does fuel move from tanks to the
engine?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mrcc1234(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I just received a Mac 1700 VTX Nav/Comm with a project I picked up and can
not find the operating or installation manuals anywhere.
I looked in the AeroElectric avionics pin out directory and could not find
it, though since it was designed to replace the King KX70/75=99s I im
agine the pin out is pretty close to the Kings.
Is anyone able to help?
Thanks,
Matt Stecher
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | "BobD" <rjd(at)bobdawson.plus.com> |
Via the mechanical pump attached to the Rotax engine. Whilst it does have an electric
pump, this is a backup to the mechanical one.
Whilst perhaps desirable, a backup method of power to the electric pump is not
an LAA requirement, battery backup to the backup instruments is.
--------
Bob Dawson
XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467533#467533
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Kale <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
I had one. It was a king modified by an aftermarket outfit. As best I can r
ecall, the pinout was the same as the King
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 22, 2017, at 7:51 PM, wrote:
>
> I just received a Mac 1700 VTX Nav/Comm with a project I picked up and can
not find the operating or installation manuals anywhere.
>
> I looked in the AeroElectric avionics pin out directory and could not find
it, though since it was designed to replace the King KX70/75=99s I im
agine the pin out is pretty close to the Kings.
>
> Is anyone able to help?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Stecher
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Cox <flyboyron(at)gmail.com> |
Hi, Matt,
If you're in a hurry, this might be helpful.
https://www.eflightmanuals.com/ITEM_EFM/SITEM_EFM.asp?cID=4443
I have one of those and may have the manual you need. What I have is the
Pilot's Operating Manual for the Control/Display Unit, and Flight Manual
Supplements.
I know it is indeed a slide-out replacement for the King KX-170/175 radios.
(It actually IS a KX-170 or 175 radio with a new control front grafted
onto it.)
So the KX-170/175 pinouts should be good.
Sorry, I don't have the installation manual, but again, the King info
should do it for you.
Ron Cox
Glasair Super II F/T
Almost there...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MAC 1700 Manual |
At 08:10 PM 3/23/2017, you wrote:
>Hi, Matt,=C2
>
>If you're in a hurry, this might be helpful.=C2
>https://w
ww.eflightmanuals.com/ITEM_EFM/SITEM_EFM.asp?cID=4443
>
>I have one of those and may have the manual you
>need.=C2 What I have is the Pilot's Operating
>Manual for the Control/Display Unit, and Flight Manual Supplements.
>
>I know it is indeed a slide-out replacement for
>the King KX-170/175 radios. =C2 (It actually IS a
>KX-170 or 175 radio with a new control front grafted onto it.) =C2
>So the KX-170/175 pinouts should be good.
>
>Sorry, I don't have the installation manual, but
>again, the King info should do it for you.
The KX170B/175B IM is available here http://tinyurl.com/m7xeo39
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
At 03:01 AM 3/23/2017, you wrote:
>
>Via the mechanical pump attached to the Rotax engine. Whilst it does
>have an electric pump, this is a backup to the mechanical one.
>
>Whilst perhaps desirable, a backup method of power to the electric
>pump is not an LAA requirement, battery backup to the backup instruments is.
Hmmmm . . . okay. Do the backup instruments have
dedicated input connections for backup power?
Do they feature or do you plan to have a
pilot operated power switch for these
devices?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Guys (Bob)
I've gone for the simple rod com antenna (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/stainlessantenna.php) having heard good reports (compared to the much more Comant types) the connection is a simple bolt - I presume PIDG connectors (both centre core and shield) keep them as short as possible, any other thoughts guys ?
Also: one more time - how close/distance from the transponder aerial should the
two be ?
Regards
John RV9a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467578#467578
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 02:56 PM 3/24/2017, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Guys (Bob)
>
>I've gone for the simple rod com antenna
>(http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/stainlessantenna.php)
>having heard good reports (compared to the much more Comant types)
>the connection is a simple bolt - I presume PIDG connectors (both
>centre core and shield) keep them as short as possible, any other
>thoughts guys ?
That will work. Cessna produced thousands
of airplanes with that 'style' vhf comm
antenna. Is this a metal airplane? If
not, don't forget the radials.
>Also: one more time - how close/distance from the transponder aerial
>should the two be ?
As far as practical . . . but I've seen
installations as short as 12" apart
where owners reported no observable
effects.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Bob
It's a Van's RV9a (all metal), so a decent mounting backing/plate will suffi
ce - yes
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 24 Mar 2017, at 08:29 pm, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroe
lectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 02:56 PM 3/24/2017, you wrote:
rld.com>
>>
>> Hi Guys (Bob)
>>
>> I've gone for the simple rod com antenna ( http://www.aircraftspruce.com/
catalog/avpages/stainlessantenna.php) having heard good reports (compared to
the much more expensive Comant types) the connection is a simple bolt - I p
resume PIDG connectors (both centre core and shield) keep them as short as p
ossible, any other thoughts guys ?
>
> That will work. Cessna produced thousands
> of airplanes with that 'style' vhf comm
> antenna. Is this a metal airplane? If
> not, don't forget the radials.
>
>> Also: one more time - how close/distance from the transponder aerial shou
ld the two be ?
>
> As far as practical . . . but I've seen
> installations as short as 12" apart
> where owners reported no observable
> effects.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | ADS-B Antenna Located Next To EMS |
Hi all,
I have a velocity aircraft and therefore space is a little tight so I am
considering mounting my Dynon Skyview EMS module directly onto the ground
plane of my ADS-B antenna.
If I did this, could there be some sort of interference or noise from the
ADS-B antenna transmission and the unshielded sensor wires of the EMS unit?
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B Antenna Located Next To EMS |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I wouldn't expect a problem, but would try to get an inch or two of
separation to ensure no interference.
On 3/24/2017 7:18 PM, William Hunter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a velocity aircraft and therefore space is a little tight so I am
> considering mounting my Dynon Skyview EMS module directly onto the
> ground plane of my ADS-B antenna.
>
> If I did this, could there be some sort of interference or noise from
> the ADS-B antenna transmission and the unshielded sensor wires of the
> EMS unit?
>
> THANKS!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Klixon Circuit Breaker |
Hi all,
I have a slight spacial conflict problem with the instrument panel design
and I need a smaller circuit breaker.
I designed my instrument panel with a row of circuit breakers and I have
already had the instrument panel holes drilled and the silk screening done
for the circuit breaker labels. My landing gear hydraulic motor requires a
30 amp circuit breaker and I placed it's 30 amp Potter and Brumfield
W23-x1a1g-30 circuit breaker on the end of the row however I discovered
that I have a slight space conflict to the point where the Potter and
Brumfield circuit breaker will not fit in its hole.
The Klickon 7277 circuit breaker will fit however it seems that they only
go up to 25 amps and my landing gear hydraulic power pack motor calls out
30 amps. I am running a 14 VDC system.
Does anybody know of a smaller circuit breaker that I could use in lieu of
this large Potter and Brumfield unit?
I considered running a remote circuit breaker however then I will have this
hole in my instrument panel labeled gear hydraulic and that would be just
sad to have to roll with that.
I am trying to salvage this little issue so I don't have to mark up a brand
new instrument panel and move the circuit breaker to another row so any
help would be greatly appreciated!
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ADS-B Antenna Located Next To EMS |
Thanks Kelly
Bill Hunter
On Mar 24, 2017 20:07, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
> kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> I wouldn't expect a problem, but would try to get an inch or two of
> separation to ensure no interference.
>
> On 3/24/2017 7:18 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a velocity aircraft and therefore space is a little tight so I am
>> considering mounting my Dynon Skyview EMS module directly onto the
>> ground plane of my ADS-B antenna.
>>
>> If I did this, could there be some sort of interference or noise from
>> the ADS-B antenna transmission and the unshielded sensor wires of the
>> EMS unit?
>>
>> THANKS!!!
>>
>> Bill Hunter
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Klixon Circuit Breaker |
At 07:31 PM 3/25/2017, you wrote:
>Hi all,=C2
>
>I have a slight spacial conflict problem with
>the instrument panel design and I need a smaller circuit breaker.=C2
>
>I designed my instrument panel with a row of
>circuit breakers and I have already had the
>instrument panel holes drilled and the silk
>screening done for the circuit breaker labels.
>My landing gear hydraulic motor requires a 30
>amp circuit breaker and I placed it's 30 amp
>Potter and Brumfield W23-x1a1g-30 circuit
>breaker on the end of the row however I
>discovered that I have a slight space conflict
>to the point where the Potter and Brumfield
>circuit breaker will not fit in its hole.=C2
I wouldn't bring this kind of
high current feeder up to the panel.
I'd use a current limiter at the battery
contactor thus keeping all the fat-wires
of the panel. If there's already a
spot for a breaker marked 'landing gear',
put a 5a breaker there to power the control
system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | "BobD" <rjd(at)bobdawson.plus.com> |
Bob,
As far as I can see , the instrument itself has no facility for battery backup
input, just the normal power feed
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/Infinitec/Manuals/ASX1.pdf
I therefore think the options are
1) go with a commercial device that has been suggested on the Europa Forum
http://www.mini-box.com/picoUPS-120-12V-DC-micro-UPS-battery-backup
with a small backup battery such as this
http://www.zbattery.com/Batteries/List-of-All-12Vs
2) build my own unit, as suggested in the post by user9253 (Joe Gores) in the original
thread
3) Buy one of the more expensive units from either Funkework or LX Navigation
with the battery backups built in
4) stick with the steam driven ASI and Altimeter.
I guess my priorities are accuracy, minimum weight, and cost in that order
I would value your opinion.
--------
Bob Dawson
XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467650#467650
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
That PicoUPS looks like it requires a backup battery. So I do not know what advantage
it has over using a diode along with a backup battery.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467655#467655
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightweight rechargeable battery backup unit |
At 05:32 PM 3/26/2017, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>As far as I can see , the instrument itself has no facility for
>battery backup input, just the normal power feed
>http://www.mglavionics.co.za/Infinitec/Manuals/ASX1.pdf
neat gizmo . . . does lots of interesting
things.
>I therefore think the options are
>
>1) go with a commercial device that has been suggested on the Europa Forum
>http://www.mini-box.com/picoUPS-120-12V-DC-micro-UPS-battery-backup
>with a small backup battery such as this
>http://www.zbattery.com/Batteries/List-of-All-12Vs
>2) build my own unit, as suggested in the post by user9253 (Joe
>Gores) in the original thread
>3) Buy one of the more expensive units from either Funkework or LX
>Navigation with the battery backups built in
>4) stick with the steam driven ASI and Altimeter.
A standby battery is more a bureaucratic
philosophy than a strong mitigation of risk . . .
as an OBAM aircraft operator, it's pretty
much a given that you're going to fly with
an artfully maintained electrical system . . .
especially the battery. You will KNOW what
your battery-only endurance values are for
a pre-determined load which would, of course,
included the 50mA max demand of the ASX1.
It seems the practical need is to comply with
requirements and demonstrate a 'back up battery'
and offer an analysis of its performance and
a rational plan for insuring continued airworthiness.
I note that the ASX1 doesn't have a power switch
built in, so you not only need to provide a little
bundle of watt-seconds, you also need to manage
isolation that source when the ship is powered down.
Consider this:
Emacs!
>I guess my priorities are accuracy, minimum weight, and cost in that order
>
>I would value your opinion.
The legacy, alkaline 9v battery has a nominal
energy rating on the order of 500mAH. Suggest two
such batteries in series for a nominal operating
output of 16v falling to 12v at end of life.
The reason for suggesting these devices is their
WIRING. You can purchase snap-clips that make
good connection with the batteries. The 'ideal' cell
for a tiny DIY standby battery is the alkaline AA.
But battery trays for cylindrical cells are rather
flakey under environmental stress and you can't
routinely buy AA cells with welded tabs for low risk
soldering.
The schematic above shows two steering diodes that
insure power to the ASX1 from EITHER source
when the switch is closed. You need the switch to
(1) eliminate drain on the standby battery when
parked and (2) facilitate pre-and-post flight
testing of the installed batteries.
Your check-list would turn the ASX-1 on FIRST
to show that the device comes alive on the standby
battery. Then bring ship's power up and proceed
as you normally would.
The ASX-1 would be turned off last . . . again
showing that the battery is at least capable of
powering the instrument.
Requirements for continued air-worthiness would
simply call for replacing the batteries every year.
The alkaline cell will loose about 15% of capacity
in first year if stored at about 120F.
I stuck one of these batteries on the WestMountain Radio
Battery-runner-downer and it tells me that when the
fresh battery is loaded at 40mA (I de-rated from the
13.8V/50mA value in the manual . . . we're battery operating
at a slightly higher voltage into a constant power
demand).
Emacs!
The fresh Duracell 9v delivered a solid 2 watt-hours at the
40mA rate. A pair of cells would be 4 watt-hours. At 14v
the specified demand of the ASX1 with the display illuminated
is 14v x 0.05A or 0.7W.
Hence, the pair of Duracell 9v batteries can be expected
to carry the instrument solidly for 6 hours . . . for
4+ hours at end of year assuming storage at elevated
temperatures.
The installed weight of this system would be under 0.3 pounds.
The bill of materials cost would be on the order of $10 which
includes the first year's compliment of batteries.
Continued air worthiness burden would be on the order of
$4/year assuming Sam's club prices for the 9v batteries.
Best yet, there is no burden of labor to verify the capacity
of a rechargeable back up system.
The FMEA looks good . . . the system gets pre and post-flight
tested.
This would seem to be the minimalist approach to meeting
the regulatory demand for a back up system that is, like a circuit
breaker, exceedingly unlikely to ever see real service.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Klixon Circuit Breaker |
Hi Bob, thanks (as always) for your advice!
I already have two circuit breaker holes (one labeled "gear control" and
the other one labeled "gear hydraulic" and therefore I was trying to figure
out some way to salvage this mess and make it look like it it's supposed to
be that way.
So it looks like what I should do is simply remove this 30 amp circuit
breaker and cover up its laser etched label with some sort of black paint
or happy face sticker or something to make it look like it wasn't there.
I know you stated "current limiter" in your reply however is an automotive
automatically reseting inline circuit breaker sufficient for airplane use
or should it be a real slow blow one shot for real current limiter?
Bill Hunter
On Mar 26, 2017 08:46, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
At 07:31 PM 3/25/2017, you wrote:
Hi all,=C3=82
I have a slight spacial conflict problem with the instrument panel design
and I need a smaller circuit breaker.=C3=82
I designed my instrument panel with a row of circuit breakers and I have
already had the instrument panel holes drilled and the silk screening done
for the circuit breaker labels. My landing gear hydraulic motor requires a
February 25, 2017 - March 27, 2017
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-nu