AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-qh
November 10, 2021 - January 02, 2022
>> out to FLY EFII and requested guidance.
>>
>> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume 11 AMPs.
>> That is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always
>> move up the ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an
>> 18 amp load for 80 minutes. If that is not enough there is always the
>> ETX1600 (120Amp/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1 PC680.
>> Money is just the issue. Not a place to skimp.
>>
>> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil packs A and
>> B so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you still have 1 working
>> plug per cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs
>> for cylinders 5 and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that
>> I would suggest a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same
>> coil pack. I do know of a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran
>> without too much vibration, but I need to check into that story.
>>
>> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just noticed
>> they come with an amber light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but
>> a good light is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better
>> vibration and longer life.
>>
>> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage and is used
>> to increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have them both going to the
>> Main Bus, but maybe the backup should go to the engine bus. There is a
>> possibility the main bus has power but the engine bus does not. Your
>> thoughts?
>>
>> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine to be, only
>> with the second battery.
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>>
>>
>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_7963984419081093013_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Everyone sets their own comfort level when it comes to risk. If you're
happy *and you're fully informed about the risks*, then that's your
choice. I might make different choices, and some of mine on other
subjects might be unacceptable to you.
Do you *know* what's in the black box? Have you analyzed the failure
modes and their effects? A fuel line failure would be difficult to 'plan
around', except through careful and thoughtful installation work. But
electrical failure issues are relatively simple to plan for and to
implement backup systems for potential failures. I'm just trying to
point out that there are some whizbang gadgets that can introduce more
failure modes than they compensate for, and we need to know when that is
happening.
I'd have more confidence in a vendor's position if he told me that he
tested for a potential problem, rather than just speculation. For
instance, I asked one of the a/c fuel boost pump (for conventional fuel
injection) vendors about their technique of looping bypassed fuel back
to the inlet of the pump and the risks of vapor lock/cavitation. His
response was that they'd tested it, including at elevated fuel temps.
There's also the contrary data point that competitors' systems (using
very similar dual pump setups) work just fine when running both pumps
for takeoff & landing.
I really want to understand as well as possible any system I install
that's a departure from 'tradition', simply because failure modes will
be different and likely not as well documented. For instance, this:
Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy
system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are positive
displacement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't turning, no fuel
will move through that pump. See the problem with that thought path?
Charlie
On 11/10/2021 10:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
> Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails, the primary
> fuel pump continues to run so no worries. The relay that switches
> pumps is NO passing current to the primary pump, or energized and
> switching current to the backup pump. I suppose the relay itself could
> be mechanically damaged and shut off both pumps, but a fuel line could
> break cutting off fuel as well.
>
> The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two batteries, but
> it's actually a pretty well thought out unit.
>
> It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not worried about
> cavitating the pumps if we run both, but in an RV-10 it could be a
> concern. So instead of fancy switching logic, install a /third/pump
> to feed the two EFII pumps and run all three for takeoff :). Or just
> use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system is
> installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
> The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If you run
> both pumps, they will each require their own full rated current
> while running. Total fuel pressure shouldn't change more than a
> few PSI if the regulator is sized properly. Excess fuel is
> bypassed by the regulator back to the tank. Upside is that if one
> pump fails during a critical phase of flight, fuel delivery
> doesn't even 'hiccup'.
>
> Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your 'black
> box', do you *know* that black box doesn't have a
> single-point-of-failure inside? Knowing means having the schematic
> for the guts of the black box, and a full understanding of the
> circuit.
>
> If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator is
> powered via pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their functions
> are described in their manual, here
> .
> Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual says
> overvoltage is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote
> sense' line that the regulator uses to accurately measure bus
> voltage so it can set proper voltage, and does the secondary job
> of detecting *under* (low) voltage.
> I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs
> typically consume fairly low current, compared to the injectors.
> Injectors can have relatively high inrush current each time they fire.
> This: "/They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed
> by 1 15 amp fuse./" just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me.
> I could be wrong, but I'd want to be absolutely certain about it.
> Play what if. Short one wire to ground or short one coil
> internally to ground,etc, somewhere downstream of that fuse. What
> happens to the engine?
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello John,
>
> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add
> revision tags. I don't always remember.
>
> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better
> align this to the Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes
> physical sense. That will also allow me to see where all my
> connection points should be. Currently it is just
> electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
>
> I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was
> not sure and that was one of my questions.
>
> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it
> to the alternator load except during level flight at altitude
> and near an airport. AC is a luxury. The Earthex batteries
> can draw at least 100 amps continuously so I think they will
> pick up any sag and my IBBS batteries on critical avionics are
> also meant to do that as well.
>
> Engine Bus answers:
> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil
> packs will have a fusable link and a breaker
> Injectors will have a fusible link only
> I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to
> run them both during takeoff, landing and fuel tank
> switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII did not suggest that. he
> thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet. My testing
> using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated
> that running both at the same time more than doubled the
> current draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and the fule flow
> increased marginally. I think they were both fighting each
> other to supply pressure at the pump outlet and it was still
> only going through qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack
> power feed into 2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and
> engine Bus B all with diode isolation. The schematic looked
> cool but it introduced to many connections points which would
> probably have increased failures.
>
> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my
> load testing indicates they only use 4.9 when run separately.
> I can review the wires size I used and see if it will support
> a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>
> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when
> powered separately. They have the coil packs and the
> injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse. I suspect that the
> coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse per coil pack because
> they all charge at different times, so splitting them into 3
> does not reduce the peak current, just the frequency it
> occurs. (I am a Mech Engineer so I am looking for guidance on
> that.) I have reached out to FLY EFII and requested guidance.
>
> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume
> 11 AMPs. That is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour
> of reserve, I can always move up the ETX 1200 battery. Its
> the same form factor and will carry an 18 amp load for 80
> minutes. If that is not enough there is always the ETX1600
> (120Amp/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1
> PC680. Money is just the issue. Not a place to skimp.
>
> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil
> packs A and B so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you
> still have 1 working plug per cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added
> the 3rd coil pack and both plugs for cylinders 5 and 6 are on
> the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that I would suggest
> a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same
> coil pack. I do know of a person who lost coil pack C and
> the engine ran without too much vibration, but I need to check
> into that story.
>
> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just
> noticed they come with an amber light. I will ties these
> outputs into my EFIS but a good light is also nice. I Prefer
> LED for lower heat and better vibration and longer life.
>
> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage
> and is used to increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have
> them both going to the Main Bus, but maybe the backup should
> go to the engine bus. There is a possibility the main bus
> has power but the engine bus does not. Your thoughts?
>
> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine
> to be, only with the second battery.
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
Yes I've seen NO relays go high contact resistance and fail on EFI
systems. If you must use relays I'd recommend two of them.
There have been some issues with series pumps such as noise and
cavitation when the downstream pump only is running. They should have
one way bypass valves in case one fails in a restrictive way. Worst is
when they also have a check valve on a pump inlet. A third feed pump
can be another single point of failure. I prefer parallel pumps and
especially if mogas is involved but I still used external check valves
on their outputs.
Fluid leaks often show before a complete failure. Not so much with
electron leaks.
Also my automotive type port injectors draw less peak current than my
ignition coil packs. Both increase draw as rpm goes up.
Ken
On 10/11/2021 11:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
> Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails, the primary
> fuel pump continues to run so no worries. The relay that switches
> pumps is NO passing current to the primary pump, or energized and
> switching current to the backup pump. I suppose the relay itself could
> be mechanically damaged and shut off both pumps, but a fuel line could
> break cutting off fuel as well.
>
> The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two batteries, but
> it's actually a pretty well thought out unit.
>
> It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not worried about
> cavitating the pumps if we run both, but in an RV-10 it could be a
> concern. So instead of fancy switching logic, install a /third/pump
> to feed the two EFII pumps and run all three for takeoff :). Or just
> use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system is
> installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England > wrote:
>
> The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If you run
> both pumps, they will each require their own full rated current
> while running. Total fuel pressure shouldn't change more than a
> few PSI if the regulator is sized properly. Excess fuel is
> bypassed by the regulator back to the tank. Upside is that if one
> pump fails during a critical phase of flight, fuel delivery
> doesn't even 'hiccup'.
>
> Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your 'black
> box', do you *know* that black box doesn't have a
> single-point-of-failure inside? Knowing means having the schematic
> for the guts of the black box, and a full understanding of the
> circuit.
>
> If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator is
> powered via pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their functions
> are described in their manual, here
> .
> Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual says
> overvoltage is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote
> sense' line that the regulator uses to accurately measure bus
> voltage so it can set proper voltage, and does the secondary job
> of detecting *under* (low) voltage.
> I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs
> typically consume fairly low current, compared to the injectors.
> Injectors can have relatively high inrush current each time they fire.
> This: "/They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed
> by 1 15 amp fuse./" just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me.
> I could be wrong, but I'd want to be absolutely certain about it.
> Play what if. Short one wire to ground or short one coil
> internally to ground,etc, somewhere downstream of that fuse. What
> happens to the engine?
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Hello John,
>
> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add
> revision tags. I don't always remember.
>
> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better
> align this to the Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes
> physical sense. That will also allow me to see where all my
> connection points should be. Currently it is just
> electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
>
> I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was
> not sure and that was one of my questions.
>
> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it
> to the alternator load except during level flight at altitude
> and near an airport. AC is a luxury. The Earthex batteries
> can draw at least 100 amps continuously so I think they will
> pick up any sag and my IBBS batteries on critical avionics are
> also meant to do that as well.
>
> Engine Bus answers:
> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil
> packs will have a fusable link and a breaker
> Injectors will have a fusible link only
> I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to
> run them both during takeoff, landing and fuel tank
> switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII did not suggest that. he
> thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet. My testing
> using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated
> that running both at the same time more than doubled the
> current draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and the fule flow
> increased marginally. I think they were both fighting each
> other to supply pressure at the pump outlet and it was still
> only going through qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack
> power feed into 2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and
> engine Bus B all with diode isolation. The schematic looked
> cool but it introduced to many connections points which would
> probably have increased failures.
>
> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my
> load testing indicates they only use 4.9 when run separately.
> I can review the wires size I used and see if it will support
> a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>
> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when
> powered separately. They have the coil packs and the
> injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse. I suspect that the
> coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse per coil pack because
> they all charge at different times, so splitting them into 3
> does not reduce the peak current, just the frequency it
> occurs. (I am a Mech Engineer so I am looking for guidance on
> that.) I have reached out to FLY EFII and requested guidance.
>
> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume
> 11 AMPs. That is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour
> of reserve, I can always move up the ETX 1200 battery. Its
> the same form factor and will carry an 18 amp load for 80
> minutes. If that is not enough there is always the ETX1600
> (120Amp/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1
> PC680. Money is just the issue. Not a place to skimp.
>
> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil
> packs A and B so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you
> still have 1 working plug per cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added
> the 3rd coil pack and both plugs for cylinders 5 and 6 are on
> the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that I would suggest
> a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same
> coil pack. I do know of a person who lost coil pack C and
> the engine ran without too much vibration, but I need to check
> into that story.
>
> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just
> noticed they come with an amber light. I will ties these
> outputs into my EFIS but a good light is also nice. I Prefer
> LED for lower heat and better vibration and longer life.
>
> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage
> and is used to increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have
> them both going to the Main Bus, but maybe the backup should
> go to the engine bus. There is a possibility the main bus
> has power but the engine bus does not. Your thoughts?
>
> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine
> to be, only with the second battery.
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and FlyEFII |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There was a report on one of these forums (can't remember which) of a
newfangled black box failing due to a short circuit in a 5 volt portable device
that was plugged into the black box.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504150#504150
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
Useful data point on coil vs injector power consumption. The stuff I've
worked with typically is reversed, so it's good to know that we shouldn't
make any assumptions without actual testing of the stuff we're actually
using.
Charlie
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 11:01 AM C&K wrote:
>
> Yes I've seen NO relays go high contact resistance and fail on EFI
> systems. If you must use relays I'd recommend two of them.
>
> There have been some issues with series pumps such as noise and
> cavitation when the downstream pump only is running. They should have
> one way bypass valves in case one fails in a restrictive way. Worst is
> when they also have a check valve on a pump inlet. A third feed pump
> can be another single point of failure. I prefer parallel pumps and
> especially if mogas is involved but I still used external check valves
> on their outputs.
>
> Fluid leaks often show before a complete failure. Not so much with
> electron leaks.
> Also my automotive type port injectors draw less peak current than my
> ignition coil packs. Both increase draw as rpm goes up.
> Ken
>
> On 10/11/2021 11:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
> > Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails, the primary
> > fuel pump continues to run so no worries. The relay that switches
> > pumps is NO passing current to the primary pump, or energized and
> > switching current to the backup pump. I suppose the relay itself could
> > be mechanically damaged and shut off both pumps, but a fuel line could
> > break cutting off fuel as well.
> >
> > The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two batteries, but
> > it's actually a pretty well thought out unit.
> >
> > It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not worried about
> > cavitating the pumps if we run both, but in an RV-10 it could be a
> > concern. So instead of fancy switching logic, install a /third/ pump
> > to feed the two EFII pumps and run all three for takeoff :). Or just
> > use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system is
> > installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England > > wrote:
> >
> > The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If you run
> > both pumps, they will each require their own full rated current
> > while running. Total fuel pressure shouldn't change more than a
> > few PSI if the regulator is sized properly. Excess fuel is
> > bypassed by the regulator back to the tank. Upside is that if one
> > pump fails during a critical phase of flight, fuel delivery
> > doesn't even 'hiccup'.
> >
> > Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your 'black
> > box', do you *know* that black box doesn't have a
> > single-point-of-failure inside? Knowing means having the schematic
> > for the guts of the black box, and a full understanding of the
> > circuit.
> >
> > If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator is
> > powered via pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their functions
> > are described in their manual, here
> > <
> https://bandc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/LR3D-Technical-Manual_RevIR_5-13-20.pdf
> >.
> > Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual says
> > overvoltage is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote
> > sense' line that the regulator uses to accurately measure bus
> > voltage so it can set proper voltage, and does the secondary job
> > of detecting *under* (low) voltage.
> > I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs
> > typically consume fairly low current, compared to the injectors.
> > Injectors can have relatively high inrush current each time they
> fire.
> > This: "/They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed
> > by 1 15 amp fuse./" just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me.
> > I could be wrong, but I'd want to be absolutely certain about it.
> > Play what if. Short one wire to ground or short one coil
> > internally to ground, etc, somewhere downstream of that fuse. What
> > happens to the engine?
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > Hello John,
> >
> > Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add
> > revision tags. I don't always remember.
> >
> > I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better
> > align this to the Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes
> > physical sense. That will also allow me to see where all my
> > connection points should be. Currently it is just
> > electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
> >
> > I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was
> > not sure and that was one of my questions.
> >
> > The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it
> > to the alternator load except during level flight at altitude
> > and near an airport. AC is a luxury. The Earthex batteries
> > can draw at least 100 amps continuously so I think they will
> > pick up any sag and my IBBS batteries on critical avionics are
> > also meant to do that as well.
> >
> > Engine Bus answers:
> > 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
> > Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil
> > packs will have a fusable link and a breaker
> > Injectors will have a fusible link only
> > I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to
> > run them both during takeoff, landing and fuel tank
> > switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII did not suggest that. he
> > thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet. My testing
> > using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated
> > that running both at the same time more than doubled the
> > current draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and the fule flow
> > increased marginally. I think they were both fighting each
> > other to supply pressure at the pump outlet and it was still
> > only going through qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
> > I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack
> > power feed into 2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and
> > engine Bus B all with diode isolation. The schematic looked
> > cool but it introduced to many connections points which would
> > probably have increased failures.
> >
> > FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my
> > load testing indicates they only use 4.9 when run separately.
> > I can review the wires size I used and see if it will support
> > a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
> >
> > FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when
> > powered separately. They have the coil packs and the
> > injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse. I suspect that the
> > coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse per coil pack because
> > they all charge at different times, so splitting them into 3
> > does not reduce the peak current, just the frequency it
> > occurs. (I am a Mech Engineer so I am looking for guidance on
> > that.) I have reached out to FLY EFII and requested guidance.
> >
> > FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume
> > 11 AMPs. That is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour
> > of reserve, I can always move up the ETX 1200 battery. Its
> > the same form factor and will carry an 18 amp load for 80
> > minutes. If that is not enough there is always the ETX1600
> > (120Amp/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1
> > PC680. Money is just the issue. Not a place to skimp.
> >
> > Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil
> > packs A and B so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you
> > still have 1 working plug per cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added
> > the 3rd coil pack and both plugs for cylinders 5 and 6 are on
> > the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that I would suggest
> > a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same
> > coil pack. I do know of a person who lost coil pack C and
> > the engine ran without too much vibration, but I need to check
> > into that story.
> >
> > I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just
> > noticed they come with an amber light. I will ties these
> > outputs into my EFIS but a good light is also nice. I Prefer
> > LED for lower heat and better vibration and longer life.
> >
> > OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage
> > and is used to increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have
> > them both going to the Main Bus, but maybe the backup should
> > go to the engine bus. There is a possibility the main bus
> > has power but the engine bus does not. Your thoughts?
> >
> > I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine
> > to be, only with the second battery.
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
> >
>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
>
> Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy
> system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are positive
> displacement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't turning, no fuel will
> move through that pump. See the problem with that thought path?
I can't say that I do Charlie:
Or just *use different pumps* and run them in series (the way a legacy
> system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
When selecting fuel pumps, the ability to flow fuel when not turning has
been a basic requirement for series fuel pumps for about a century. The
fuel flow test performed before first flight will demonstrate whether or
not the correct pumps have been selected.
As for the black box, it is completely unnecessary to analyze the failure
modes and their effects since any failure of the box (including a bad
tempered Gremlin eating the box and leaving the wires dangling) will either
leave the relay powering the primary fuel pump as normal, or erroneously
switch to backup. The particular aircraft I've been working on has been
flying around with a failed black box since day one. The black box is in a
different country than the aircraft. The pump still runs.
Similarly the Mooney I fly has a complicated Garmin GNS Navigator and a
backup VOR/ILS. I have no need to analyse the different failure modes of
the Garmin in order to be confident that if it fails, I can use the other
VOR/ILS. I just tune, identify, switch HSI source, set course, and set the
desired autopilot mode.
However relay failures are something I know nothing about. If a likely
failure mode of this relay could leave both pumps unpowered then the
FLYEFII implementation is poor. I haven't seen any data to suggest this but
I'll ask them what research and testing they did next time I speak with
them.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:06 AM Charlie England
wrote:
> Everyone sets their own comfort level when it comes to risk. If you're
> happy *and you're fully informed about the risks*, then that's your choice.
> I might make different choices, and some of mine on other subjects might be
> unacceptable to you.
>
> Do you *know* what's in the black box? Have you analyzed the failure modes
> and their effects? A fuel line failure would be difficult to 'plan around',
> except through careful and thoughtful installation work. But electrical
> failure issues are relatively simple to plan for and to implement backup
> systems for potential failures. I'm just trying to point out that there are
> some whizbang gadgets that can introduce more failure modes than they
> compensate for, and we need to know when that is happening.
>
> I'd have more confidence in a vendor's position if he told me that he
> tested for a potential problem, rather than just speculation. For instance,
> I asked one of the a/c fuel boost pump (for conventional fuel injection)
> vendors about their technique of looping bypassed fuel back to the inlet of
> the pump and the risks of vapor lock/cavitation. His response was that
> they'd tested it, including at elevated fuel temps. There's also the
> contrary data point that competitors' systems (using very similar dual pump
> setups) work just fine when running both pumps for takeoff & landing.
>
> I really want to understand as well as possible any system I install
> that's a departure from 'tradition', simply because failure modes will be
> different and likely not as well documented. For instance, this:
> Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy
> system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>
> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are positive
> displacement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't turning, no fuel will
> move through that pump. See the problem with that thought path?
>
> Charlie
>
> On 11/10/2021 10:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>
> Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails, the primary
> fuel pump continues to run so no worries. The relay that switches pumps is
> NO passing current to the primary pump, or energized and switching current
> to the backup pump. I suppose the relay itself could be mechanically
> damaged and shut off both pumps, but a fuel line could break cutting off
> fuel as well.
>
> The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two batteries, but it's
> actually a pretty well thought out unit.
>
> It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not worried about
> cavitating the pumps if we run both, but in an RV-10 it could be a concern.
> So instead of fancy switching logic, install a *third* pump to feed the
> two EFII pumps and run all three for takeoff :). Or just use different
> pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system is installed) instead
> of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
>> The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If you run both
>> pumps, they will each require their own full rated current while running.
>> Total fuel pressure shouldn't change more than a few PSI if the regulator
>> is sized properly. Excess fuel is bypassed by the regulator back to the
>> tank. Upside is that if one pump fails during a critical phase of flight,
>> fuel delivery doesn't even 'hiccup'.
>>
>> Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your 'black box',
>> do you *know* that black box doesn't have a single-point-of-failure inside?
>> Knowing means having the schematic for the guts of the black box, and a
>> full understanding of the circuit.
>>
>> If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator is powered
>> via pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their functions are described in
>> their manual, here
>> .
>> Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual says overvoltage
>> is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote sense' line that the
>> regulator uses to accurately measure bus voltage so it can set proper
>> voltage, and does the secondary job of detecting *under* (low) voltage.
>> I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs typically
>> consume fairly low current, compared to the injectors. Injectors can have
>> relatively high inrush current each time they fire.
>> This: "*They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15
>> amp fuse.*" just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me. I could be
>> wrong, but I'd want to be absolutely certain about it. Play what if. Short
>> one wire to ground or short one coil internally to ground, etc, somewhere
>> downstream of that fuse. What happens to the engine?
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello John,
>>>
>>> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add revision tags.
>>> I don't always remember.
>>>
>>> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better align this
>>> to the Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes physical sense. That
>>> will also allow me to see where all my connection points should be.
>>> Currently it is just electrically correct (or will be if people suggest
>>> good changes)
>>>
>>> I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was not sure
>>> and that was one of my questions.
>>>
>>> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it to the
>>> alternator load except during level flight at altitude and near an
>>> airport. AC is a luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100
>>> amps continuously so I think they will pick up any sag and my IBBS
>>> batteries on critical avionics are also meant to do that as well.
>>>
>>> Engine Bus answers:
>>> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
>>> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil packs will
>>> have a fusable link and a breaker
>>> Injectors will have a fusible link only
>>> I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to run them
>>> both during takeoff, landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at
>>> FLYEFII did not suggest that. he thought it might cause cavitation on the
>>> inlet. My testing using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator
>>> indicated that running both at the same time more than doubled the current
>>> draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and the fule flow increased marginally. I
>>> think they were both fighting each other to supply pressure at the pump
>>> outlet and it was still only going through qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
>>> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack power feed
>>> into 2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all with
>>> diode isolation. The schematic looked cool but it introduced to many
>>> connections points which would probably have increased failures.
>>>
>>> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my load testing
>>> indicates they only use 4.9 when run separately. I can review the wires
>>> size I used and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>>>
>>> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when powered
>>> separately. They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1
>>> 15 amp fuse. I suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse
>>> per coil pack because they all charge at different times, so splitting them
>>> into 3 does not reduce the peak current, just the frequency it occurs. (I
>>> am a Mech Engineer so I am looking for guidance on that.) I have reached
>>> out to FLY EFII and requested guidance.
>>>
>>> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume 11 AMPs.
>>> That is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always
>>> move up the ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an
>>> 18 amp load for 80 minutes. If that is not enough there is always the
>>> ETX1600 (120Amp/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1 PC680.
>>> Money is just the issue. Not a place to skimp.
>>>
>>> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil packs A
>>> and B so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you still have 1 working
>>> plug per cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs
>>> for cylinders 5 and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that
>>> I would suggest a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same
>>> coil pack. I do know of a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran
>>> without too much vibration, but I need to check into that story.
>>>
>>> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just noticed
>>> they come with an amber light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but
>>> a good light is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better
>>> vibration and longer life.
>>>
>>> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage and is
>>> used to increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have them both going to
>>> the Main Bus, but maybe the backup should go to the engine bus. There is
>>> a possibility the main bus has power but the engine bus does not. Your
>>> thoughts?
>>>
>>> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine to be,
>>> only with the second battery.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Your example of the GNS + VOR/ILS is the perfect example of proper 'what
if' thinking; if the GNS availability is down for any reason, you have
an independent method of accomplishing your goal. 'Black box' control of
the fuel pumps (or any other multiple device backup system) might or
might not meet those criteria. It's been demonstrated that some of them
do not accomplish this, and some have been demonstrated to have failure
modes that can take out *everything* they supply power to. I'm just
trying to point out that saying that it's worked for X hours or Y years
just says that you haven't seen a failure mode yet that could affect
both the primary and the backup. Without analyzing the circuits in the
box, you don't know the failure modes. Completely different situation
from two separate radio systems with separate power sources, antennas, etc.
My point about the fuel pumps is knowing the product when it isn't
'traditional'. The fuel pumps used by FLYEFII (and others) for
electronic injection are *not* like traditional fuel pumps. Unlike
traditional Lyc engine driven pumps, and unlike the traditional boost
pumps, those Walbro pumps will *not* pass fuel if they aren't running.
I don't know of any 'different pump' that you could run that would
supply the needed ~40 PSI and could still be run in series without any
issues. If you know of one, please share the info; it could well
simplify a lot of EFI installations.
Charlie
On 11/10/2021 11:58 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>
> Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a
> legacy system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's
> manifold.
>
>
> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are
> positive displacement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't
> turning, no fuel will move through that pump. See the problem with
> that thought path?
>
>
> I can't say that I do Charlie:
>
> Or just _use different pumps_ and run them in series (the way a
> legacy system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's
> manifold.
>
>
> When selecting fuel pumps, the ability to flow fuel when not turning
> has been a basic requirement for series fuel pumps for about a
> century. The fuel flow test performed before first flight will
> demonstrate whether or not the correct pumps have been selected.
>
> As for the black box, it is completely unnecessary to analyze the
> failure modes and their effects since any failure of the box
> (including a bad tempered Gremlin eating the box and leaving the wires
> dangling) will either leave the relay powering the primary fuel pump
> as normal,or erroneously switch to backup. The particular aircraft
> I've been working on has been flying around with a failed black box
> since day one. The black box is in a different country than the
> aircraft. The pump still runs.
>
> Similarly the Mooney I fly has a complicated Garmin GNS Navigator and
> a backup VOR/ILS. I have no need to analyse the different failure
> modes of the Garmin in order to be confident that if it fails, I can
> use the other VOR/ILS. I just tune, identify, switch HSI source, set
> course, and set the desired autopilot mode.
>
> However relay failures are something I know nothing about. If a likely
> failure mode of this relay could leave both pumps unpowered then the
> FLYEFII implementation is poor. I haven't seen any data to suggest
> this but I'll ask them what research and testing they did next time I
> speak with them.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:06 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
> Everyone sets their own comfort level when it comes to risk. If
> you're happy *and you're fully informed about the risks*, then
> that's your choice. I might make different choices, and some of
> mine on other subjects might be unacceptable to you.
>
> Do you *know* what's in the black box? Have you analyzed the
> failure modes and their effects? A fuel line failure would be
> difficult to 'plan around', except through careful and thoughtful
> installation work. But electrical failure issues are relatively
> simple to plan for and to implement backup systems for potential
> failures. I'm just trying to point out that there are some
> whizbang gadgets that can introduce more failure modes than they
> compensate for, and we need to know when that is happening.
>
> I'd have more confidence in a vendor's position if he told me that
> he tested for a potential problem, rather than just speculation.
> For instance, I asked one of the a/c fuel boost pump (for
> conventional fuel injection) vendors about their technique of
> looping bypassed fuel back to the inlet of the pump and the risks
> of vapor lock/cavitation. His response was that they'd tested it,
> including at elevated fuel temps. There's also the contrary data
> point that competitors' systems (using very similar dual pump
> setups) work just fine when running both pumps for takeoff & landing.
>
> I really want to understand as well as possible any system I
> install that's a departure from 'tradition', simply because
> failure modes will be different and likely not as well documented.
> For instance, this:
> Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a
> legacy system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's
> manifold.
>
> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are
> positive displacement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't
> turning, no fuel will move through that pump. See the problem with
> that thought path?
>
> Charlie
>
> On 11/10/2021 10:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>> Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails, the
>> primary fuel pump continues to run so no worries. The relay that
>> switches pumps is NO passing current to the primary pump, or
>> energized and switching current to the backup pump. I suppose the
>> relay itself could be mechanically damaged and shut off both
>> pumps, but a fuel line could break cutting off fuel as well.
>>
>> The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two batteries,
>> but it's actually a pretty well thought out unit.
>>
>> It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not worried
>> about cavitating the pumps if we run both, but in an RV-10 it
>> could be a concern. So instead of fancy switching logic, install
>> a /third/pump to feed the two EFII pumps and run all three for
>> takeoff :). Or just use different pumps and run them in series
>> (the way a legacy system is installed) instead of in parallel
>> with FLYEFII's manifold.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England
>> wrote:
>>
>> The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If
>> you run both pumps, they will each require their own full
>> rated current while running. Total fuel pressure shouldn't
>> change more than a few PSI if the regulator is sized
>> properly. Excess fuel is bypassed by the regulator back to
>> the tank. Upside is that if one pump fails during a critical
>> phase of flight, fuel delivery doesn't even 'hiccup'.
>>
>> Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your
>> 'black box', do you *know* that black box doesn't have a
>> single-point-of-failure inside? Knowing means having the
>> schematic for the guts of the black box, and a full
>> understanding of the circuit.
>>
>> If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator
>> is powered via pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their
>> functions are described in their manual, here
>> .
>> Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual says
>> overvoltage is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a
>> 'remote sense' line that the regulator uses to accurately
>> measure bus voltage so it can set proper voltage, and does
>> the secondary job of detecting *under* (low) voltage.
>> I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs
>> typically consume fairly low current, compared to the
>> injectors. Injectors can have relatively high inrush current
>> each time they fire.
>> This: "/They have the coil packs and the injectors all being
>> fed by 1 15 amp fuse./" just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF
>> FAILURE at me. I could be wrong, but I'd want to be
>> absolutely certain about it. Play what if. Short one wire to
>> ground or short one coil internally to ground,etc, somewhere
>> downstream of that fuse. What happens to the engine?
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add
>> revision tags. I don't always remember.
>>
>> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably
>> better align this to the Z101 and also try to organize it
>> so it makes physical sense. That will also allow me to
>> see where all my connection points should be. Currently
>> it is just electrically correct (or will be if people
>> suggest good changes)
>>
>> I will add separate filed switches on the alternators.
>> I was not sure and that was one of my questions.
>>
>> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to
>> add it to the alternator load except during level flight
>> at altitude and near an airport. AC is a luxury. The
>> Earthex batteries can draw at least 100 amps continuously
>> so I think they will pick up any sag and my IBBS
>> batteries on critical avionics are also meant to do that
>> as well.
>>
>> Engine Bus answers:
>> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
>> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil
>> packs will have a fusable link and a breaker
>> Injectors will have a fusible link only
>> I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but
>> to run them both during takeoff, landing and fuel tank
>> switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII did not suggest that.
>> he thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet. My
>> testing using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator
>> indicated that running both at the same time more than
>> doubled the current draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and the
>> fule flow increased marginally. I think they were both
>> fighting each other to supply pressure at the pump
>> outlet and it was still only going through qty 1 -3/8
>> inch hose.
>> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil
>> pack power feed into 2 wires and feeding them off Engine
>> Bus A and engine Bus B all with diode isolation. The
>> schematic looked cool but it introduced to many
>> connections points which would probably have increased
>> failures.
>>
>> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and
>> my load testing indicates they only use 4.9 when run
>> separately. I can review the wires size I used and see
>> if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>>
>> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when
>> powered separately. They have the coil packs and the
>> injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse. I suspect
>> that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse per
>> coil pack because they all charge at different times, so
>> splitting them into 3 does not reduce the peak current,
>> just the frequency it occurs. (I am a Mech Engineer so I
>> am looking for guidance on that.) I have reached out to
>> FLY EFII and requested guidance.
>>
>> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will
>> consume 11 AMPs. That is all I have to go on. to
>> meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always move up the ETX
>> 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an
>> 18 amp load for 80 minutes. If that is not enough there
>> is always the ETX1600 (120Amp/hours). Even two of the
>> 1200's weight less than 1 PC680. Money is just the
>> issue. Not a place to skimp.
>>
>> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across
>> coil packs A and B so they are redundant. If you lose
>> A or B you still have 1 working plug per cylinder 1-4.
>> FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs for
>> cylinders 5 and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed
>> FLYEFII that I would suggest a different arrangement so
>> both plugs were not on the same coil pack. I do know of
>> a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran without
>> too much vibration, but I need to check into that story.
>>
>> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator.
>> I just noticed they come with an amber light. I will
>> ties these outputs into my EFIS but a good light is also
>> nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better vibration
>> and longer life.
>>
>> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss
>> voltage and is used to increase or decrease the voltage
>> ouput? I have them both going to the Main Bus, but maybe
>> the backup should go to the engine bus. There is a
>> possibility the main bus has power but the engine bus
>> does not. Your thoughts?
>>
>> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended
>> mine to be, only with the second battery.
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>>
>>
>>
>> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
No argument about other black boxes Charlie, I was just trying to point out
that the EFII fuel pump black box is a control circuit, not a power
circuit. The output to the fuel pump relay is one wire. If the black box
end of that wire goes to ground, or open, or 15v, or whatever, the fuel
pump keeps running.
As for inline fuel pumps, I hadn't run into that problem yet. Would this
not work?
Andair Products <http://www.andair.co.uk/product/boost-pump-px500-tc/>
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:51 AM Charlie England
wrote:
> Your example of the GNS + VOR/ILS is the perfect example of proper 'what
> if' thinking; if the GNS availability is down for any reason, you have an
> independent method of accomplishing your goal. 'Black box' control of the
> fuel pumps (or any other multiple device backup system) might or might not
> meet those criteria. It's been demonstrated that some of them do not
> accomplish this, and some have been demonstrated to have failure modes that
> can take out *everything* they supply power to. I'm just trying to point
> out that saying that it's worked for X hours or Y years just says that you
> haven't seen a failure mode yet that could affect both the primary and the
> backup. Without analyzing the circuits in the box, you don't know the
> failure modes. Completely different situation from two separate radio
> systems with separate power sources, antennas, etc.
>
> My point about the fuel pumps is knowing the product when it isn't
> 'traditional'. The fuel pumps used by FLYEFII (and others) for electronic
> injection are *not* like traditional fuel pumps. Unlike traditional Lyc
> engine driven pumps, and unlike the traditional boost pumps, those Walbro
> pumps will *not* pass fuel if they aren't running.
>
> I don't know of any 'different pump' that you could run that would supply
> the needed ~40 PSI and could still be run in series without any issues. If
> you know of one, please share the info; it could well simplify a lot of EFI
> installations.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 11/10/2021 11:58 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>
> Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy
>> system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>
>
>> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are positive
>> displacement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't turning, no fuel will
>> move through that pump. See the problem with that thought path?
>
>
> I can't say that I do Charlie:
>
> Or just *use different pumps* and run them in series (the way a legacy
>> system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>
>
> When selecting fuel pumps, the ability to flow fuel when not turning has
> been a basic requirement for series fuel pumps for about a century. The
> fuel flow test performed before first flight will demonstrate whether or
> not the correct pumps have been selected.
>
> As for the black box, it is completely unnecessary to analyze the failure
> modes and their effects since any failure of the box (including a bad
> tempered Gremlin eating the box and leaving the wires dangling) will either
> leave the relay powering the primary fuel pump as normal, or erroneously
> switch to backup. The particular aircraft I've been working on has been
> flying around with a failed black box since day one. The black box is in a
> different country than the aircraft. The pump still runs.
>
> Similarly the Mooney I fly has a complicated Garmin GNS Navigator and a
> backup VOR/ILS. I have no need to analyse the different failure modes of
> the Garmin in order to be confident that if it fails, I can use the other
> VOR/ILS. I just tune, identify, switch HSI source, set course, and set the
> desired autopilot mode.
>
> However relay failures are something I know nothing about. If a likely
> failure mode of this relay could leave both pumps unpowered then the
> FLYEFII implementation is poor. I haven't seen any data to suggest this but
> I'll ask them what research and testing they did next time I speak with
> them.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:06 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
>> Everyone sets their own comfort level when it comes to risk. If you're
>> happy *and you're fully informed about the risks*, then that's your choice.
>> I might make different choices, and some of mine on other subjects might be
>> unacceptable to you.
>>
>> Do you *know* what's in the black box? Have you analyzed the failure
>> modes and their effects? A fuel line failure would be difficult to 'plan
>> around', except through careful and thoughtful installation work. But
>> electrical failure issues are relatively simple to plan for and to
>> implement backup systems for potential failures. I'm just trying to point
>> out that there are some whizbang gadgets that can introduce more failure
>> modes than they compensate for, and we need to know when that is happening.
>>
>> I'd have more confidence in a vendor's position if he told me that he
>> tested for a potential problem, rather than just speculation. For instance,
>> I asked one of the a/c fuel boost pump (for conventional fuel injection)
>> vendors about their technique of looping bypassed fuel back to the inlet of
>> the pump and the risks of vapor lock/cavitation. His response was that
>> they'd tested it, including at elevated fuel temps. There's also the
>> contrary data point that competitors' systems (using very similar dual pump
>> setups) work just fine when running both pumps for takeoff & landing.
>>
>> I really want to understand as well as possible any system I install
>> that's a departure from 'tradition', simply because failure modes will be
>> different and likely not as well documented. For instance, this:
>> Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy
>> system is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>>
>> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are positive
>> displacement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't turning, no fuel will
>> move through that pump. See the problem with that thought path?
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> On 11/10/2021 10:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>>
>> Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails, the primary
>> fuel pump continues to run so no worries. The relay that switches pumps is
>> NO passing current to the primary pump, or energized and switching current
>> to the backup pump. I suppose the relay itself could be mechanically
>> damaged and shut off both pumps, but a fuel line could break cutting off
>> fuel as well.
>>
>> The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two batteries, but it's
>> actually a pretty well thought out unit.
>>
>> It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not worried about
>> cavitating the pumps if we run both, but in an RV-10 it could be a concern.
>> So instead of fancy switching logic, install a *third* pump to feed the
>> two EFII pumps and run all three for takeoff :). Or just use different
>> pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system is installed) instead
>> of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If you run both
>>> pumps, they will each require their own full rated current while running.
>>> Total fuel pressure shouldn't change more than a few PSI if the regulator
>>> is sized properly. Excess fuel is bypassed by the regulator back to the
>>> tank. Upside is that if one pump fails during a critical phase of flight,
>>> fuel delivery doesn't even 'hiccup'.
>>>
>>> Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your 'black box',
>>> do you *know* that black box doesn't have a single-point-of-failure inside?
>>> Knowing means having the schematic for the guts of the black box, and a
>>> full understanding of the circuit.
>>>
>>> If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator is powered
>>> via pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their functions are described in
>>> their manual, here
>>> .
>>> Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual says overvoltage
>>> is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote sense' line that the
>>> regulator uses to accurately measure bus voltage so it can set proper
>>> voltage, and does the secondary job of detecting *under* (low) voltage.
>>> I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs typically
>>> consume fairly low current, compared to the injectors. Injectors can have
>>> relatively high inrush current each time they fire.
>>> This: "*They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1
>>> 15 amp fuse.*" just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me. I could
>>> be wrong, but I'd want to be absolutely certain about it. Play what if.
>>> Short one wire to ground or short one coil internally to ground, etc,
>>> somewhere downstream of that fuse. What happens to the engine?
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Hello John,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add revision tags.
>>>> I don't always remember.
>>>>
>>>> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better align this
>>>> to the Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes physical sense. That
>>>> will also allow me to see where all my connection points should be.
>>>> Currently it is just electrically correct (or will be if people suggest
>>>> good changes)
>>>>
>>>> I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was not
>>>> sure and that was one of my questions.
>>>>
>>>> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it to the
>>>> alternator load except during level flight at altitude and near an
>>>> airport. AC is a luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100
>>>> amps continuously so I think they will pick up any sag and my IBBS
>>>> batteries on critical avionics are also meant to do that as well.
>>>>
>>>> Engine Bus answers:
>>>> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
>>>> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil packs will
>>>> have a fusable link and a breaker
>>>> Injectors will have a fusible link only
>>>> I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to run them
>>>> both during takeoff, landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at
>>>> FLYEFII did not suggest that. he thought it might cause cavitation on the
>>>> inlet. My testing using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator
>>>> indicated that running both at the same time more than doubled the current
>>>> draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and the fule flow increased marginally. I
>>>> think they were both fighting each other to supply pressure at the pump
>>>> outlet and it was still only going through qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
>>>> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack power
>>>> feed into 2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all
>>>> with diode isolation. The schematic looked cool but it introduced to many
>>>> connections points which would probably have increased failures.
>>>>
>>>> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my load
>>>> testing indicates they only use 4.9 when run separately. I can review the
>>>> wires size I used and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>>>>
>>>> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when powered
>>>> separately. They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1
>>>> 15 amp fuse. I suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse
>>>> per coil pack because they all charge at different times, so splitting them
>>>> into 3 does not reduce the peak current, just the frequency it occurs. (I
>>>> am a Mech Engineer so I am looking for guidance on that.) I have reached
>>>> out to FLY EFII and requested guidance.
>>>>
>>>> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume 11 AMPs.
>>>> That is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always
>>>> move up the ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an
>>>> 18 amp load for 80 minutes. If that is not enough there is always the
>>>> ETX1600 (120Amp/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1 PC680.
>>>> Money is just the issue. Not a place to skimp.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil packs A
>>>> and B so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you still have 1 working
>>>> plug per cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs
>>>> for cylinders 5 and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that
>>>> I would suggest a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same
>>>> coil pack. I do know of a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran
>>>> without too much vibration, but I need to check into that story.
>>>>
>>>> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just noticed
>>>> they come with an amber light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but
>>>> a good light is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better
>>>> vibration and longer life.
>>>>
>>>> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage and is
>>>> used to increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have them both going to
>>>> the Main Bus, but maybe the backup should go to the engine bus. There is
>>>> a possibility the main bus has power but the engine bus does not. Your
>>>> thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine to be,
>>>> only with the second battery.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Virus-free.
>>> www.avast.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
It *might* work, if you could dial the pressure up to electronic
injection levels. The pump is possibly capable of that much pressure;
but I just don't know if Andair would configure it that way. There's
also the issue of additive pressure, though I suppose that if you kept
the bypass regulator between the 2nd pump & the engine, it would
probably work. I'd want test data; either my own or the pump mfgr's
before installing that kind of setup.
I just downloaded the System32 install manual and scrolled down to the
power wiring page. I tried to find the Bus Manager install manual (ref
by the NOTE on this page), but couldn't find it on their web site.
Comments are based on what I can see, with available docs from the mfgr
that I could find.
Looking at the diagram, I see three (3) (scratch that; at least 6;
likely quite a few more if I could see inside the box) single points of
failure, on this one page, any one of which *would* stop the engine.
Depending on how you count failures, I can see closer to a dozen. All of
those failure modes are hardware related; they don't count control logic
(inside the 'black boxes'), which I can't see. Now some of them are
quite unlikely, but some have a much higher probability of occurring,
and there are relatively simple fixes for all of them. (Doing FMEA
doesn't really look at probabilities; it looks at /Effects/.) I keep
coming back to the mantra of: if it's nearly impossible to make
redundant (like the wing spar, or only one throttle body on the engine),
I'll evaluate and likely accept the risk, but if it's relatively easy to
provide a backup for flight critical items, I'm going to find a way to
do it.
Please believe me when I say I'm truly not trying to be insulting, but I
would not want to fly in a plane wired like that. There's just not a
diplomatic way to tell someone that an easily corrected thing could kill
them if not corrected. If I haven't offended you System32 users too much
and you're interested, we can discuss some of the failure modes and
ideas to fix them.
Charlie
On 11/10/2021 2:59 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> No argument about other black boxes Charlie, I was just trying to
> point out that the EFII fuel pump black box is a control circuit, not
> a power circuit. The output to the fuel pump relay is one wire. If the
> black box end of that wire goes to ground, or open, or 15v, or
> whatever, the fuel pump keeps running.
>
> As for inline fuel pumps, I hadn't run into that problem yet. Would
> this not work?
>
> Andair Products <http://www.andair.co.uk/product/boost-pump-px500-tc/>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:51 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
> Your example of the GNS + VOR/ILS is the perfect example of proper
> 'what if' thinking; if the GNS availability is down for any
> reason, you have an independent method of accomplishing your goal.
> 'Black box' control of the fuel pumps (or any other multiple
> device backup system) might or might not meet those criteria. It's
> been demonstrated that some of them do not accomplish this, and
> some have been demonstrated to have failure modes that can take
> out *everything* they supply power to. I'm just trying to point
> out that saying that it's worked for X hours or Y years just says
> that you haven't seen a failure mode yet that could affect both
> the primary and the backup. Without analyzing the circuits in the
> box, you don't know the failure modes. Completely different
> situation from two separate radio systems with separate power
> sources, antennas, etc.
>
> My point about the fuel pumps is knowing the product when it isn't
> 'traditional'. The fuel pumps used by FLYEFII (and others) for
> electronic injection are *not* like traditional fuel pumps. Unlike
> traditional Lyc engine driven pumps, and unlike the traditional
> boost pumps, those Walbro pumps will *not* pass fuel if they
> aren't running.
>
> I don't know of any 'different pump' that you could run that would
> supply the needed ~40 PSI and could still be run in series without
> any issues. If you know of one, please share the info; it could
> well simplify a lot of EFI installations.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 11/10/2021 11:58 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>>
>> Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a
>> legacy system is installed) instead of in parallel with
>> FLYEFII's manifold.
>>
>>
>> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are
>> positive displacement pumps. That means that if the pump
>> isn't turning, no fuel will move through that pump. See the
>> problem with that thought path?
>>
>>
>> I can't say that I do Charlie:
>>
>> Or just _use different pumps_ and run them in series (the way
>> a legacy system is installed) instead of in parallel with
>> FLYEFII's manifold.
>>
>>
>> When selecting fuel pumps, the ability to flow fuel when not
>> turning has been a basic requirement for series fuel pumps for
>> about a century. The fuel flow test performed before first flight
>> will demonstrate whether or not the correct pumps have been selected.
>>
>> As for the black box, it is completely unnecessary to analyze the
>> failure modes and their effects since any failure of the box
>> (including a bad tempered Gremlin eating the box and leaving the
>> wires dangling) will either leave the relay powering the primary
>> fuel pump as normal,or erroneously switch to backup. The
>> particular aircraft I've been working on has been flying around
>> with a failed black box since day one. The black box is in a
>> different country than the aircraft. The pump still runs.
>>
>> Similarly the Mooney I fly has a complicated Garmin GNS Navigator
>> and a backup VOR/ILS. I have no need to analyse the different
>> failure modes of the Garmin in order to be confident that if it
>> fails, I can use the other VOR/ILS. I just tune, identify, switch
>> HSI source, set course, and set the desired autopilot mode.
>>
>> However relay failures are something I know nothing about. If a
>> likely failure mode of this relay could leave both pumps
>> unpowered then the FLYEFII implementation is poor. I haven't seen
>> any data to suggest this but I'll ask them what research and
>> testing they did next time I speak with them.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:06 AM Charlie England
>> wrote:
>>
>> Everyone sets their own comfort level when it comes to risk.
>> If you're happy *and you're fully informed about the risks*,
>> then that's your choice. I might make different choices, and
>> some of mine on other subjects might be unacceptable to you.
>>
>> Do you *know* what's in the black box? Have you analyzed the
>> failure modes and their effects? A fuel line failure would be
>> difficult to 'plan around', except through careful and
>> thoughtful installation work. But electrical failure issues
>> are relatively simple to plan for and to implement backup
>> systems for potential failures. I'm just trying to point out
>> that there are some whizbang gadgets that can introduce more
>> failure modes than they compensate for, and we need to know
>> when that is happening.
>>
>> I'd have more confidence in a vendor's position if he told me
>> that he tested for a potential problem, rather than just
>> speculation. For instance, I asked one of the a/c fuel boost
>> pump (for conventional fuel injection) vendors about their
>> technique of looping bypassed fuel back to the inlet of the
>> pump and the risks of vapor lock/cavitation. His response was
>> that they'd tested it, including at elevated fuel temps.
>> There's also the contrary data point that competitors'
>> systems (using very similar dual pump setups) work just fine
>> when running both pumps for takeoff & landing.
>>
>> I really want to understand as well as possible any system I
>> install that's a departure from 'tradition', simply because
>> failure modes will be different and likely not as well
>> documented. For instance, this:
>> Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a
>> legacy system is installed) instead of in parallel with
>> FLYEFII's manifold.
>>
>> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are
>> positive displacement pumps. That means that if the pump
>> isn't turning, no fuel will move through that pump. See the
>> problem with that thought path?
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> On 11/10/2021 10:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>>> Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails,
>>> the primary fuel pump continues to run so no worries. The
>>> relay that switches pumps is NO passing current to the
>>> primary pump, or energized and switching current to the
>>> backup pump. I suppose the relay itself could be
>>> mechanically damaged and shut off both pumps, but a fuel
>>> line could break cutting off fuel as well.
>>>
>>> The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two
>>> batteries, but it's actually a pretty well thought out unit.
>>>
>>> It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not
>>> worried about cavitating the pumps if we run both, but in an
>>> RV-10 it could be a concern. So instead of fancy switching
>>> logic, install a /third/pump to feed the two EFII pumps and
>>> run all three for takeoff :). Or just use different pumps
>>> and run them in series (the way a legacy system is
>>> installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal.
>>> If you run both pumps, they will each require their own
>>> full rated current while running. Total fuel pressure
>>> shouldn't change more than a few PSI if the regulator is
>>> sized properly. Excess fuel is bypassed by the regulator
>>> back to the tank. Upside is that if one pump fails
>>> during a critical phase of flight, fuel delivery doesn't
>>> even 'hiccup'.
>>>
>>> Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside
>>> your 'black box', do you *know* that black box doesn't
>>> have a single-point-of-failure inside? Knowing means
>>> having the schematic for the guts of the black box, and
>>> a full understanding of the circuit.
>>>
>>> If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the
>>> regulator is powered via pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins
>>> and their functions are described in their manual, here
>>> .
>>> Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual
>>> says overvoltage is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3
>>> is a 'remote sense' line that the regulator uses to
>>> accurately measure bus voltage so it can set proper
>>> voltage, and does the secondary job of detecting *under*
>>> (low) voltage.
>>> I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil
>>> packs typically consume fairly low current, compared to
>>> the injectors. Injectors can have relatively high inrush
>>> current each time they fire.
>>> This: "/They have the coil packs and the injectors all
>>> being fed by 1 15 amp fuse./" just *screams* SINGLE
>>> POINT OF FAILURE at me. I could be wrong, but I'd want
>>> to be absolutely certain about it. Play what if. Short
>>> one wire to ground or short one coil internally to
>>> ground,etc, somewhere downstream of that fuse. What
>>> happens to the engine?
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello John,
>>>
>>> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to
>>> add revision tags. I don't always remember.
>>>
>>> I will take a look at the failure modes and probably
>>> better align this to the Z101 and also try to
>>> organize it so it makes physical sense. That will
>>> also allow me to see where all my connection points
>>> should be. Currently it is just electrically
>>> correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
>>>
>>> I will add separate filed switches on the
>>> alternators. I was not sure and that was one of
>>> my questions.
>>>
>>> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan
>>> to add it to the alternator load except during level
>>> flight at altitude and near an airport. AC is a
>>> luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100
>>> amps continuously so I think they will pick up any
>>> sag and my IBBS batteries on critical avionics are
>>> also meant to do that as well.
>>>
>>> Engine Bus answers:
>>> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
>>> Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the
>>> coil packs will have a fusable link and a breaker
>>> Injectors will have a fusible link only
>>> I planned to not have the pump on automatice
>>> failover but to run them both during takeoff,
>>> landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at
>>> FLYEFII did not suggest that. he thought it might
>>> cause cavitation on the inlet. My testing using my
>>> actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated
>>> that running both at the same time more than doubled
>>> the current draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and the
>>> fule flow increased marginally. I think they were
>>> both fighting each other to supply pressure at the
>>> pump outlet and it was still only going through qty
>>> 1 -3/8 inch hose.
>>> I had thought about splicing each injector wire and
>>> coil pack power feed into 2 wires and feeding them
>>> off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all with diode
>>> isolation. The schematic looked cool but it
>>> introduced to many connections points which would
>>> probably have increased failures.
>>>
>>> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps
>>> and my load testing indicates they only use 4.9 when
>>> run separately. I can review the wires size I used
>>> and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>>>
>>> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need
>>> when powered separately. They have the coil packs
>>> and the injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse.
>>> I suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15
>>> amp fuse per coil pack because they all charge at
>>> different times, so splitting them into 3 does not
>>> reduce the peak current, just the frequency it
>>> occurs. (I am a Mech Engineer so I am looking for
>>> guidance on that.) I have reached out to FLY EFII
>>> and requested guidance.
>>>
>>> FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will
>>> consume 11 AMPs. That is all I have to go on.
>>> to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always move up
>>> the ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and
>>> will carry an 18 amp load for 80 minutes. If that
>>> is not enough there is always the ETX1600
>>> (120Amp/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less
>>> than 1 PC680. Money is just the issue. Not a
>>> place to skimp.
>>>
>>> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread
>>> across coil packs A and B so they are redundant.
>>> If you lose A or B you still have 1 working plug per
>>> cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack
>>> and both plugs for cylinders 5 and 6 are on the same
>>> pack. I have informed FLYEFII that I would suggest
>>> a different arrangement so both plugs were not on
>>> the same coil pack. I do know of a person who lost
>>> coil pack C and the engine ran without too much
>>> vibration, but I need to check into that story.
>>>
>>> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup
>>> alternator. I just noticed they come with an amber
>>> light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but a
>>> good light is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower
>>> heat and better vibration and longer life.
>>>
>>> OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the
>>> buss voltage and is used to increase or decrease the
>>> voltage ouput? I have them both going to the Main
>>> Bus, but maybe the backup should go to the engine
>>> bus. There is a possibility the main bus has power
>>> but the engine bus does not. Your thoughts?
>>>
>>> I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I
>>> intended mine to be, only with the second battery.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
In a belated attempt to not derail Michael's electrical system thread, I'm
starting this one to ask Charlie for more details on the possible problems
with EFII's System32 fuel injection and ignition system when the electrical
system architecture is based on the EFII Bus Manager.
I have been hired to test fly an aircraft with this system. Haven't been
able to get off the ground yet due to multiple setup problems and wiring
mistakes but none of these were related to the Bus Manager.
Charlie I would be very interested to hear anything you have to say FMEA
wise about this system.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EFII System32 |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 11/10/2021 4:35 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> In a belated attempt to not derail Michael's electrical system thread,
> I'm starting this one to ask Charlie for more details on the possible
> problems with EFII'sSystem32 fuel injection and ignition system when
> the electrical system architecture is based on the EFII Bus Manager.
>
> I have been hired to test fly an aircraft with this system. Haven't
> been able to get off the ground yet due to multiple setup problems and
> wiring mistakes but none of these were related to the Bus Manager.
>
> Charlie I would be very interested to hear anything you have to say
> FMEA wise about this system.
OK, for a start, here's a marked up copy of that page from the install
manual. I've likely overlooked some stuff in the quick run-through I
did, and could be more accurate with an internal schematic + board
layout of the Bus Manager. But I've marked six ways the system can kill
the engine, and highlighted a seventh *possible* way; I'd want to see
exactly how up to twelve fusible links are installed within the
backshell of the BM connector. Fusible links may or may not generate
enough heat to be a factor in any wire near them. They're typically
thermally insulated to protect other wires around them but they're
typically not tightly confined in an enclosure (the backshell, in this
case).
As I said, it's difficult to completely evaluate the system without the
BM info. The drawing shows an external 'daisy chain' connection path
(circled in red) to the various components, but the yellow circled text
seems to indicate that path is inside the BM. Having said that, things
like the ECU select switch are likely to be external.
Hope that's at least some food for thought, and maybe others will have
some input, as well.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-101 schematic question |
| From: | "heedh23" <heedh23(at)msn.com> |
Hi all-
Following the current Z-101 / RV-10 discussion with interest, as I am beginning
to plan out my own electrical system.
Two n00b questions for my education-
1. What is the significance of the B in a circle symbol near the aux/engine bus
feeder diode, the primary alternator field breaker, and the aux bus relay?
I couldnt find a definition for that symbol in my copy of the Aeroelectric Connection.
2. I am currently flying an OBAM SeaRey, which has long battery runs from nose
battery to pusher engine, plus a composite hull. The RV-10 reverses the position
of the battery / engine, but has similar long power runs. I got used to
running thick wire through the hull :). My question - if the main bus fuse distribution
occurs just behind the firewall and the battery is in the rear, why
not power the main bus via the heavy gauge wire running from the alternator B
lead/starter solenoid back to the hot side of the battery contactor rather than
running a separate bus feed from the rear-mounted contactor back to the bus?
I recognize that the weight of the smaller gauge bus power lead is small, and
inexpensive, but it seems like a similar optimization is already happening between
the starter and B lead. Merely curious.
Thanks in advance,
-Ed
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504165#504165
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Contribution - Value of the List... |
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have
written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30
worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a
subscription to some magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least
that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and get
a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to
think of it, you do... :-)
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these
Lists?
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far during
this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively through
YOUR generosity!!
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC |
and FlyEFII
Hi Charlie;
Hi All;
I apologize beforehand if this comment is out of context. I didn't read all
the foregoing. But I'll make it brief:
1. The aircraft has two fuel tanks, one in each wing.
2. It has a "Main " pump which can draw from either tank and two "Auxiliary
" pumps (a right aux and a left aux).
3. Any one of these three pumps were proved to be able to provide 1.9 to 2.
0 times the requisite fuel for wide open throttle, with the aircraft tilted
at 20 degrees up attitude and one gallon of fuel remaining in the tanks.
4. Since the carburetor has a pressure regulator and vapor return line, the
pumps cannot over-pressure the system.
5. Each pump has its own switch/circuit breaker.
6.The pump failure mode is to "fail open," that is fuel will flow through a
failed pump.
7. There are two 20 amp alternators in the aircraft, which can operate sing
ly or in parallel.
8. So, to summarize: It would take the failure of three pumps, or three swi
tches, or two alternators to incapacitate the aircraft.
Cheers! Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 2:15:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric A
C and FlyEFII
It *might* work, if you could dial the pressure up to electronic injection
levels. The pump is possibly capable of that much pressure; but I just don'
t know if Andair would configure it that way. There's also the issue of add
itive pressure, though I suppose that if you kept the bypass regulator betw
een the 2nd pump & the engine, it would probably work. I'd want test data;
either my own or the pump mfgr's before installing that kind of setup.
I just downloaded the System32 install manual and scrolled down to the powe
r wiring page. I tried to find the Bus Manager install manual (ref by the N
OTE on this page), but couldn't find it on their web site. Comments are bas
ed on what I can see, with available docs from the mfgr that I could find.
Looking at the diagram, I see three (3) (scratch that; at least 6; likely q
uite a few more if I could see inside the box) single points of failure, on
this one page, any one of which *would* stop the engine. Depending on how
you count failures, I can see closer to a dozen. All of those failure modes
are hardware related; they don't count control logic (inside the 'black bo
xes'), which I can't see. Now some of them are quite unlikely, but some hav
e a much higher probability of occurring, and there are relatively simple f
ixes for all of them. (Doing FMEA doesn't really look at probabilities; it
looks at Effects .) I keep coming back to the mantra of: if it's nearly imp
ossible to make redundant (like the wing spar, or only one throttle body on
the engine), I'll evaluate and likely accept the risk, but if it's relativ
ely easy to provide a backup for flight critical items, I'm going to find a
way to do it.
Please believe me when I say I'm truly not trying to be insulting, but I wo
uld not want to fly in a plane wired like that. There's just not a diplomat
ic way to tell someone that an easily corrected thing could kill them if no
t corrected. If I haven't offended you System32 users too much and you're i
nterested, we can discuss some of the failure modes and ideas to fix them.
Charlie
On 11/10/2021 2:59 PM, Sebastien wrote:
No argument about other black boxes Charlie, I was just trying to point out
that the EFII fuel pump black box is a control circuit, not a power circui
t. The output to the fuel pump relay is one wire. If the black box end of t
hat wire goes to ground, or open, or 15v, or whatever, the fuel pump keeps
running.
As for inline fuel pumps, I hadn't run into that problem yet. Would this no
t work?
Andair Products
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:51 AM Charlie England < ceengland7(at)gmail.com > w
rote:
Your example of the GNS + VOR/ILS is the perfect example of proper 'what if
' thinking; if the GNS availability is down for any reason, you have an ind
ependent method of accomplishing your goal. 'Black box' control of the fuel
pumps (or any other multiple device backup system) might or might not meet
those criteria. It's been demonstrated that some of them do not accomplish
this, and some have been demonstrated to have failure modes that can take
out *everything* they supply power to. I'm just trying to point out that sa
ying that it's worked for X hours or Y years just says that you haven't see
n a failure mode yet that could affect both the primary and the backup. Wit
hout analyzing the circuits in the box, you don't know the failure modes. C
ompletely different situation from two separate radio systems with separate
power sources, antennas, etc.
My point about the fuel pumps is knowing the product when it isn't 'traditi
onal'. The fuel pumps used by FLYEFII (and others) for electronic injection
are *not* like traditional fuel pumps. Unlike traditional Lyc engine drive
n pumps, and unlike the traditional boost pumps, those Walbro pumps will *n
ot* pass fuel if they aren't running.
I don't know of any 'different pump' that you could run that would supply t
he needed ~40 PSI and could still be run in series without any issues. If y
ou know of one, please share the info; it could well simplify a lot of EFI
installations.
Charlie
On 11/10/2021 11:58 AM, Sebastien wrote:
Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system
is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are positive displac
ement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't turning, no fuel will move t
hrough that pump. See the problem with that thought path?
I can't say that I do Charlie:
Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system
is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
When selecting fuel pumps, the ability to flow fuel when not turning has be
en a basic requirement for series fuel pumps for about a century. The fuel
flow test performed before first flight will demonstrate whether or not the
correct pumps have been selected.
As for the black box, it is completely unnecessary to analyze the failure m
odes and their effects since any failure of the box (including a bad temper
ed Gremlin eating the box and leaving the wires dangling) will either leave
the relay powering the primary fuel pump as normal, or erroneously switch
to backup. The particular aircraft I've been working on has been flying aro
und with a failed black box since day one. The black box is in a different
country than the aircraft. The pump still runs.
Similarly the Mooney I fly has a complicated Garmin GNS Navigator and a bac
kup VOR/ILS. I have no need to analyse the different failure modes of the G
armin in order to be confident that if it fails, I can use the other VOR/IL
S. I just tune, identify, switch HSI source, set course, and set the desire
d autopilot mode.
However relay failures are something I know nothing about. If a likely fail
ure mode of this relay could leave both pumps unpowered then the FLYEFII im
plementation is poor. I haven't seen any data to suggest this but I'll ask
them what research and testing they did next time I speak with them.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:06 AM Charlie England < ceengland7(at)gmail.com > wr
ote:
Everyone sets their own comfort level when it comes to risk. If you're happ
y *and you're fully informed about the risks*, then that's your choice. I m
ight make different choices, and some of mine on other subjects might be un
acceptable to you.
Do you *know* what's in the black box? Have you analyzed the failure modes
and their effects? A fuel line failure would be difficult to 'plan around',
except through careful and thoughtful installation work. But electrical fa
ilure issues are relatively simple to plan for and to implement backup syst
ems for potential failures. I'm just trying to point out that there are som
e whizbang gadgets that can introduce more failure modes than they compensa
te for, and we need to know when that is happening.
I'd have more confidence in a vendor's position if he told me that he teste
d for a potential problem, rather than just speculation. For instance, I as
ked one of the a/c fuel boost pump (for conventional fuel injection) vendor
s about their technique of looping bypassed fuel back to the inlet of the p
ump and the risks of vapor lock/cavitation. His response was that they'd te
sted it, including at elevated fuel temps. There's also the contrary data p
oint that competitors' systems (using very similar dual pump setups) work j
ust fine when running both pumps for takeoff & landing.
I really want to understand as well as possible any system I install that's
a departure from 'tradition', simply because failure modes will be differe
nt and likely not as well documented. For instance, this:
Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system
is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are positive displac
ement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't turning, no fuel will move t
hrough that pump. See the problem with that thought path?
Charlie
On 11/10/2021 10:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails, the primary fuel
pump continues to run so no worries. The relay that switches pumps is NO p
assing current to the primary pump, or energized and switching current to t
he backup pump. I suppose the relay itself could be mechanically damaged an
d shut off both pumps, but a fuel line could break cutting off fuel as well
.
The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two batteries, but it's a
ctually a pretty well thought out unit.
It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not worried about cavita
ting the pumps if we run both, but in an RV-10 it could be a concern. So in
stead of fancy switching logic, install a third pump to feed the two EFII p
umps and run all three for takeoff :). Or just use different pumps and run
them in series (the way a legacy system is installed) instead of in paralle
l with FLYEFII's manifold.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England < ceengland7(at)gmail.com > wr
ote:
The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If you run both pum
ps, they will each require their own full rated current while running. Tota
l fuel pressure shouldn't change more than a few PSI if the regulator is si
zed properly. Excess fuel is bypassed by the regulator back to the tank. Up
side is that if one pump fails during a critical phase of flight, fuel deli
very doesn't even 'hiccup'.
Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your 'black box', do
you *know* that black box doesn't have a single-point-of-failure inside? Kn
owing means having the schematic for the guts of the black box, and a full
understanding of the circuit.
If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator is powered via
pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their functions are described in their
manual, here . Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual sa
ys overvoltage is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote sense' l
ine that the regulator uses to accurately measure bus voltage so it can set
proper voltage, and does the secondary job of detecting *under* (low) volt
age.
I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs typically cons
ume fairly low current, compared to the injectors. Injectors can have relat
ively high inrush current each time they fire.
This: " They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15 am
p fuse. " just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me. I could be wrong, b
ut I'd want to be absolutely certain about it. Play what if. Short one wire
to ground or short one coil internally to ground, etc, somewhere downstrea
m of that fuse. What happens to the engine?
Charlie
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien < michael(at)elstien.us > wrote:
Hello John,
Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add revision tags. I do
n't always remember.
I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better align this to t
he Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes physical sense. That will a
lso allow me to see where all my connection points should be. Currently it
is just electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was not sure and t
hat was one of my questions.
The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it to the alterna
tor load except during level flight at altitude and near an airport. AC is
a luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100 amps continuously so
I think they will pick up any sag and my IBBS batteries on critical avionic
s are also meant to do that as well.
Engine Bus answers:
6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil packs will have a
fusable link and a breaker
Injectors will have a fusible link only
I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to run them both
during takeoff, landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII di
d not suggest that. he thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet. My t
esting using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated that run
ning both at the same time more than doubled the current draw (4.9 amps per
pump solo) and the fule flow increased marginally. I think they were both
fighting each other to supply pressure at the pump outlet and it was still
only going through qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack power feed in
to 2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all with diod
e isolation. The schematic looked cool but it introduced to many connection
s points which would probably have increased failures.
FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my load testing in
dicates they only use 4.9 when run separately. I can review the wires size
I used and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when powered separately
. They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse
. I suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse per coil pack
because they all charge at different times, so splitting them into 3 does
not reduce the peak current, just the frequency it occurs. (I am a Mech Eng
ineer so I am looking for guidance on that.) I have reached out to FLY EFII
and requested guidance.
FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume 11 AMPs. That
is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always move up
the ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an 18 amp loa
d for 80 minutes. If that is not enough there is always the ETX1600 (120Amp
/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1 PC680. Money is just the
issue. Not a place to skimp.
Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil packs A and B
so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you still have 1 working plug pe
r cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs for cylinde
rs 5 and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that I would sugge
st a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same coil pack. I
do know of a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran without too muc
h vibration, but I need to check into that story.
I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just noticed they
come with an amber light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but a goo
d light is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better vibration and
longer life.
OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage and is used t
o increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have them both going to the Mai
n Bus, but maybe the backup should go to the engine bus. There is a possibi
lity the main bus has power but the engine bus does not. Your thoughts?
I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine to be, only w
ith the second battery.
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
Virus-free. www.avast.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-101 schematic question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 11/11/2021 10:07 AM, heedh23 wrote:
>
> Hi all-
>
> Following the current Z-101 / RV-10 discussion with interest, as I am beginning
to plan out my own electrical system.
>
> Two n00b questions for my education-
>
> 1. What is the significance of the B in a circle symbol near the aux/engine
bus feeder diode, the primary alternator field breaker, and the aux bus relay?
I couldnt find a definition for that symbol in my copy of the Aeroelectric Connection.
>
> 2. I am currently flying an OBAM SeaRey, which has long battery runs from nose
battery to pusher engine, plus a composite hull. The RV-10 reverses the position
of the battery / engine, but has similar long power runs. I got used to
running thick wire through the hull :). My question - if the main bus fuse distribution
occurs just behind the firewall and the battery is in the rear, why
not power the main bus via the heavy gauge wire running from the alternator
B lead/starter solenoid back to the hot side of the battery contactor rather than
running a separate bus feed from the rear-mounted contactor back to the bus?
I recognize that the weight of the smaller gauge bus power lead is small,
and inexpensive, but it seems like a similar optimization is already happening
between the starter and B lead. Merely curious.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> -Ed
No clue on the B symbol, but I think you're describing the 'typical'
wiring method for rear bat/firewall main bus. The master contactor is at
the battery, and the load side wire comes forward to the starter
solenoid's hot side, and from there it can feed the main bus. Here's an
old hand drawn 'rear battery' setup that Bob did years ago for the Z14
diagram. Not the exact thing you're describing, but electrically the
same, if you eliminate the extra battery & crossfeed contactor.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-101 schematic question |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
heedh23 wrote:
> ...What is the significance of the B in a circle symbol near the aux/engine bus
feeder diode, the primary alternator field breaker, and the aux bus relay?...
>
> Thanks in advance,
> -Ed
The circled Bs are changes at rev B. At rev A there was no diode part number, the
aux bus feeder was 18 awg, and the main alternator field was thru 16 awg FLW
followed by 12 awg hookup wire to the 5A breaker.
BTW, in former times, Bob used shop-made 22 awg fuse links followed by 18 awg hookup
wire. He went to store-bought fuselink wire recently and the smallest available
in small quantities is 20 awg.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504247#504247
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFII
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Stu,
I'm not sure we're talking about the same a/c and/or fuel delivery
system. I think there may be 2 or 3 different installations mentioned in
this thread; I've lost track of who is running which system. Is yours a
carb engine, and not running the System32? If so, most or possibly all
of my comments would not apply to your system.
If running a carb, did you add the regulator/return line to reduce
vapor lock issues, or for some other reason?
All the carb'd Lycs I've operated just have the fuel line 'dead end' at
the carb inlet. Which electric pumps are you running? Are you still
running the engine driven pump?
Sorry for any confusion,
Charlie
On 11/11/2021 12:08 PM, ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net wrote:
> Hi Charlie;
> Hi All;
> I apologize beforehand if this comment is out of context. I didn't
> read all the foregoing. But I'll make it brief:
> 1. The aircraft has two fuel tanks, one in each wing.
> 2. It has a "Main " pump which can draw from either tank and two
> "Auxiliary" pumps (a right aux and a left aux).
> 3. Any one of these three pumps were proved to be able to provide 1.9
> to 2.0 times the requisite fuel for wide open throttle, with the
> aircraft tilted at 20 degrees up attitude and one gallon of fuel
> remaining in the tanks.
> 4. Since the carburetor has a pressure regulator and vapor return
> line, the pumps cannot over-pressure the system.
> 5. Each pump has its own switch/circuit breaker.
> 6.The pump failure mode is to "fail open," that is fuel will flow
> through a failed pump.
> 7. There are two 20 amp alternators in the aircraft, which can operate
> singly or in parallel.
> 8. So, to summarize: It would take the failure of three pumps, or
> three switches, or two alternators to incapacitate the aircraft.
> Cheers! Stu.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Charlie England" <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
> *To: *aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 10, 2021 2:15:52 PM
> *Subject: *Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with
> Electric AC and FlyEFII
>
> It *might* work, if you could dial the pressure up to electronic
> injection levels. The pump is possibly capable of that much pressure;
> but I just don't know if Andair would configure it that way. There's
> also the issue of additive pressure, though I suppose that if you kept
> the bypass regulator between the 2nd pump & the engine, it would
> probably work. I'd want test data; either my own or the pump mfgr's
> before installing that kind of setup.
>
> I just downloaded the System32 install manual and scrolled down to the
> power wiring page. I tried to find the Bus Manager install manual (ref
> by the NOTE on this page), but couldn't find it on their web site.
> Comments are based on what I can see, with available docs from the
> mfgr that I could find.
>
> Looking at the diagram, I see three (3) (scratch that; at least 6;
> likely quite a few more if I could see inside the box) single points
> of failure, on this one page, any one of which *would* stop the
> engine. Depending on how you count failures, I can see closer to a
> dozen. All of those failure modes are hardware related; they don't
> count control logic (inside the 'black boxes'), which I can't see. Now
> some of them are quite unlikely, but some have a much higher
> probability of occurring, and there are relatively simple fixes for
> all of them. (Doing FMEA doesn't really look at probabilities; it
> looks at /Effects/.) I keep coming back to the mantra of: if it's
> nearly impossible to make redundant (like the wing spar, or only one
> throttle body on the engine), I'll evaluate and likely accept the
> risk, but if it's relatively easy to provide a backup for flight
> critical items, I'm going to find a way to do it.
>
> Please believe me when I say I'm truly not trying to be insulting, but
> I would not want to fly in a plane wired like that. There's just not a
> diplomatic way to tell someone that an easily corrected thing could
> kill them if not corrected. If I haven't offended you System32 users
> too much and you're interested, we can discuss some of the failure
> modes and ideas to fix them.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 11/10/2021 2:59 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>
> No argument about other black boxes Charlie, I was just trying to
> point out that the EFII fuel pump black box is a control circuit,
> not a power circuit. The output to the fuel pump relay is one
> wire. If the black box end of that wire goes to ground, or open,
> or 15v, or whatever, the fuel pump keeps running.
>
> As for inline fuel pumps, I hadn't run into that problem yet.
> Would this not work?
>
> Andair Products <http://www.andair.co.uk/product/boost-pump-px500-tc/>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:51 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
> Your example of the GNS + VOR/ILS is the perfect example of
> proper 'what if' thinking; if the GNS availability is down for
> any reason, you have an independent method of accomplishing
> your goal. 'Black box' control of the fuel pumps (or any other
> multiple device backup system) might or might not meet those
> criteria. It's been demonstrated that some of them do not
> accomplish this, and some have been demonstrated to have
> failure modes that can take out *everything* they supply power
> to. I'm just trying to point out that saying that it's worked
> for X hours or Y years just says that you haven't seen a
> failure mode yet that could affect both the primary and the
> backup. Without analyzing the circuits in the box, you don't
> know the failure modes. Completely different situation from
> two separate radio systems with separate power sources,
> antennas, etc.
>
> My point about the fuel pumps is knowing the product when it
> isn't 'traditional'. The fuel pumps used by FLYEFII (and
> others) for electronic injection are *not* like traditional
> fuel pumps. Unlike traditional Lyc engine driven pumps, and
> unlike the traditional boost pumps, those Walbro pumps will
> *not* pass fuel if they aren't running.
>
> I don't know of any 'different pump' that you could run that
> would supply the needed ~40 PSI and could still be run in
> series without any issues. If you know of one, please share
> the info; it could well simplify a lot of EFI installations.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 11/10/2021 11:58 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>
> Or just use different pumps and run them in series
> (the way a legacy system is installed) instead of in
> parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>
>
> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page
> are positive displacement pumps. That means that if
> the pump isn't turning, no fuel will move through that
> pump. See the problem with that thought path?
>
>
> I can't say that I do Charlie:
>
> Or just use different pumps and run them in series
> (the way a legacy system is installed) instead of in
> parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>
>
> When selecting fuel pumps, the ability to flow fuel when
> not turning has been a basic requirement for series fuel
> pumps for about a century. The fuel flow test performed
> before first flight will demonstrate whether or not the
> correct pumps have been selected.
>
> As for the black box, it is completely unnecessary to
> analyze the failure modes and their effects since any
> failure of the box (including a bad tempered Gremlin
> eating the box and leaving the wires dangling) will either
> leave the relay powering the primary fuel pump as
> normal,or erroneously switch to backup. The particular
> aircraft I've been working on has been flying around with
> a failed black box since day one. The black box is in a
> different country than the aircraft. The pump still runs.
>
> Similarly the Mooney I fly has a complicated Garmin GNS
> Navigator and a backup VOR/ILS. I have no need to analyse
> the different failure modes of the Garmin in order to be
> confident that if it fails, I can use the other VOR/ILS. I
> just tune, identify, switch HSI source, set course, and
> set the desired autopilot mode.
>
> However relay failures are something I know nothing about.
> If a likely failure mode of this relay could leave both
> pumps unpowered then the FLYEFII implementation is poor. I
> haven't seen any data to suggest this but I'll ask them
> what research and testing they did next time I speak with
> them.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:06 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
> Everyone sets their own comfort level when it comes to
> risk. If you're happy *and you're fully informed about
> the risks*, then that's your choice. I might make
> different choices, and some of mine on other subjects
> might be unacceptable to you.
>
> Do you *know* what's in the black box? Have you
> analyzed the failure modes and their effects? A fuel
> line failure would be difficult to 'plan around',
> except through careful and thoughtful installation
> work. But electrical failure issues are relatively
> simple to plan for and to implement backup systems for
> potential failures. I'm just trying to point out that
> there are some whizbang gadgets that can introduce
> more failure modes than they compensate for, and we
> need to know when that is happening.
>
> I'd have more confidence in a vendor's position if he
> told me that he tested for a potential problem, rather
> than just speculation. For instance, I asked one of
> the a/c fuel boost pump (for conventional fuel
> injection) vendors about their technique of looping
> bypassed fuel back to the inlet of the pump and the
> risks of vapor lock/cavitation. His response was that
> they'd tested it, including at elevated fuel temps.
> There's also the contrary data point that competitors'
> systems (using very similar dual pump setups) work
> just fine when running both pumps for takeoff & landing.
>
> I really want to understand as well as possible any
> system I install that's a departure from 'tradition',
> simply because failure modes will be different and
> likely not as well documented. For instance, this:
> Or just use different pumps and run them in series
> (the way a legacy system is installed) instead of in
> parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
>
> As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page
> are positive displacement pumps. That means that if
> the pump isn't turning, no fuel will move through that
> pump. See the problem with that thought path?
>
> Charlie
>
> On 11/10/2021 10:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
>
> Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel
> pumps fails, the primary fuel pump continues to
> run so no worries. The relay that switches pumps
> is NO passing current to the primary pump, or
> energized and switching current to the backup
> pump. I suppose the relay itself could be
> mechanically damaged and shut off both pumps, but
> a fuel line could break cutting off fuel as well.
>
> The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires
> two batteries, but it's actually a pretty well
> thought out unit.
>
> It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're
> not worried about cavitating the pumps if we run
> both, but in an RV-10 it could be a concern. So
> instead of fancy switching logic, install a
> /third/pump to feed the two EFII pumps and run
> all three for takeoff :). Or just use different
> pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy
> system is installed) instead of in parallel with
> FLYEFII's manifold.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
> The fuel pump symptoms you describe are
> totally normal. If you run both pumps, they
> will each require their own full rated current
> while running. Total fuel pressure shouldn't
> change more than a few PSI if the regulator is
> sized properly. Excess fuel is bypassed by the
> regulator back to the tank. Upside is that if
> one pump fails during a critical phase of
> flight, fuel delivery doesn't even 'hiccup'.
>
> Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally
> inside your 'black box', do you *know* that
> black box doesn't have a
> single-point-of-failure inside? Knowing means
> having the schematic for the guts of the black
> box, and a full understanding of the circuit.
>
> If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that
> the regulator is powered via pin 6 ('bus').
> The various pins and their functions are
> described in their manual, here
> .
> Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since
> the manual says overvoltage is sensed at the
> supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote sense' line
> that the regulator uses to accurately measure
> bus voltage so it can set proper voltage, and
> does the secondary job of detecting *under*
> (low) voltage.
> I can't specifically address the EFII system,
> but coil packs typically consume fairly low
> current, compared to the injectors. Injectors
> can have relatively high inrush current each
> time they fire.
> This: "/They have the coil packs and the
> injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse./"
> just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me.
> I could be wrong, but I'd want to be
> absolutely certain about it. Play what if.
> Short one wire to ground or short one coil
> internally to ground,etc, somewhere
> downstream of that fuse. What happens to the
> engine?
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien
> wrote:
>
> "melstien"
>
> Hello John,
>
> Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so
> I try to add revision tags. I don't
> always remember.
>
> I will take a look at the failure modes
> and probably better align this to the Z101
> and also try to organize it so it makes
> physical sense. That will also allow me
> to see where all my connection points
> should be. Currently it is just
> electrically correct (or will be if people
> suggest good changes)
>
> I will add separate filed switches on the
> alternators. I was not sure and that
> was one of my questions.
>
> The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I
> do not plan to add it to the alternator
> load except during level flight at
> altitude and near an airport. AC is a
> luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at
> least 100 amps continuously so I think
> they will pick up any sag and my IBBS
> batteries on critical avionics are also
> meant to do that as well.
>
> Engine Bus answers:
> 6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
> Yes, everything will have its own power
> lead and the coil packs will have a
> fusable link and a breaker
> Injectors will have a fusible link only
> I planned to not have the pump on
> automatice failover but to run them both
> during takeoff, landing and fuel tank
> switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII did not
> suggest that. he thought it might cause
> cavitation on the inlet. My testing
> using my actual fuel lines and pressure
> regulator indicated that running both at
> the same time more than doubled the
> current draw (4.9 amps per pump solo) and
> the fule flow increased marginally. I
> think they were both fighting each other
> to supply pressure at the pump outlet and
> it was still only going through qty 1 -3/8
> inch hose.
> I had thought about splicing each injector
> wire and coil pack power feed into 2 wires
> and feeding them off Engine Bus A and
> engine Bus B all with diode isolation.
> The schematic looked cool but it
> introduced to many connections points
> which would probably have increased failures.
>
> FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for
> the pumps and my load testing indicates
> they only use 4.9 when run separately. I
> can review the wires size I used and see
> if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
>
> FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack
> would need when powered separately. They
> have the coil packs and the injectors all
> being fed by 1 15 amp fuse. I suspect
> that the coil packs will still need a 15
> amp fuse per coil pack because they all
> charge at different times, so splitting
> them into 3 does not reduce the peak
> current, just the frequency it occurs. (I
> am a Mech Engineer so I am looking for
> guidance on that.) I have reached out to
> FLY EFII and requested guidance.
>
> FlyEFII informed me that the system at
> high RPM will consume 11 AMPs. That is
> all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour
> of reserve, I can always move up the ETX
> 1200 battery. Its the same form factor
> and will carry an 18 amp load for 80
> minutes. If that is not enough there is
> always the ETX1600 (120Amp/hours). Even
> two of the 1200's weight less than 1
> PC680. Money is just the issue. Not a
> place to skimp.
>
> Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are
> spread across coil packs A and B so they
> are redundant. If you lose A or B you
> still have 1 working plug per cylinder
> 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and
> both plugs for cylinders 5 and 6 are on
> the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII
> that I would suggest a different
> arrangement so both plugs were not on the
> same coil pack. I do know of a person
> who lost coil pack C and the engine ran
> without too much vibration, but I need to
> check into that story.
>
> I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output
> backup alternator. I just noticed they
> come with an amber light. I will ties
> these outputs into my EFIS but a good
> light is also nice. I Prefer LED for
> lower heat and better vibration and longer
> life.
>
> OV Sense, so this is the contact that
> senses the buss voltage and is used to
> increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I
> have them both going to the Main Bus, but
> maybe the backup should go to the engine
> bus. There is a possibility the main bus
> has power but the engine bus does not.
> Your thoughts?
>
> I reviewed your diagram and it is really
> what I intended mine to be, only with the
> second battery.
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC |
and FlyEFII
Hi Charlie;
Yes, the aircraft has a carb mfg. by Rotec in Australia. The vapor return i
s mainly to eliminate vapor lock and create faster starting. The carb has a
pressure regulator and primer built in. The aircraft has no engine driven
(mechanical) pump, only the three Facet pumps mentioned. I mainly posted my
comment because there was a lot of discussion about failure modes and redu
ndancy in the previous posts. I wanted to suggest a system such as mine cou
ld have redundancy without being complicated or expensive. I appreciate you
r comments.
Cheers! Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 5:00:27 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric A
C and FlyEFII
Hi Stu,
I'm not sure we're talking about the same a/c and/or fuel delivery system.
I think there may be 2 or 3 different installations mentioned in this threa
d; I've lost track of who is running which system. Is yours a carb engine,
and not running the System32? If so, most or possibly all of my comments wo
uld not apply to your system.
If running a carb, did you add the regulator/return line to reduce vapor lo
ck issues, or for some other reason?
All the carb'd Lycs I've operated just have the fuel line 'dead end' at the
carb inlet. Which electric pumps are you running? Are you still running th
e engine driven pump?
Sorry for any confusion,
Charlie
On 11/11/2021 12:08 PM, ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net wrote:
Hi Charlie;
Hi All;
I apologize beforehand if this comment is out of context. I didn't read all
the foregoing. But I'll make it brief:
1. The aircraft has two fuel tanks, one in each wing.
2. It has a "Main " pump which can draw from either tank and two "Auxiliary
" pumps (a right aux and a left aux).
3. Any one of these three pumps were proved to be able to provide 1.9 to 2.
0 times the requisite fuel for wide open throttle, with the aircraft tilted
at 20 degrees up attitude and one gallon of fuel remaining in the tanks.
4. Since the carburetor has a pressure regulator and vapor return line, the
pumps cannot over-pressure the system.
5. Each pump has its own switch/circuit breaker.
6.The pump failure mode is to "fail open," that is fuel will flow through a
failed pump.
7. There are two 20 amp alternators in the aircraft, which can operate sing
ly or in parallel.
8. So, to summarize: It would take the failure of three pumps, or three swi
tches, or two alternators to incapacitate the aircraft.
Cheers! Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 2:15:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric A
C and FlyEFII
It *might* work, if you could dial the pressure up to electronic injection
levels. The pump is possibly capable of that much pressure; but I just don'
t know if Andair would configure it that way. There's also the issue of add
itive pressure, though I suppose that if you kept the bypass regulator betw
een the 2nd pump & the engine, it would probably work. I'd want test data;
either my own or the pump mfgr's before installing that kind of setup.
I just downloaded the System32 install manual and scrolled down to the powe
r wiring page. I tried to find the Bus Manager install manual (ref by the N
OTE on this page), but couldn't find it on their web site. Comments are bas
ed on what I can see, with available docs from the mfgr that I could find.
Looking at the diagram, I see three (3) (scratch that; at least 6; likely q
uite a few more if I could see inside the box) single points of failure, on
this one page, any one of which *would* stop the engine. Depending on how
you count failures, I can see closer to a dozen. All of those failure modes
are hardware related; they don't count control logic (inside the 'black bo
xes'), which I can't see. Now some of them are quite unlikely, but some hav
e a much higher probability of occurring, and there are relatively simple f
ixes for all of them. (Doing FMEA doesn't really look at probabilities; it
looks at Effects .) I keep coming back to the mantra of: if it's nearly imp
ossible to make redundant (like the wing spar, or only one throttle body on
the engine), I'll evaluate and likely accept the risk, but if it's relativ
ely easy to provide a backup for flight critical items, I'm going to find a
way to do it.
Please believe me when I say I'm truly not trying to be insulting, but I wo
uld not want to fly in a plane wired like that. There's just not a diplomat
ic way to tell someone that an easily corrected thing could kill them if no
t corrected. If I haven't offended you System32 users too much and you're i
nterested, we can discuss some of the failure modes and ideas to fix them.
Charlie
On 11/10/2021 2:59 PM, Sebastien wrote:
No argument about other black boxes Charlie, I was just trying to point out
that the EFII fuel pump black box is a control circuit, not a power circui
t. The output to the fuel pump relay is one wire. If the black box end of t
hat wire goes to ground, or open, or 15v, or whatever, the fuel pump keeps
running.
As for inline fuel pumps, I hadn't run into that problem yet. Would this no
t work?
Andair Products
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:51 AM Charlie England < ceengland7(at)gmail.com > w
rote:
Your example of the GNS + VOR/ILS is the perfect example of proper 'what if
' thinking; if the GNS availability is down for any reason, you have an ind
ependent method of accomplishing your goal. 'Black box' control of the fuel
pumps (or any other multiple device backup system) might or might not meet
those criteria. It's been demonstrated that some of them do not accomplish
this, and some have been demonstrated to have failure modes that can take
out *everything* they supply power to. I'm just trying to point out that sa
ying that it's worked for X hours or Y years just says that you haven't see
n a failure mode yet that could affect both the primary and the backup. Wit
hout analyzing the circuits in the box, you don't know the failure modes. C
ompletely different situation from two separate radio systems with separate
power sources, antennas, etc.
My point about the fuel pumps is knowing the product when it isn't 'traditi
onal'. The fuel pumps used by FLYEFII (and others) for electronic injection
are *not* like traditional fuel pumps. Unlike traditional Lyc engine drive
n pumps, and unlike the traditional boost pumps, those Walbro pumps will *n
ot* pass fuel if they aren't running.
I don't know of any 'different pump' that you could run that would supply t
he needed ~40 PSI and could still be run in series without any issues. If y
ou know of one, please share the info; it could well simplify a lot of EFI
installations.
Charlie
On 11/10/2021 11:58 AM, Sebastien wrote:
Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system
is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are positive displac
ement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't turning, no fuel will move t
hrough that pump. See the problem with that thought path?
I can't say that I do Charlie:
Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system
is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
When selecting fuel pumps, the ability to flow fuel when not turning has be
en a basic requirement for series fuel pumps for about a century. The fuel
flow test performed before first flight will demonstrate whether or not the
correct pumps have been selected.
As for the black box, it is completely unnecessary to analyze the failure m
odes and their effects since any failure of the box (including a bad temper
ed Gremlin eating the box and leaving the wires dangling) will either leave
the relay powering the primary fuel pump as normal, or erroneously switch
to backup. The particular aircraft I've been working on has been flying aro
und with a failed black box since day one. The black box is in a different
country than the aircraft. The pump still runs.
Similarly the Mooney I fly has a complicated Garmin GNS Navigator and a bac
kup VOR/ILS. I have no need to analyse the different failure modes of the G
armin in order to be confident that if it fails, I can use the other VOR/IL
S. I just tune, identify, switch HSI source, set course, and set the desire
d autopilot mode.
However relay failures are something I know nothing about. If a likely fail
ure mode of this relay could leave both pumps unpowered then the FLYEFII im
plementation is poor. I haven't seen any data to suggest this but I'll ask
them what research and testing they did next time I speak with them.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:06 AM Charlie England < ceengland7(at)gmail.com > wr
ote:
Everyone sets their own comfort level when it comes to risk. If you're happ
y *and you're fully informed about the risks*, then that's your choice. I m
ight make different choices, and some of mine on other subjects might be un
acceptable to you.
Do you *know* what's in the black box? Have you analyzed the failure modes
and their effects? A fuel line failure would be difficult to 'plan around',
except through careful and thoughtful installation work. But electrical fa
ilure issues are relatively simple to plan for and to implement backup syst
ems for potential failures. I'm just trying to point out that there are som
e whizbang gadgets that can introduce more failure modes than they compensa
te for, and we need to know when that is happening.
I'd have more confidence in a vendor's position if he told me that he teste
d for a potential problem, rather than just speculation. For instance, I as
ked one of the a/c fuel boost pump (for conventional fuel injection) vendor
s about their technique of looping bypassed fuel back to the inlet of the p
ump and the risks of vapor lock/cavitation. His response was that they'd te
sted it, including at elevated fuel temps. There's also the contrary data p
oint that competitors' systems (using very similar dual pump setups) work j
ust fine when running both pumps for takeoff & landing.
I really want to understand as well as possible any system I install that's
a departure from 'tradition', simply because failure modes will be differe
nt and likely not as well documented. For instance, this:
Or just use different pumps and run them in series (the way a legacy system
is installed) instead of in parallel with FLYEFII's manifold.
As a FYI, the Walbro pumps shown on FLYEFII's web page are positive displac
ement pumps. That means that if the pump isn't turning, no fuel will move t
hrough that pump. See the problem with that thought path?
Charlie
On 11/10/2021 10:17 AM, Sebastien wrote:
Charlie if the "black box" that switches fuel pumps fails, the primary fuel
pump continues to run so no worries. The relay that switches pumps is NO p
assing current to the primary pump, or energized and switching current to t
he backup pump. I suppose the relay itself could be mechanically damaged an
d shut off both pumps, but a fuel line could break cutting off fuel as well
.
The FLYEFII Bus Manager is expensive and requires two batteries, but it's a
ctually a pretty well thought out unit.
It just occurred to me that in our high wing we're not worried about cavita
ting the pumps if we run both, but in an RV-10 it could be a concern. So in
stead of fancy switching logic, install a third pump to feed the two EFII p
umps and run all three for takeoff :). Or just use different pumps and run
them in series (the way a legacy system is installed) instead of in paralle
l with FLYEFII's manifold.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:11 AM Charlie England < ceengland7(at)gmail.com > wr
ote:
The fuel pump symptoms you describe are totally normal. If you run both pum
ps, they will each require their own full rated current while running. Tota
l fuel pressure shouldn't change more than a few PSI if the regulator is si
zed properly. Excess fuel is bypassed by the regulator back to the tank. Up
side is that if one pump fails during a critical phase of flight, fuel deli
very doesn't even 'hiccup'.
Auto-switching of the pumps: If that's totally inside your 'black box', do
you *know* that black box doesn't have a single-point-of-failure inside? Kn
owing means having the schematic for the guts of the black box, and a full
understanding of the circuit.
If you're using B&C regulators, I believe that the regulator is powered via
pin 6 ('bus'). The various pins and their functions are described in their
manual, here . Not sure why they labeled pin 3 as 'OV' since the manual sa
ys overvoltage is sensed at the supply pin (6). Pin 3 is a 'remote sense' l
ine that the regulator uses to accurately measure bus voltage so it can set
proper voltage, and does the secondary job of detecting *under* (low) volt
age.
I can't specifically address the EFII system, but coil packs typically cons
ume fairly low current, compared to the injectors. Injectors can have relat
ively high inrush current each time they fire.
This: " They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15 am
p fuse. " just *screams* SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE at me. I could be wrong, b
ut I'd want to be absolutely certain about it. Play what if. Short one wire
to ground or short one coil internally to ground, etc, somewhere downstrea
m of that fuse. What happens to the engine?
Charlie
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:48 PM melstien < michael(at)elstien.us > wrote:
Hello John,
Yes, I like to keep track of my changes so I try to add revision tags. I do
n't always remember.
I will take a look at the failure modes and probably better align this to t
he Z101 and also try to organize it so it makes physical sense. That will a
lso allow me to see where all my connection points should be. Currently it
is just electrically correct (or will be if people suggest good changes)
I will add separate filed switches on the alternators. I was not sure and t
hat was one of my questions.
The 40 Amp AC will be an experiment. I do not plan to add it to the alterna
tor load except during level flight at altitude and near an airport. AC is
a luxury. The Earthex batteries can draw at least 100 amps continuously so
I think they will pick up any sag and my IBBS batteries on critical avionic
s are also meant to do that as well.
Engine Bus answers:
6 Cylinder as opposed to a 4 cylinder
Yes, everything will have its own power lead and the coil packs will have a
fusable link and a breaker
Injectors will have a fusible link only
I planned to not have the pump on automatice failover but to run them both
during takeoff, landing and fuel tank switch-overs but Robert at FLYEFII di
d not suggest that. he thought it might cause cavitation on the inlet. My t
esting using my actual fuel lines and pressure regulator indicated that run
ning both at the same time more than doubled the current draw (4.9 amps per
pump solo) and the fule flow increased marginally. I think they were both
fighting each other to supply pressure at the pump outlet and it was still
only going through qty 1 -3/8 inch hose.
I had thought about splicing each injector wire and coil pack power feed in
to 2 wires and feeding them off Engine Bus A and engine Bus B all with diod
e isolation. The schematic looked cool but it introduced to many connection
s points which would probably have increased failures.
FLYEFII suggests a 10 Amp fuse for the for the pumps and my load testing in
dicates they only use 4.9 when run separately. I can review the wires size
I used and see if it will support a 12 or 15 amp breaker.
FlyEFII did not state what the coil pack would need when powered separately
. They have the coil packs and the injectors all being fed by 1 15 amp fuse
. I suspect that the coil packs will still need a 15 amp fuse per coil pack
because they all charge at different times, so splitting them into 3 does
not reduce the peak current, just the frequency it occurs. (I am a Mech Eng
ineer so I am looking for guidance on that.) I have reached out to FLY EFII
and requested guidance.
FlyEFII informed me that the system at high RPM will consume 11 AMPs. That
is all I have to go on. to meet my 1 hour of reserve, I can always move up
the ETX 1200 battery. Its the same form factor and will carry an 18 amp loa
d for 80 minutes. If that is not enough there is always the ETX1600 (120Amp
/hours). Even two of the 1200's weight less than 1 PC680. Money is just the
issue. Not a place to skimp.
Regarding the coil packs, cylinder 1-4 are spread across coil packs A and B
so they are redundant. If you lose A or B you still have 1 working plug pe
r cylinder 1-4. FLY EFII added the 3rd coil pack and both plugs for cylinde
rs 5 and 6 are on the same pack. I have informed FLYEFII that I would sugge
st a different arrangement so both plugs were not on the same coil pack. I
do know of a person who lost coil pack C and the engine ran without too muc
h vibration, but I need to check into that story.
I have 2 LR3Ds and the higher output backup alternator. I just noticed they
come with an amber light. I will ties these outputs into my EFIS but a goo
d light is also nice. I Prefer LED for lower heat and better vibration and
longer life.
OV Sense, so this is the contact that senses the buss voltage and is used t
o increase or decrease the voltage ouput? I have them both going to the Mai
n Bus, but maybe the backup should go to the engine bus. There is a possibi
lity the main bus has power but the engine bus does not. Your thoughts?
I reviewed your diagram and it is really what I intended mine to be, only w
ith the second battery.
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504060#504060
Virus-free. www.avast.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: O Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEFI
| From: | "melstien" <michael(at)elstien.us> |
Hello Ron,
I agree with your comments and thoughts.
My goal upon any failure: Alternator or battery or... is the same as a it would
be without EFII, which is to land as quickly as possible, not to continue the
flight. I am trying to minimize how one failure causes the engine to get quiet.
My goal of 1 hour of battery life is to enable proper time to get down from altitude
in a location (think Central US or upstate NY) and in IFR conditions where
landing my not be a simple task. If in VFR down here in Florida, we could
be talking 5-10 minutes to the nearest airport.
It sounds loike you like you like the System 32.
Thank you for your comments.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504250#504250
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: O Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC and |
FlyEF
| From: | "melstien" <michael(at)elstien.us> |
Hello Kelly,
you are so right about weight and balance on the RV-10. Lighter weight batteries
in the back will move the CG forward. What might be offsetting this is adding
2 batteries which may come close to the original PC680 weight but adds additional
capacity.
I also did not mention that I am seriously considering the newer Whirlwind 300-3B/B-77
propeller designed for the RV-10. It is lighter than the 2 blade Hazell
by as much as 8-13 pounds on the nose.
There a lot of variable to take into consideration.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504252#504252
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: O Re: RV-10 Electrical Review with Electric AC |
and FlyEF
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Sebastian,
The original battery that Vans recommends is a Concorde RG-25AXC, which
weighs about 24 lbs. I have the Odyssey equivalent, a PC925 at about the
same weight. I have an MT 3 bladed prop, as the Whirlwind was not
available when I built. It is also about 14 lbs lighter than the
Hartzell 2 blade aluminum prop. I still need at least 50 lbs ballast in
the baggage compartment if I don't have back seat passengers or baggage.
Avoid a 3 bladed prop if you can get composite 2 bladed prop, as a 3
blade makes it very difficult to remove bottom cowling.
Kelly
On 11/11/2021 6:42 PM, melstien wrote:
>
> Hello Kelly,
>
> you are so right about weight and balance on the RV-10. Lighter weight batteries
in the back will move the CG forward. What might be offsetting this is
adding 2 batteries which may come close to the original PC680 weight but adds
additional capacity.
>
> I also did not mention that I am seriously considering the newer Whirlwind 300-3B/B-77
propeller designed for the RV-10. It is lighter than the 2 blade
Hazell by as much as 8-13 pounds on the nose.
>
> There a lot of variable to take into consideration.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504252#504252
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFII System32 |
Thank you Charlie,
1. What is the failure mode of the relay that could kill the engine?
2. You mentioned DPDT switches can fail to both shorted, is this something
that happens when you flip the switch or can the switch just be sitting
there and fail?
Thank you,
Sebastien
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 5:44 PM Charlie England
wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 4:35 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> > In a belated attempt to not derail Michael's electrical system thread,
> > I'm starting this one to ask Charlie for more details on the possible
> > problems with EFII's System32 fuel injection and ignition system when
> > the electrical system architecture is based on the EFII Bus Manager.
> >
> > I have been hired to test fly an aircraft with this system. Haven't
> > been able to get off the ground yet due to multiple setup problems and
> > wiring mistakes but none of these were related to the Bus Manager.
> >
> > Charlie I would be very interested to hear anything you have to say
> > FMEA wise about this system.
> OK, for a start, here's a marked up copy of that page from the install
> manual. I've likely overlooked some stuff in the quick run-through I
> did, and could be more accurate with an internal schematic + board
> layout of the Bus Manager. But I've marked six ways the system can kill
> the engine, and highlighted a seventh *possible* way; I'd want to see
> exactly how up to twelve fusible links are installed within the
> backshell of the BM connector. Fusible links may or may not generate
> enough heat to be a factor in any wire near them. They're typically
> thermally insulated to protect other wires around them but they're
> typically not tightly confined in an enclosure (the backshell, in this
> case).
>
> As I said, it's difficult to completely evaluate the system without the
> BM info. The drawing shows an external 'daisy chain' connection path
> (circled in red) to the various components, but the yellow circled text
> seems to indicate that path is inside the BM. Having said that, things
> like the ECU select switch are likely to be external.
>
> Hope that's at least some food for thought, and maybe others will have
> some input, as well.
>
> Charlie
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-101 schematic question |
| From: | "heedh23" <heedh23(at)msn.com> |
Thanks Charlie and John - that helps a lot.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504258#504258
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | A List Contribution - It's Your Personal Squelch Button... |
There is an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for the Fund Raiser messages.
Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes a Contribution through
the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, their email address is automatically added
to this year's Contributor List and they instantly cease to receive further Fund
Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its just that simple! :-)
I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support
the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware
and software that are required to run a List Site such as this one. It also goes
to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric
bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered
on. I run all of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which
allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in
reliably and performance. Your personal Contribution matters because, when combined
with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site
up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics
Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercials that are
so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have
it on my Email List sites.
If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email
Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!!
https://matronics.com/contribution
or, you can send a personal check to the following address:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore, CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
[Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution
related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages,
when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum.
The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are anonymous
public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | S-Tec system 30 issues |
After 12 years, my S-Tec system 30 doesn't want to come ready.
I have checked the fuses for the AP and TC. The TC flag retracts so I that
looks OK. The GPSS interface stays lit and functional. It didn't grab the
stick and clunk for pitch or roll as normal.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
N822AR "Patience" @ N06
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Coming |
Soon!
Dear Listers,
There's just a few more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser and that means
the List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post
a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their
appreciation for the Lists.
Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists
is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account:
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that
keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFII System32 |
>
>OK, for a start, here's a marked up copy of that page from the install
>manual. I've likely overlooked some stuff in the quick run-through I
>did, and could be more accurate with an internal schematic + board
>layout of the Bus Manager. But I've marked six ways the system can kill
>the engine, and highlighted a seventh *possible* way; I'd want to see
>exactly how up to twelve fusible links are installed within the
>backshell of the BM connector. Fusible links may or may not generate
>enough heat to be a factor in any wire near them. They're typically
>thermally insulated to protect other wires around them but they're
>typically not tightly confined in an enclosure (the backshell, in this
>case).
Fusible links are NOT replacements for fuses.
Fusible links are ROBUST protection against
hard faults and are used in power distribution
feeders like alternator b-leads, extension feeders
between busses, some battery installations, etc.
They are RARELY suited for protection of
individual loads.
What is the rational for protecting these
feeders individually in the first place?
Manufacturer's recommendations? Consider
REAL fuses if a FMEA warrants such protection.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Coming |
Soon!
Dear Listers,
There's just a few more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser and that means
the List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post
a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their
appreciation for the Lists.
Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists
is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account:
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that
keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFII System32 |
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:28 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> OK, for a start, here's a marked up copy of that page from the install
> manual. I've likely overlooked some stuff in the quick run-through I
> did, and could be more accurate with an internal schematic + board
> layout of the Bus Manager. But I've marked six ways the system can kill
> the engine, and highlighted a seventh *possible* way; I'd want to see
> exactly how up to twelve fusible links are installed within the
> backshell of the BM connector. Fusible links may or may not generate
> enough heat to be a factor in any wire near them. They're typically
> thermally insulated to protect other wires around them but they're
> typically not tightly confined in an enclosure (the backshell, in this
> case).
>
>
> Fusible links are NOT replacements for fuses.
>
> Fusible links are ROBUST protection against
> hard faults and are used in power distribution
> feeders like alternator b-leads, extension feeders
> between busses, some battery installations, etc.
>
> They are RARELY suited for protection of
> individual loads.
>
> What is the rational for protecting these
> feeders individually in the first place?
> Manufacturer's recommendations? Consider
> REAL fuses if a FMEA warrants such protection.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
I'll take another swing, since I wrote the quoted text (it should be
obvious from the text that I don't care for the actual product being
discussed).
My yet-to-fly EFI (NOT FlyEFII) has separate fuses for each injector and
each coil. The reason I did it is that it's dirt simple to do, weighs only
a few ounces, and isolates each item from all the rest in case of a
failure. No doubt that's why FlyEFII used individual fusible links, too.
Logic: If running a carb, you can't isolate fuel delivery to each cylinder;
you're stuck with one delivery point. Not much difference with
'traditional' a/c fuel injection. But with electronic injection and dual
controllers, it's relatively easy to isolate the feed to each device so
that a failure along one path will not cause the entire system to go down.
That kind of issue is what I was trying to describe in the marked-up
version of the wiring diagram; eliminating points where a single failure
takes the entire system (in this case, the engine) offline. I consider
being able to effectively isolate each cylinder (or pair of cylinders, with
some coils) to be a significant advantage with electronic injection over
traditional systems. (I do recognize that the added installation complexity
can be a negative factor.)
As to the fusible link vs fuse question: I used links in several (all?) the
places you mention, for the same reasons; they're as reliable as the wire
itself, fewer mechanical joints, and the only reason they would ever need
to act is in a catastrophic fault situation. While I haven't installed them
for my injectors & coils, I can see justification for using them there, for
the same reasons. One shorted coil or one shorted injector will almost
certainly burn itself open before either its fuse or, if used, a fusible
link would activate. So the only reason for branch protection is the
catastrophic failure mode of a shorted wire. Using the links reduces the
number of mechanical joints (transitions) in the path to the device.
FWIW,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFII System32 |
>
>I'll take another swing, since I wrote the quoted text (it should be
>obvious from the text that I don't care for the actual product being
>discussed).
>
>My yet-to-fly EFI (NOT FlyEFII) has separate fuses for each injector
>and each coil. The reason I did it is that it's dirt simple to do,
>weighs only a few ounces, and isolates each item from all the rest
>in case of a failure. No doubt that's why FlyEFII used individual
>fusible links, too.
Okay, if that's what the mfgr wants. But generally
speaking, fusible links are in the same class of
protection as the ANL current limiters. They take
10x longer to open under same 'rated' loads . . .
and make smoke.
Also watch for situations where one fusible
link is supplied from another fusible link
upstream. You have a I(squared)R timing
dynamic to consider for series connected
circuit protection.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Over Voltage Crowbar |
| From: | "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com> |
I've noticed the stand alone overvoltage switches are not as readily available
and I asked a friend of mine if he would put together a board using an IC provided
by Analog Devices.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/1696fb.pdf
So, my friend completed the design and is sending to me, what he says, are well
operating switches. I'll test the switches when they arrive in a few days but
I'd like to ask for any feedback on the design. (see attached pdf of the schematic).
He says the device behaves as expected, tripping is adjustable from 15 to 18 volts
and running current is less than 5 ma. The R5 is not used and is included
only to allow for a fixed trip point (rather than adjustable with the pot).
Thanks in advance for any comments.
Dan Theis
--------
Scratch building Sonex #1362
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504545#504545
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/overvolt_0_1_135.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_921.png
http://forums.matronics.com//files/overvolt_0_367.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/overvolt_0_1_732.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Official AeroElectric-List FAQ (Frequently Asked |
Questions)
| From: | "nabeelkha" <waqasfalak649(at)gmail.com> |
good post like http://www.chimatamusic.net/db/viewtopic.php?t= it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504547#504547
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 9:20 PM dj_theis wrote:
>
> I've noticed the stand alone overvoltage switches are not as readily
> available and I asked a friend of mine if he would put together a board
> using an IC provided by Analog Devices.
>
>
> https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/1696fb.pdf
>
> So, my friend completed the design and is sending to me, what he says, are
> well operating switches. I'll test the switches when they arrive in a few
> days but I'd like to ask for any feedback on the design. (see attached pdf
> of the schematic).
>
> He says the device behaves as expected, tripping is adjustable from 15 to
> 18 volts and running current is less than 5 ma. The R5 is not used and is
> included only to allow for a fixed trip point (rather than adjustable with
> the pot).
>
> Thanks in advance for any comments.
> Dan Theis
>
> Looks nice. Are you planning on selling the completed modules? If not,
what's a guestimate of component prices?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
| From: | "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com> |
> Looks nice. Are you planning on selling the completed modules? If not, what's
a guestimate of component prices?
Thanks Charlie, that means a lot coming from you.
I'd be happy to pass on completed modules to anyone interested. My buddy put in
the time to design the board and construct the test modules so I'm not sure its
ethical to pass his full design off. I did ask him if he minded if I solicited
for feedback from this group and he had no issues with that. The original
circuit design is (obviously) from the IC manufacturer and it is (I believe)
easy enough to duplicate.
I think the retail price would fall in the range of $28 which would pay for shipping
and the time required to manage orders. I have no experience doing this
kind of thing and really don't see it as a path to retirement ;0)
Having said that, I don't do any of this OBAM stuff for monetary gain. I'm involved
because I was born to learn and love to "make stuff work." So, if there
is interest in any order larger than quantity 3, I'd be willing to execute the
production process and pass on the modules at pennies over my cost for the completed
modules.
Speaking of cost; The components alone in small quantities is very close to $10.
I'm not sure that is with the PC board but the real estate is small so if
the quantities are large the board cost is minimal.
I'll test the module more thoroughly when I receive them and report on the forum.
Dan Theis
(Still working on the Revmaster alternator issue...)
--------
Scratch building Sonex #1362
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504559#504559
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ashleysc(at)broadstripe.net |
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
Hi Dan;
What's the maximum alternator size (amp output) that this device can handle?
Cheers! Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 6:11:56 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over Voltage Crowbar
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 9:20 PM dj_theis < djtheis58(at)gmail.com > wrote:
I've noticed the stand alone overvoltage switches are not as readily available
and I asked a friend of mine if he would put together a board using an IC provided
by Analog Devices.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/1696fb.pdf
So, my friend completed the design and is sending to me, what he says, are well
operating switches. I'll test the switches when they arrive in a few days but
I'd like to ask for any feedback on the design. (see attached pdf of the schematic).
He says the device behaves as expected, tripping is adjustable from 15 to 18 volts
and running current is less than 5 ma. The R5 is not used and is included
only to allow for a fixed trip point (rather than adjustable with the pot).
Thanks in advance for any comments.
Dan Theis
Looks nice. Are you planning on selling the completed modules? If not, what's a
guestimate of component prices?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Looking at the 3D rendering image that you posted, I would be worried about the
board layout. If the trace under the "R2" and "D1" markings is the only copper
carrying trip current to the SCR, and if it's as narrow as it appears, then
I'm concerned that the trace may burn open before it can blow the fuse. Blowing
a typical fuse in a reasonably short time takes significantly more than its
rated current.
See the time-vs-current chart in this datasheet, as an example: https://tinyurl.com/29c28u3y+
If your friend also used bottom side copper to carry trip current then it may be
fine; I just can't tell from the image you posted since it only shows the top
side copper. I would definitely perform a full function test by connecting
it to a car battery through a fuse with the same current rating that you intend
to use, then wind down the pot until it trips (wear a glove and eye protection;
a blown trace can throw molten copper). If the fuse blows with no damage
to the board, then you've got a winner.
If not, then a better layout would put the SCR right next to the input wires with
large copper pours connecting its anode to the input and its cathode to ground.
The controller IC, potentiometer and passives can go at the other end of
the board.
Do you happen to know why there are four resistors on the board? Establishing
a trip range only requires two resistors and the pot.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504571#504571
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
| From: | "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com> |
> What's the maximum alternator size (amp output) that this device can handle?
> Cheers! Stu.
HI Stu,
The device does not conduct any charge current from the alternator. So, there
is no relationship to alternator output or any limitation relative to alternator
sizing.
If you look at Professor Nuckolls' overvoltage design, (which this device emulates)
the control relay's circuit protection is simply tripped if the bus voltage
sensed exceeds the setpoint of the switch.
So the current through the switch is insignificant when in standby (monitor) mode
(< 5 ma) and will briefly short circuit the power source feeding a relay if
the bus voltage rises above the limilt of the overvoltage circuit. That short
circuit current is limited by the (typically 2 amp) circuit breaker feeding
the relay.
The device is wired identical to any of the O.V, switches shown in any of the Aeroelectric
standard circuits.
--------
Dan Theis
Scratch building Sonex #1362
Still working on the Revmaster Alternator improvement
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504573#504573
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EFI injector and other solenoid inrush current |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
Speaking of EFI+I, be it FlyEFII or SDS, someone mentioned recently that fuel injectors
have an inrush current that should be considered when sizing fuses.
I'd like to point out that this is incorrect AFAIK.
The injectors and coils in an EFI+I system are pulsed so can their fuses or circuit
breakers be hammered?
Speaking to my SDS EM-5 four-cylinder application, what I do is follow SDS' recommendation
of a 5A fuse or breaker for each injector and a 10A fuse or breaker
for each coilpack.
Injectors are 14.5 Ohms so they draw 1A when on and 0.84A average at 14.4V and
85% duty cycle.
To my knowledge, the four-cylinder coilpacks ramp up from 0 to 6.5A in a sawtooth
4.3 mS wide twice per rev for an average current draw of 1.1A at 2,400 RPM.
Disclaimer: The sawtooth height (current) and width (time) did not come from
SDS but the resulting current draw calculation matches what SDS says per coilpack
"a little over 1A at 2,400 RPM". I imagine the six-cylinder coilpacks will
simply draw 50% more average current because they operate 50% more cylinders.
(FlyEFII System 32 is different because it uses three four-cylinder coilpacks
in six-cylinder applications whereas SDS uses two six-cylinder coilpacks.)
Ref attached oscilloscope images.
A magnetic solenoid is an inductor and in an inductor current lags voltage. This
applies to the single-coil and no-current-regulating-driver solenoids we comonly
use like relays, contactors, saturated-core fuel injecors, and also to inductive
coilpacks.
Some solenoids that do have an inrush current:
Dual-coil solenoids that reduce current after the armature moves and closes the magnetic air gap. This because the solenoid produces more force when the air gap is closed so it can be held closed with less current. Ref for instance Bob Nuckolls "Let's Talk About Starter Solenoids": http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
Peak-hold fuel injectors that use current regulating drivers to overdrive the solenoid
to make it close faster then back off the current once the injector is
open aka solenoid air cap closed.
Contactors and relays that have peak-hold current drivers built in. I have not
seen these recommended by Aeroelectric Connection but they do exist.
Alternating current solenoids that have a moving armature have an inrush current
because inductance increases when the air gap closes. But we are talking about
direct current in OBAM aircraft.
I doubt peak-hold injectors are used on direct-drive aircraft engines because the
advantage is increased dynamic range (due to faster opening and closing times)
of fuel delivery from idle to full power high RPM and 2,700 is not high RPM.
The saturated-core fuel injectors that came with my SDS system have 14.5 Ohm
coils and the peak-hold injectors I remember from the 1990s were 2.5 Ohms so
that is a way to tell the difference.
I'm using the term solenoid generically, it being a coil of wire with a magnetic
core.
Solenoid: A solenoid that provides force to actuate a separate device, like moving
the pinion gear in a starter motor to engage the ring gear on the flywheel
or electric door locks on a car or the hammer of a xylophone style door bell.
Contactor: A high-current relay with integrated solenoid actuator.
Relay: An electrical switch with integrated solenoid actuator.
Fuel injector: An on-off hydraulic valve with integrated solenoid actuator that
is pulse-width modulated to control flow.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504574#504574
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/injector_current_120.png
http://forums.matronics.com//files/coil_current_893.png
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
If nuisance tripping occurs, a capacitor (s) connected between U1 Pin 1 (FB1) and
ground might help.
-
Eric, post 1 explains that R5 is optional to eliminate the pot.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504581#504581
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> Eric, post 1 explains that R5 is optional to eliminate the pot.
Yep, I saw that, but it doesn't explain four resistors on the board. Perhaps single
E96 resistors didn't offer the exact values needed, but end-of-range precision
isn't important and you'd end up with a tolerance stack anyway.
I guess it doesn't really matter; I was just curious about it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504588#504588
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
| From: | "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com> |
> Looking at the 3D rendering image that you posted, I would be worried about the
board layout. If the trace under the "R2" and "D1" markings is the only copper
carrying trip current to the SCR, and if it's as narrow as it appears, then
I'm concerned that the trace may burn open before it can blow the fuse. Blowing
a typical fuse in a reasonably short time takes significantly more than its
rated current
Thanks for the observation Eric. A good question and I'll ask about it.
Yes, I had planned to test the board extensively (with a battery driven circuit)
when they arrive.
With regard to the resistors, no doubt that addiing the components seems rather
arbitrary to me as well, particularly R5. The pot + R1 was a convienience related
to resistor sizing and availablility.
--------
Dan Theis
Scratch building Sonex #1362
Still working on the Revmaster Alternator improvement
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504592#504592
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
| From: | "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com> |
> If nuisance tripping occurs, a capacitor (s) connected between U1 Pin 1 (FB1)
and ground might help
Thanks Joe,
I meant to include the data sheet for U1 in my original post and on page 10 (I
believe) they define modifying C1 to achieve a debounce desired.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/1696fb.pdf
I think the existing selection provides a time delay of 10 to 11 usec, depending
on the voltage sensed. Yes, I think you are correct that this might be a bit
too "twitchy." Using the added cap as you suggest is certainly an easy way
to modify the behavior without component replacement. Something that might be
necessary for any specific aplication.
--------
Dan Theis
Scratch building Sonex #1362
Still working on the Revmaster Alternator improvement
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504593#504593
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Lamb <n254bl(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors |
Coming Soon!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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
A quick reminder that November is the annual Matronics List Fund Raiser. The Lists
are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are covered solely
through your Contributions during this time of the year.
*Your* personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics
Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free.
Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running for another
great year!
Use a credit card or your PayPal account here:
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, by sending a personal check to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Even though the Browns have a solid defense |
| From: | "Skyzhay" <fistonedr(at)gmail.com> |
The issue could be Mut 22 coins (https://www.mmoexp.com/Nfl-22/Coins.html) self-inflicted, as Next Gen Stats show Wilson and Fields in particular are holding the ball too long in the NFL, as per NFL Media's Daniel Jeremiah.
This is partly due to issues with personnel and issue with the system. Matt Nagy,
the Bears' starter, asked Fields to play the role of "Dude who Backs Andy Dalton"
rather than "Insanely Athletic First-Round Selector Playing behind Bad
Offensive Line." The decision to use Fields was to make life easier for Fields.
Take the pocket and move it. Get him out on the edge. Cut the field in half.
You can run a number of RPO's to shift the odds in your favor with an offensive
line that is questionable.
Even though the Browns have a solid defense, the offensive coach permitted a new
quarterback to record 6-for-20. This resulted in 47 net yards on 42 plays (1.1
per player). and one net passing yard. It's not a typo: The Bears only had
one passing yard. In 2021. A full football match. The field was populated by 11
players. Fields was punched nine times. Nine times? Nine times. Mr. Nagy, wake
up and get a cup of coffee.
It's possible they're not that bad, as they are at the very least hiring an experienced
coach to oversee the roster that has limited talent. This is in contrast
to an older coaching staff with no talent like the Bears. They're sucking
the energy out of their fans with a listless performance, however.
Wilson's first season is cause to be concerned. Wilson was to be the guy to watch
for the whole season. This was made possible by trading Sam Darnold. Wilson
is being pressured all the time because Mekhi Becton has been absent. The run
game is yet to be seen and will not occur until the Jets play a more favorable
defensive matchup.
In Week 3 Mac Jones buy mut coins madden 22 (https://www.mmoexp.com/Nfl-22/Coins.html) played his most difficult game of the season, throwing a trio so badly that it caused only a few groans from his head coach.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504682#504682
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Van=99s?= Fuel Injected Pressure Gauge |
wanted
| From: | "John M Tipton" <johntiptonuk(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Guys
Im looking for a Vans Fuel (Injected) Pressure gauge, yes, a steam gauge traditional/classic
dial instrument.
If anyone has updated to glass and have one lying around, Id be pleased to hear
from you.
Regards
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=504685#504685
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make |
A Contribution Today!
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way
of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists. Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List
of Contributors (LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years,
the List seems at least as valuable a building / entertainment tool as your
typical magazine subscription!
Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the
Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your
Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
https://matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have
helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
A quick reminder that November is the annual Matronics List Fund Raiser. The Lists
are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are covered solely
through your Contributions during this time of the year.
*Your* personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics
Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free.
Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running for another
great year!
Use a credit card or your PayPal account here:
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, by sending a personal check to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar |
>
>I think the existing selection provides a time delay of 10 to 11
>usec, depending on the voltage sensed. Yes, I think you are correct
>that this might be a bit too "twitchy." Using the added cap as you
>suggest is certainly an easy way to modify the behavior without
>component replacement. Something that might be necessary for any
>specific aplication.
Legacy qualification for 14v avionics cites
a requirement to stand off a 20v surge for
1 Second; 40v surge for 100 mS.
Waaayyyy back when, we adjusted ov trip time
constants to respond to a 14.2 to 20V step
input in 50 plus or minus a few milliseconds.
While 'useful' it was far faster than necessary
and occasionally caused problems with nuisance
tripping.
If I were updating the OVM14, it would be
processor based with a software timer that
trips for any voltage event exceeding
15 volts by more than 500 mS. If the input
drops below 16v before time-out, the timer
resets and starts over.
In any case, your trip response time target is
defined in HUNDREDS of milliseconds.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Crowbar (correction) |
If I were updating the OVM14, it would be
processor based with a software timer that
trips for any voltage event exceeding
15 volts by more than 500 mS. If the input
drops below 15v before time-out, the timer
resets and starts over.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort
of my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment
tool as your typical magazine subscription!
Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is
fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
https://matronics.com/contribution
or by popping a personal check in the mail to:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have
helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just Two Days Left... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a Two days left for this year's List Fund Raiser! If you've been
putting off making a Contribution until the last minute, well, this is it!
The last minute, that is... :-) There are some GREAT new gift selections to choose
from this year. I personally want at least three of them! There's probably
something you can't live without too! And, best of all it supports your
Lists!
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser. Let's make this a "Black Friday" for the Lists!
Please make a Contribution today!
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser! |
Dear Listers,
It's November 30th and that always means a couple of things. Its my birthday again
- 58! :-) But it also means that it's that last official day of the Matronics
Email List Fund Raiser! If you been thinking about picking up one of those
really nice incentive gifts now is the time to jump on it!!
If you've been meaning to make a Contribution this month but have been putting
it off for some reason, NOW is the time!
I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want
to be known as a person that supported the Lists!
I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution this year in
support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation running
and I don't ever forget it.
The List Contribution Web Site is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making
your Contribution right now:
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
Thank you in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | S-Tec system 30 issues - update - Resolved |
I was able to contact a technician at Genesys.
We started by isolating the Pitch computer and found the internal fuse had
blown.
Replaced the fuse and checked the wires for shorts.
Full functionality restored!
Thanks for everyone's help!
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of recapen(at)earthlink.net
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 12:50 PM
rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: S-Tec system 30 issues
After 12 years, my S-Tec system 30 doesn't want to come ready.
I have checked the fuses for the AP and TC. The TC flag retracts so I that
looks OK. The GPSS interface stays lit and functional. It didn't grab the
stick and clunk for pitch or roll as normal.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
N822AR "Patience" @ N06
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | DIY VOR/ILS diplexer? |
Good morning,
A friend needs to install either an ILS antenna, or acquire a diplexer to
split his existing VOR antenna signal to feed both the VOR and ILS inputs
on his Garmin 530. A diplexer would obviously be lighter & easier to
install, but off-the-shelf models tend to cost more than an antenna. I
thought that the Aeroelectric site had a circuit diagram for rolling your
own diplexer, but I haven't been able to find it. Can anyone help with this?
Thanks,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DIY VOR/ILS diplexer? |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Here's a program that will design the filter elements for a diplexer...
http://www.tonnesoftware.com/elsie.html
...and here's a video by Alan Wolke (W2AEW) explaining diplexers and demonstrating
one that he built.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv79DSqVi9w
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505209#505209
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DIY VOR/ILS diplexer? |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Or, if you don't mind laying out your own board, Mini-Circuits sells pre-made band-pass
filter elements that are specifically designed for the VOR/ILS and GS
frequency bands:
https://tinyurl.com/mtp67ycw+
https://tinyurl.com/yc2zt4d8+
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505210#505210
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DIY VOR/ILS diplexer? |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Someone with more knowledge of RF wizardry could tell us whether this would work,
but another possibility occurs to me. Put a simple tee splitter on the antenna
feedline, then in-line low pass and high pass filters feeding the VOR/LOC
and GS receivers, respectively. You would need some adapters to accommodate
the filters' SMA connectors.
https://www.digikey.com/short/vf3vrnwj
https://www.digikey.com/short/hm2t9wtd
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505212#505212
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DIY VOR/ILS diplexer? |
At 09:14 AM 12/10/2021, you wrote:
>
>Or, if you don't mind laying out your own board, Mini-Circuits sells
>pre-made band-pass filter elements that are specifically designed
>for the VOR/ILS and GS frequency bands:
>
>https://tinyurl.com/mtp67ycw
>
>https://tinyurl.com/yc2zt4d8
>
You need to remove the + signs from those
links for them to work. Those would
take all the uncertainty and post fabrication
verification concerns. I've built those from
discrete components but had access to test
equipment to make sure they were working
as desired.
But then, these are experimental airplanes where
you can do in-flight performance checks to see
if your own design goals are met. Some pretty
'soft' antenna systems have been found adequate
to task.
On the other side of the coin, what's your
labor worth? There are numerous offers on
eBay for about the same price as the Mini-Circuits
devices . . . they're all packaged up
and ready to go.
https://tinyurl.com/yckhtnet
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DIY VOR/ILS diplexer? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Jim Weir has written articles about splitting an ILS signal from a VOR antenna.
https://www.kitplanes.com/tall-transmission-tales/
Note that his diagram shows an inductor but the text explains that a 10-picofarad
capacitor with straight leads has enough inductance without a separate coil.
Below by Bob posted years ago:
Actually, you can fabricate a nifty antenna just from coax cable. In this case,
you clean off the outer jacket of your feedline about 11". If it's a double shielded
coax, strip of the outer layer of shield too. Pull center conductor out
of the remaining shield as illustrated here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html Stretch the center conductor and remaining braid out into a dipole and trim each to 8.5" per side. Glue to 1/4" wood or plastic dowel 17" long. Just spot it in a few places to fixture it on the dowel. Then put pieces of heat shrink over each leg of the dipole to "dress it up". This technique eliminates the process-sensitive and never pretty junction between antenna elements and the feedline. It's all one piece. Bob
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505218#505218
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DIY VOR/ILS diplexer? |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the ideas. Ebay is certainly the best option, but I've passed
on the various possibilities to my friend.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DIY VOR/ILS diplexer? |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> You need to remove the + signs from those links for them to work.
The + sign is a documented feature of the TinyURL service. It causes their server
to display a preview screen where the user can see the URL hes being taken
to, before actually going there. Its intended as a safety measure, to reassure
users that theyre not being sent to a malicious website by an obfuscated hyperlink.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505222#505222
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DIY VOR/ILS diplexer? |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> Jim Weir has written articles about splitting an ILS signal from a VOR antenna.
I knew I had seen that recently! Kitplanes republished that idea in the Dec 2021
issue, and Jim showed it built as a stand-alone device. That part of the article
begins at the bottom of page 2 in the attached PDF.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505223#505223
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/potpourri_153.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
| From: | "bigginsking" <bjudge(at)gmail.com> |
Greetings,
Someone was kind enough to let me know I should post something on this forum about
my new generator.
Device name: MZ-30L.
Description: 2.6 lb, 30 amp, vacuum pad driven generator for experimental aircraft
running Lycoming engines.
Company: Monkworkz.
Price: $995.
Installation manual and frequently asked questions are on the website: http://monkworkz.com
A bit of commentary:
The manual is long and detailed because this device is different than anything
else for this application.
It does everything I need in a single power source. I can run solely on this power
source from start up to shutdown and I'm at a towered field where long taxis
and ground delays are common.
I have an IFR RV-8 with dual electronic ignition and I wanted a backup power source
that wasn't difficult to install, powerful enough to carry all of my typical
loads, and light enough to offer a substantial weight savings over a single
alternator/dual battery PC625 setup. This device checks all of those boxes for
me. Onboard fuse and current shunt are bonuses on top of that.
RPM vs power output:
The manual objectively addresses this: ~900-1000 is where you will get 15 amps.
But subjectively, even at 700-800 RPM I still get enough power for my plane but
not 15 amps and there are periods when I'm slowing down that the battery is
carrying my system. From the Sacramento Sky Ranch Manual, 2nd edition, on idle
speed, pg 137: "An Idle Speed of 1100 is necessary with cold oil to create sufficient
splash." Given that, 900 RPM shouldn't be a problem for anyone but you
know your own airplane. For me, even doing just a lap or two around the pattern
I come back with a charged battery after tower delays, and long taxis out
and back.
Cooling:
It does require one more cooling duct than a traditional alternator, I have measured
what the difference is in pressure delta between the top and bottom of the
cylinders and it is on the order of 1.7%, and about the difference you would
see from changing airspeed by 1 knot.
Field testing:
There are ten prototypes in the field. Below is a list of the types of planes,
and who has them. If you know them, please feel free to contact them. Most have
authorized me to put prospective buyers in contact with them, so contact me
if you would like to talk with them and I'll make the connection. In three cases
I did the installation myself but for the rest of these I provided the manual
and they were able to install it with very few or no questions. In one case,
basically all I heard back was "All good so far, no issues" (Paul Rosales).
RV-8 - Bill Judge (Primary power, alternator is backup)
Please don't ask me how long it took to develop this thing.
Tailwind - 2021 Raspet Awardee [google that] (sole means of power)
Are you sure you want to be associated with me?
Harmon Rocket - Adam Pontius (Backup, dual electronic ignition)
Flawless.
RV-4 - Paul Kessel (Backup, dual electronic ignition)
Completely good! If you want to use me as a reference for people to call I am fine
with that as well!
RV-4 Dave Anders (Backup, dual electronic ignition)
I think youve got a winner.
RV-3 - Wheeler North (Backup, dual electronic ignition)
Don't you want me to pay for this?
RV-10 - Rich Jankowski (Backup, IFR platform)
RV10, LYC IO-540 BU DC generator performs flawlessly! Easy to install!
RV-10 - Joe Waltz (Backup, IFR platform)
Glad to report that all testing has gone well.
Lancair IVP - Bob Pastusek (LOBO founder, long time Maintenance officer, 28V version
on a continental TSIO 550, backup power for an IFR platform)
N437RP, a Lancair IV-P based in Ft Worth, TX. Bob Knuckles model Z dual 28 volt
electrical system. The alternator normally runs in on-line standby mode at an
output voltage just less than the primary alternator. In this mode it outputs
1-2 amps continuously to aircraft systems. If the primary alternator fails or
is taken off-line, the standby automatically picks up the full steady-state power
requirement of 14-15 amps during daylight ops and 18-20 amps at night.
I could not be happier with it!!
RV-6 - Paul Rosales (backup power)
I cant thank you enough for this and giving me great great great peace of mind!
Rosie
Letting someone else put something in your airplane is a huge decision. All of
these guys volunteered and I'm incredibly grateful for that. Big thanks to all
of them. They are all still running them.
I see two use cases for the MZ-30L:
1. Primary power for a magneto ignition day VFR plane where minimum weight is a
priority.
2. Backup power for planes that are dependent on electrical power whether that's
dual electronic iginition or IFR.
I think that the MZ-30L can do both well in almost every case, but every application
is going to vary and have compromises: Such as spending $995 vs $100 at
autozone or one vs two 3/4 inch ducts that probably represent a 1% change in cooling
capacity.
Please contact me if you're interested: bill(at)monkworkz.com or info(at)monkworkz.com.
I want to get an understanding of each user's application before I sell them
a unit and make sure that it is right for them. My website will eventually support
online purchases.
Here is the boilerplate info about the unit:
Monkworkz, LLC is proud to introduce the MZ-30L(Patent Pending) for Lycoming and
similar engines. A clean sheet design to aircraft power that leverages the most
recent advancements in power electronics and electromechanical machinery.
The MZ-30L is a 30 amp, 3 pound, vacuum pad driven generator for 14 volt electrical
systems. It can be used in backup or primary power applications and is optimized
for easy installation on experimental aircraft.
The MZ-30L has several features that simplify installation and add capability,
including:
Self-exciting: no external phantom current needed to generate power.
Fast (~5 ms) electronic current limiting backed up with an integrated fuse.
Integrated current shunt: read current from a shunt provided with the device.
Integrated current measurement with proportional voltage output: 0-4.4 volts that
scales linearly with current out for input to EFIS/EIS systems or other device.
Compact design with a compact shear coupling: Generator depth is less than 4 inches
from the vacuum pad face. Diameter is less than 2.5 inches.
Intelligent integration with other power sources: in a backup power application
the MZ-30L actively monitors bus voltage and comes on line ~200 ms after bus
voltage drops below spec.
Remote Enable: Allows installation of pilot operated switch to enable/disable the
device.
*Also available: 28 V versions, and versions for Continental engines where the
vacuum pad RPM is 1.5 times the crankshaft RPM.
~15 amps available at 1000 rpm on engines where the vacuum pad RPM is 1.3 times
the crankshaft RPM, 30 amps available above 1800 crank RPM
--------
Bill Judge
N84WJ, RV-8
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505229#505229
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
'Someone' should have mentioned that this list/forum is an advertising-free
zone=2E I wasted 5 valuable minutes of my life thinking I might be able to
help you with a problem=2E
=81=A3Get BlueMail for Android =8B
On Dec 12, 2021, 1:07 AM, at 1:07 AM, bigginsking wrot
e:
>
>
>Greetings,
>
>Someone was kind enough to let me know I should po
st something on this
>forum about my new generator=2E
>
>
>Device name: MZ-
30L=2E
>Description: 2=2E6 lb, 30 amp, vacuum pad driven generator for
>exp
erimental aircraft running Lycoming engines=2E
>Company: Monkworkz=2E
>Pric
e: $995=2E
>
>Installation manual and frequently asked questions are on the
website:
>http://monkworkz=2Ecom
>
>A bit of commentary:
>The manual is lo
ng and detailed because this device is different than
>anything else for th
is application=2E
>
>It does everything I need in a single power source=2E
I can run solely on
>this power source from start up to shutdown and I'm at
a towered field
>where long taxis and ground delays are common=2E
>
>I hav
e an IFR RV-8 with dual electronic ignition and I wanted a backup
>power so
urce that wasn't difficult to install, powerful enough to carry
>all of my
typical loads, and light enough to offer a substantial weight
>savings over
a single alternator/dual battery PC625 setup=2E This device
>checks all of
those boxes for me=2E Onboard fuse and current shunt are
>bonuses on top o
f that=2E
>
>RPM vs power output:
>The manual objectively addresses this: ~
900-1000 is where you will get
>15 amps=2E But subjectively, even at 700-80
0 RPM I still get enough power
>for my plane but not 15 amps and there are
periods when I'm slowing
>down that the battery is carrying my system=2E Fr
om the Sacramento Sky
>Ranch Manual, 2nd edition, on idle speed, pg 137: "A
n Idle Speed of
>1100 is necessary with cold oil to create sufficient splas
h=2E" Given
>that, 900 RPM shouldn't be a problem for anyone but you know y
our own
>airplane=2E For me, even doing just a lap or two around the patter
n I
>come back with a charged battery after tower delays, and long taxis ou
t
>and back=2E
>
>Cooling:
>It does require one more cooling duct than a tr
aditional alternator, I
>have measured what the difference is in pressure d
elta between the top
>and bottom of the cylinders and it is on the order of
1=2E7%, and about
>the difference you would see from changing airspeed by
1 knot=2E
>
>Field testing:
>There are ten prototypes in the field=2E Below
is a list of the types of
>planes, and who has them=2E If you know them, p
lease feel free to contact
>them=2E Most have authorized me to put prospect
ive buyers in contact with
>them, so contact me if you would like to talk w
ith them and I'll make
>the connection=2E In three cases I did the installa
tion myself but for
>the rest of these I provided the manual and they were
able to install
>it with very few or no questions=2E In one case, basically
all I heard
>back was "All good so far, no issues" (Paul Rosales)=2E
>
>RV
-8 - Bill Judge (Primary power, alternator is backup)
>Please don't ask me
how long it took to develop this thing=2E
>
>Tailwind - 2021 Raspet Awardee
[google that] (sole means of power)
>Are you sure you want to be associate
d with me?
>
>Harmon Rocket - Adam Pontius (Backup, dual electronic ignitio
n)
>Flawless=2E
>
>RV-4 - Paul Kessel (Backup, dual electronic ignition)
>C
ompletely good! If you want to use me as a reference for people to
>call I
am fine with that as well!
>
>RV-4 Dave Anders (Backup, dual electronic ign
ition)
>I think you=C3=A2=C2=C2=99ve got a winner=2E
>
>RV-3 - Wheeler N
orth (Backup, dual electronic ignition)
>Don't you want me to pay for this?
>
>RV-10 - Rich Jankowski (Backup, IFR platform)
>RV10, LYC IO-540 BU DC g
enerator performs flawlessly! Easy to install!
>
>RV-10 - Joe Waltz (Backup
, IFR platform)
>Glad to report that all testing has gone well=2E
>
>Lancai
r IVP - Bob Pastusek (LOBO founder, long time Maintenance
>officer, 28V ver
sion on a continental TSIO 550, backup power for an IFR
>platform)
>
>N437R
P, a Lancair IV-P based in Ft Worth, TX=2E Bob Knuckles =C3=A2=C2=C2=9Cm
odel
>Z=C3=A2=C2=C2=9D dual 28 volt electrical system=2E The alternator
normally runs in
>=C3=A2=C2=C2=9Con-line standby=C3=A2=C2=C2=9D mode
at an output voltage just less than the
>primary alternator=2E In this mode
it outputs 1-2 amps continuously to
>aircraft systems=2E If the primary al
ternator fails or is taken off-line,
>the standby automatically picks up th
e full steady-state power
>requirement of 14-15 amps during daylight ops an
d 18-20 amps at night=2E
>I could not be happier with it!!
>
>RV-6 - Paul R
osales (backup power)
>
>I can=C3=A2=C2=C2=99t thank you enough for this
and giving me great great great
>peace of mind! Rosie
>
>Letting someone e
lse put something in your airplane is a huge decision=2E
>All of these guys
volunteered and I'm incredibly grateful for that=2E Big
>thanks to all of
them=2E They are all still running them=2E
>
>I see two use cases for the M
Z-30L:
>1=2E Primary power for a magneto ignition day VFR plane where minim
um
>weight is a priority=2E
>2=2E Backup power for planes that are dependen
t on electrical power
>whether that's dual electronic iginition or IFR=2E
>
>I think that the MZ-30L can do both well in almost every case, but
>every
application is going to vary and have compromises: Such as
>spending $995
vs $100 at autozone or one vs two 3/4 inch ducts that
>probably represent a
1% change in cooling capacity=2E
>
>Please contact me if you're interested
: bill@monkworkz=2Ecom or
>info@monkworkz=2Ecom=2E I want to get an underst
anding of each user's
>application before I sell them a unit and make sure
that it is right
>for them=2E My website will eventually support online pur
chases=2E
>
>Here is the boilerplate info about the unit:
>
>Monkworkz, LLC
is proud to introduce the MZ-30L(Patent Pending) for
>Lycoming and similar
engines=2E A clean sheet design to aircraft power
>that leverages the most
recent advancements in power electronics and
>electromechanical machinery
=2E The MZ-30L is a 30 amp, 3 pound, vacuum
>pad driven generator for 14 vo
lt electrical systems=2E It can be used in
>backup or primary power applica
tions and is optimized for easy
>installation on experimental aircraft=2E
>
>The MZ-30L has several features that simplify installation and add
>capab
ility, including:
>Self-exciting: no external phantom current needed to gen
erate power=2E
>Fast (~5 ms) electronic current limiting backed up with an
integrated
>fuse=2E
>Integrated current shunt: read current from a shunt p
rovided with the
>device=2E
>Integrated current measurement with proportion
al voltage output: 0-4=2E4
>volts that scales linearly with current out for
input to EFIS/EIS
>systems or other device=2E
>Compact design with a compa
ct shear coupling: Generator depth is less
>than 4 inches from the vacuum p
ad face=2E Diameter is less than 2=2E5
>inches=2E
>Intelligent integration
with other power sources: in a backup power
>application the MZ-30L activel
y monitors bus voltage and comes on line
>~200 ms after bus voltage drops b
elow spec=2E
>Remote Enable: Allows installation of pilot operated switch t
o
>enable/disable the device=2E
>
>*Also available: 28 V versions, and vers
ions for Continental engines
>where the vacuum pad RPM is 1=2E5 times the c
rankshaft RPM=2E
>~15 amps available at 1000 rpm on engines where the vacuu
m pad RPM is
>1=2E3 times the crankshaft RPM, 30 amps available above 1800
crank RPM
>
>--------
>Bill Judge
>N84WJ, RV-8
>
>
>Read this topic onl
ine here:
>
>http://forums=2Ematronics=2Ecom/viewtopic=2Ephp?p=505229#505
229
>
>
================
eroElectric-List Email Forum -
ator to browse
re, and much much more:
vigator?AeroElectric-List
=====================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
ble via the Web Forums!
=============
ICS LIST WIKI -
= --> http://wiki=2Ematronics=2Ecom
ur generous support!
Admin=2E
=====
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
| From: | "bigginsking" <bjudge(at)gmail.com> |
Ceengland wrote:
> 'Someone' should have mentioned that this list/forum is an advertising-free zone.
I wasted 5 valuable minutes of my life thinking I might be able to help you
with a problem.
Apologies, I don't know exactly how you are supposed to find out about anything
new with that sort of mentality. The list guidelines also say that postings of
this sort are fine. Sorry if this came off as SPAM. As I mentioned someone from
this list suggested that I post here because what I have developed is useful
for this forum, I'm not selling unrelated tchotchkes here, this is something
that could provide utility to the subscribers here.
Matt Dralle wrote:
> - Occassional posts by vendors or individuals who are regularyly
> subscribed to a given List are considered acceptable. Posts by
> List members promoting their respective products or items for sale
> should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble
> a typical SPAM message. The List isn't about commercialism, but
> is about sharing information and knowledge. This applies to
> everyone, including those who provide products to the entire
> community. Informal presentation and moderation should be the
> operatives with respect to advertising on the Lists.
--------
Bill Judge
N84WJ, RV-8
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505232#505232
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neil Parkinson <nwparkinson(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
Well I think your product looks amazing ! Im glad you posted it !
> On 12 Dec 2021, at 17:40, bigginsking wrote:
>
>
>
> Ceengland wrote:
>> 'Someone' should have mentioned that this list/forum is an advertising-free
zone. I wasted 5 valuable minutes of my life thinking I might be able to help
you with a problem.
>
>
> Apologies, I don't know exactly how you are supposed to find out about anything
new with that sort of mentality. The list guidelines also say that postings
of this sort are fine. Sorry if this came off as SPAM. As I mentioned someone
from this list suggested that I post here because what I have developed is useful
for this forum, I'm not selling unrelated tchotchkes here, this is something
that could provide utility to the subscribers here.
>
>
>
> Matt Dralle wrote:
>> - Occassional posts by vendors or individuals who are regularyly
>> subscribed to a given List are considered acceptable. Posts by
>> List members promoting their respective products or items for sale
>> should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble
>> a typical SPAM message. The List isn't about commercialism, but
>> is about sharing information and knowledge. This applies to
>> everyone, including those who provide products to the entire
>> community. Informal presentation and moderation should be the
>> operatives with respect to advertising on the Lists.
>
>
> --------
> Bill Judge
> N84WJ, RV-8
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505232#505232
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
Posts by
> List members promoting their respective products or items for sale
> should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble
> a typical SPAM message.
To be fair, your most recent previous post seems to have been about 3 1/2
years ago, and your name/email didn't look like a regular, frequently seen
member.
'My new generator' sounded to me like it was a product you bought &
installed on your airplane, leading up to a pirep or a request for help
troubleshooting; not a product you're trying to market to the list.
The long list of testimonials read like the email version of an
infomercial. You could have stated directly that you had a new product for
sale that might be of interest to members, and we could get full info from
your website. Two or three sentences & those interested would have gone
looking, and everyone else could have hit delete.
Shame on me I suppose, for being gullible enough to read all the way to the
testimonials before realizing that I was reading an ad instead of a request
for help.
;-)
Charlie
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:43 AM bigginsking wrote:
>
>
> Ceengland wrote:
> > 'Someone' should have mentioned that this list/forum is an
> advertising-free zone. I wasted 5 valuable minutes of my life thinking I
> might be able to help you with a problem.
>
>
> Apologies, I don't know exactly how you are supposed to find out about
> anything new with that sort of mentality. The list guidelines also say that
> postings of this sort are fine. Sorry if this came off as SPAM. As I
> mentioned someone from this list suggested that I post here because what I
> have developed is useful for this forum, I'm not selling unrelated
> tchotchkes here, this is something that could provide utility to the
> subscribers here.
>
>
> Matt Dralle wrote:
> > - Occassional posts by vendors or individuals who are regularyly
> > subscribed to a given List are considered acceptable. Posts by
> > List members promoting their respective products or items for sale
> > should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble
> > a typical SPAM message. The List isn't about commercialism, but
> > is about sharing information and knowledge. This applies to
> > everyone, including those who provide products to the entire
> > community. Informal presentation and moderation should be the
> > operatives with respect to advertising on the Lists.
>
>
> --------
> Bill Judge
> N84WJ, RV-8
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505232#505232
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
At 07:20 AM 12/12/2021, you wrote:
>'Someone' should have mentioned that this list/forum is an advertising-free
>zone. I wasted 5 valuable minutes of my life thinking I might be
>able to help you with a problem.
>
>Get BlueMail for Android
>On Dec 12, 2021, at 1:07 AM, bigginsking
><bjudge(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Greetings,
>
>
>Someone was kind enough to let me know I should post something on
>this forum about my new generator.
Don't know that his post is so much 'advertising' as it is
useful information for future planning. This product is a
contemporary offspring of the PM 'dynamo' style alternators.
A sibling of the family of alternators launched into OBAM
Aircraft by B&C back in the dark ages.
This device has the look and smell of having benefited from
a lot of thought and hard work. It's a 3-phase machine which
gives it a leg up on watts/cu-cm. Also, it no doubt
benefits from some improvements in magnetics. The addition
of forced air cooling suggests a trade-off for using
more turns of smaller wire to improve low rpm
performance at the expense of heat rejection in wires
that drive the cooling requirement. It's compact
size will also call for increased attention to
cooling.
Note: back in the early days of shift from vacuum
tubes to transistors, many installers were somewhat
perplexed by the need for cooling plenums on a full
stack of new radios. While the new kids did
use less energy from the bus, they were also MUCH
more compact . . . i.e. watts/cu-cm was often as
high in a solid state radio as some tube types.
The transistors back then were less tolerant of
high temperatures too . . . a condition that pretty
much disappeared.
The supporting literature seems well crafted. The
only thing I missed was an RPM vs. available current
at bus voltage.
I note a feature in the regulator for sensing internal
temperature of the alternator. I'm guessing it's
to effect protective shut down or dial-back of output
current in rare cases of low cooling air and high
current draw. The rectifier/regulator also offers
some interesting system integration features.
This 'new kid' on the block seems worthy of your
consideration for configuring your ship's hardware.
If anyone has personal observations or knowledge
about this product's induction into the society
of civilized aircraft systems, please share them
with the group!
Bill, thanks for the heads-up! No sweat Charlie
. . . 'he done good'.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
| From: | "bigginsking" <bjudge(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Bob!
For sure using neodymium magnets rather than ferrite makes the power density higher.
The next issue is handling the variable voltage from the generator, and
thanks to advancements in power electronics that is something that can be done
now at a scale that is interesting for this application.
Below 1800 RPM it will current limit at 15 amps, it does this by reducing the output
voltage. At ~1000 RPM you can get around 15 amps, but maybe at 13.5V, at
around 1100 or so you will get 15 amps. Over 1800 RPM it will limit at 30 amps.
The thermistor on the generator serves as a "guard rail" to prevent destroying
the device if the cooling isn't installed as directed by the installation manual.
there are also three thermistors on the circuit board of the regulator as
well.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thanks,
Bill
--------
Bill Judge
N84WJ, RV-8
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505236#505236
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
Bill,
Thanks for the post about your new alternator. I appreciated it. Now if I
come across an installation I have a better chance of recognizing it.
These forums and Sport Aviation are about my only sources for OBAM aircraft.
Quick question that probably has very little to do with any practical
aspect: Why is the magnet on the outside? I was just involved with a PM
alternator that seems like the opposite of yours:
[image: image.png]
The magnet turns inside the housing. I think this one outputs about half
of what you're advertising, but I don't know if that's a function of the
layout or something else. The physical size is about 2/3 of yours and I
think it turns about twice the speed.
Just curious,
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
| From: | "bigginsking" <bjudge(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Dave,
The magnets are on the outside because you get more voltage out of that configuration
vs internal rotating magnets. I don't honestly know the physics but that's
how it works out.
Bill
--------
Bill Judge
N84WJ, RV-8
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505247#505247
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
Nice design, Bill - thanks for sharing the info and making a neat new
product available!
Magnets on the outside puts them at a greater radius from the shaft, and
therefore they move at a higher linear speed for a given RPM, compared to
an arrangement with them inside the stator. Faster motion of magnets past
the coils gives more volts - Faraday's law.
Henry
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 23:16 bigginsking wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> The magnets are on the outside because you get more voltage out of that
> configuration vs internal rotating magnets. I don't honestly know the
> physics but that's how it works out.
>
> Bill
>
> --------
> Bill Judge
> N84WJ, RV-8
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505247#505247
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
EMF would depend on the number of field lines cut by the coils per second, n
ot any linear speed; whether the magnets are on the inside or the outside th
e field lines cut per revolution would be the same.
Maybe there=99s room for bigger magnets on the outside? But then there
=99s room for fewer coil turns.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 14, 2021, at 04:22, Henry Hallam wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
> Nice design, Bill - thanks for sharing the info and making a neat new prod
uct available!
>
> Magnets on the outside puts them at a greater radius from the shaft, and t
herefore they move at a higher linear speed for a given RPM, compared to an a
rrangement with them inside the stator. Faster motion of magnets past the co
ils gives more volts - Faraday's law.
>
> Henry
>
>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 23:16 bigginsking wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> The magnets are on the outside because you get more voltage out of that c
onfiguration vs internal rotating magnets. I don't honestly know the physics
but that's how it works out.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> --------
>> Bill Judge
>> N84WJ, RV-8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505247#505247
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.
com
>> ==========
>> WIKI -
>> errer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> ="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://matronics
.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John M Tipton" <johntiptonuk(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Guys
What is the correct/recommended solder (ratio) to use for us when we do need to
solder a couple of wires together
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505250#505250
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: What Solder !!! |
Hello John
I am no expert, but I remember being recommended the 60/40.
Cheers
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
> No dia 14/12/2021, s 14:24, John M Tipton escreveu:
>
>
> Hi Guys
>
> What is the correct/recommended solder (ratio) to use for us when we do need
to solder a couple of wires together
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505250#505250
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What Solder !!! |
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:20 AM John M Tipton
wrote:
> johntiptonuk(at)hotmail.com>
>
> Hi Guys
>
> What is the correct/recommended solder (ratio) to use for us when we do
> need to solder a couple of wires together
>
> John
>
I spent an entire career sticking wires together with Kester 60/40 rosin
core electronics solder, and then heard about 63/37, which makes getting a
good joint, if not a no-brainer, at least a less-brainer. Either works
fine on properly executed joints. If I ever use up what's left of my 60/40,
I'll buy some 63/37.
Quick link to Kester
.
If you're a full grown adult doing this as a hobby, you can put what's left
of the roll in your will, and your kids can probably do the same in theirs.
;-)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What Solder !!! |
EDIT! I got sloppy doing the search. I didn't pay attention to the part #
of that Kester solder. Might be great, but the stuff I've used is Kester 44.
Sorry for the confusion.
Charlie
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:58 AM Charlie England
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:20 AM John M Tipton
> wrote:
>
>> johntiptonuk(at)hotmail.com>
>>
>> Hi Guys
>>
>> What is the correct/recommended solder (ratio) to use for us when we do
>> need to solder a couple of wires together
>>
>> John
>>
> I spent an entire career sticking wires together with Kester 60/40 rosin
> core electronics solder, and then heard about 63/37, which makes getting a
> good joint, if not a no-brainer, at least a less-brainer. Either works
> fine on properly executed joints. If I ever use up what's left of my 60/40,
> I'll buy some 63/37.
> Quick link to Kester
>
> .
> If you're a full grown adult doing this as a hobby, you can put what's
> left of the roll in your will, and your kids can probably do the same in
> theirs.
> ;-)
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What Solder !!! |
At 08:13 AM 12/14/2021, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Guys
>
>What is the correct/recommended solder (ratio) to use for us when we
>do need to solder a couple of wires together
>
>John
>
See attached . . .
Buying solder is a bit problematic . . . it's
increasingly expensive in the common put-ups (1 lb).
A pound of solder will last you a very long time.
Drop me an address and I'll send you some 63/37
in the mail that will probably service your
near term needs.
Alternatively, ebay is a good source for
smaller put-ups. Here's an exemplar offer
https://tinyurl.com/y24xwdmh
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monkworkz MZ-30L, 2.6 lb 30 amp generator |
At 06:33 AM 12/14/2021, you wrote:
>EMF would depend on the number of field lines cut by the coils per
>second, not any linear speed; whether the magnets are on the inside
>or the outside the field lines cut per revolution would be the same.
>
>Maybe there's room for bigger magnets on the outside? But then
>there's room for fewer coil turns.
Yes, larger magnets that produce MORE lines
for given flux density. Optimum turns will
be an exceedingly interactive trade off for
volume and core magnetics. The steel on which
the coils are situation is part of the flux
path. The steel is limited in how many lines
of flux it will carry. If the steel is being
operated high on it's saturation curve (desirable)
then going to bigger magnets may not proportionately
increase energy available from the machine.
The housing on which carries the magnets
may also be a critical part of the magnetic
circuit depending on the polarity configuration
of the magnets.
The performance of rotating electrics is driven
by a symphony of effects which interact with
each other any one of which can become a singular
limit . . . fine tuning these critters is an
art aided by nimble footed software!
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <Peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Low voltage warning light |
I'm looking for a low voltage warning light that illuminates at around 13.2
to 13.5 volts, can anyone recommend one?
I like having a large, bright, low voltage warning light in my panel that
indicates when the battery is supporting the electrical loads.
A few years ago I bought a self-contained large LED from Perihelion Design,
but that is no longer available and I have sold that aeroplane.
My current aeroplane does not have a good warning system so I would like to
buy another.
I could build one from an op amp and a couple of resistors, but I'm not that
great with electronics and I've got too much other stuff to do right now.
The Perihelion unit was well packaged and easy to install. I would like to
buy something similar. Can anyone recommend anything?
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 3:34 PM Peter Pengilly
wrote:
> I=99m looking for a low voltage warning light that illuminates at a
round
> 13.2 to 13.5 volts, can anyone recommend one?
>
>
> I like having a large, bright, low voltage warning light in my panel that
> indicates when the battery is supporting the electrical loads.
>
> A few years ago I bought a self-contained large LED from Perihelion
> Design, but that is no longer available and I have sold that aeroplane.
>
> My current aeroplane does not have a good warning system so I would like
> to buy another.
>
> I could build one from an op amp and a couple of resistors, but I
=99m not
> that great with electronics and I=99ve got too much other stuff to
do right
> now. The Perihelion unit was well packaged and easy to install. I would
> like to buy something similar. Can anyone recommend anything?
>
>
> Peter
>
Hi Peter,
Dan Horton (posts on Van's Air Force, and sometimes on HBA) recommended
these modules, or a similar product, from TomTop:
https://www.tomtop.com/p-e1021.html#flow_qa
I bought a couple to play with a couple of years ago, but have never taken
the time to experiment with them. The site says they're currently out of
stock, but you might be able to find a similar product on the site. You'd
still need to add your own display lamp or LED; the device just provides a
set of 'dry' relay contacts.
Depending on which alternator you're using, it may well have built-in low
voltage detection; all you'd need to do in that case is hook up a wire to
your warning light (the alternator drives an 'idiot light').
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
I have a spare yellow incandescent light from B&C designed to be used with
their regulators. I used a pair of these regulators for my two-alternator
design, and have the low voltage warning light powered only by the
regulator for the backup alternator wired so that it extinguishes as long
as the main alternator is online, putting out its higher set voltage.
If you are using B&C or similar regulators, this bulb might be just what
you need. Yours for an SASE if it can be of help to your project.
Should show ok in this pic.
-Bill B
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:26 PM Charlie England
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 3:34 PM Peter Pengilly
> wrote:
>
>> I=99m looking for a low voltage warning light that illuminates at
around
>> 13.2 to 13.5 volts, can anyone recommend one?
>>
>>
>>
>> I like having a large, bright, low voltage warning light in my panel tha
t
>> indicates when the battery is supporting the electrical loads.
>>
>> A few years ago I bought a self-contained large LED from Perihelion
>> Design, but that is no longer available and I have sold that aeroplane.
>>
>> My current aeroplane does not have a good warning system so I would like
>> to buy another.
>>
>> I could build one from an op amp and a couple of resistors, but I
=99m not
>> that great with electronics and I=99ve got too much other stuff to
do right
>> now. The Perihelion unit was well packaged and easy to install. I would
>> like to buy something similar. Can anyone recommend anything?
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Dan Horton (posts on Van's Air Force, and sometimes on HBA) recommended
> these modules, or a similar product, from TomTop:
> https://www.tomtop.com/p-e1021.html#flow_qa
>
> I bought a couple to play with a couple of years ago, but have never take
n
> the time to experiment with them. The site says they're currently out of
> stock, but you might be able to find a similar product on the site. You'd
> still need to add your own display lamp or LED; the device just provides
a
> set of 'dry' relay contacts.
>
> Depending on which alternator you're using, it may well have built-in low
> voltage detection; all you'd need to do in that case is hook up a wire to
> your warning light (the alternator drives an 'idiot light').
>
> Charlie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Static On GTN-650 |
Hi everyone,
I bought some LED landing lights from Amazon Aircraft Supply and they
seem to produce some static noise on the GTN-650. I have conformed by
turning on/off the landing light switch that the LEDs are the appliance
that is producing the static and I have confirmed that the GTN is the
radio that I am hearing the static through because if I select the
second radio or the third selection (that does not have a radio) on the
SL-15 audio panel the static stops. I do not believe the static sound
is the squelch mode.
The airplane is fiberglass and the power and ground wires are not run
together with the GTN wiring.
The power for the lights comes from a copper bus bar and a KLIXON CB.
Is there some kind of way to filter out the noise?
THANKS for your help and advice!!!
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I don't have one of these but saw it on eBay for $23 plus $4 shipping.
eBay Item number: 302192182702
Description says, "blinking red indicator". Monitor trip voltage 11.9 volt +/-
10%, adjustable 10-14 volts.
Set at the factory, let us know what you need after you buy.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505294#505294
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Are audio jacks mounted with insulating washers to prevent them from being grounded
locally?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505296#505296
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
Another thing is we ordered about twice as many lights as needed and picked
the ones with the lowest noise.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:03 PM Sebastien wrote:
> We had the same problem with our amazon lights making noise in the
> intercom. Better headsets helped, finding one wiring problem in the
> intercom wiring helped, but the biggest fix was adding some noise filters
> to the lights. Here's the little filter box I made. It's not a great
> diagram, the box around the electronics is not wiring, it's a box.
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:02 PM William Hunter
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I bought some LED landing lights from Amazon Aircraft Supply and they
>> seem to produce some static noise on the GTN-650. I have conformed by
>> turning on/off the landing light switch that the LEDs are the appliance
>> that is producing the static and I have confirmed that the GTN is the radio
>> that I am hearing the static through because if I select the second radio
>> or the third selection (that does not have a radio) on the SL-15 audio
>> panel the static stops. I do not believe the static sound is the squelch
>> mode.
>>
>> The airplane is fiberglass and the power and ground wires are not run
>> together with the GTN wiring.
>>
>> The power for the lights comes from a copper bus bar and a KLIXON CB.
>>
>> Is there some kind of way to filter out the noise?
>>
>> THANKS for your help and advice!!!
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
We had the same problem with our amazon lights making noise in the
intercom. Better headsets helped, finding one wiring problem in the
intercom wiring helped, but the biggest fix was adding some noise filters
to the lights. Here's the little filter box I made. It's not a great
diagram, the box around the electronics is not wiring, it's a box.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:02 PM William Hunter
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I bought some LED landing lights from Amazon Aircraft Supply and they seem
> to produce some static noise on the GTN-650. I have conformed by turning
> on/off the landing light switch that the LEDs are the appliance that is
> producing the static and I have confirmed that the GTN is the radio that I
> am hearing the static through because if I select the second radio or the
> third selection (that does not have a radio) on the SL-15 audio panel the
> static stops. I do not believe the static sound is the squelch mode.
>
> The airplane is fiberglass and the power and ground wires are not run
> together with the GTN wiring.
>
> The power for the lights comes from a copper bus bar and a KLIXON CB.
>
> Is there some kind of way to filter out the noise?
>
> THANKS for your help and advice!!!
>
> Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for the standby alternator
(SD-20, now BC410-H) instead of the Ford regulator, would it be better to
use the LR3D or the SB1B?
Also, relating the old switch terminology to Z101, are the master/alt and
aux bus/aux alt switches what we would have called the 2-10, on-on-on?
Thanks!
Jared
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
Some LED lights are, indeed, incredibly noisy. My son discovered that they
pretty much trash garage door openers with RF interference. With cheap LED
bulbs installed in the garage door opener, it was well nigh impossible to
close the door using the remote in the car because the light was on. We
have both switched to a different brand of LED lights in our garage doors
and *voila!* both are now working properly again. Once again, the lesson
seems to be that you get what you pay for.
-- Art Z.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 7:29 PM Sebastien wrote:
> We had the same problem with our amazon lights making noise in the
> intercom. Better headsets helped, finding one wiring problem in the
> intercom wiring helped, but the biggest fix was adding some noise filters
> to the lights. Here's the little filter box I made. It's not a great
> diagram, the box around the electronics is not wiring, it's a box.
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:02 PM William Hunter
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I bought some LED landing lights from Amazon Aircraft Supply and they
>> seem to produce some static noise on the GTN-650. I have conformed by
>> turning on/off the landing light switch that the LEDs are the appliance
>> that is producing the static and I have confirmed that the GTN is the radio
>> that I am hearing the static through because if I select the second radio
>> or the third selection (that does not have a radio) on the SL-15 audio
>> panel the static stops. I do not believe the static sound is the squelch
>> mode.
>>
>> The airplane is fiberglass and the power and ground wires are not run
>> together with the GTN wiring.
>>
>> The power for the lights comes from a copper bus bar and a KLIXON CB.
>>
>> Is there some kind of way to filter out the noise?
>>
>> THANKS for your help and advice!!!
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
My blog: CheerfulCurmudgeon.com
*The good is already there. Practicing gratitude means being fully aware of
the good that is already yours.*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
| From: | "John M Tipton" <johntiptonuk(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Peter - Its a pity 'Bob' doesn't produce his AEC9005-201 'Low Voltage' module
any more, even the parts kit would be good for a home build project if it were
available - John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505303#505303
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
At 08:34 AM 12/19/2021, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Peter - Its a pity 'Bob' doesn't produce his AEC9005-201 'Low
>Voltage' module any more, even the parts kit would be good for a
>home build project if it were available - John
There 'might' be a better option. I've ordered in a fist-full
of these critters:
https://tinyurl.com/y4nwk4at
They feature an LM358 dual operational amplifier
with a 30v operating voltage. Of couse we don't
yet know what the schematic looks like but the
chip ratings offer a glimmer of promise for
adequate functional characteristics . . . and
that 'transistor' next to the chip just 'might'
be a precision voltage reference . . . won't
know until they get here.
With the advent of popular LiFePO4 products
sold without battery management systems, some
builders may find value in having TWO low
voltage monitors: one for alternator failure
notification the second for battery over-discharge
notification.
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
At 03:39 AM 12/19/2021, you wrote:
>If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for
>the standby alternator (SD-20, now BC410-H)
>instead of the Ford regulator, would it be
>better to use the LR3D or the SB1B?=C2
>
>Also, relating the old switch terminology to
>Z101, are the master/alt and aux bus/aux alt
>switches what we would have called the 2-10, on-on-on?
>
Suggest you use the cheapest one you can put
your hands on.
In the vast majority of installations, the s/b regulator
will never see service under duress. Alternator system
failures are rare. The s/b system is just that: 'stand by'.
It should be preflight tested every flight cycle
and then sit dormant the rest of the time.
The system has an EXPECTED service
life of thousands of hours but needed only
minutes over it's total existence in your
project. It is lightly used but often tested.
Likelihood that it would become unavailable
when needed is on the same order of probability
of being brought down by a failure of prop bolts.
A full-featured alternator controller in the s/b
system secures no benefit. That's why z101 suggests
a $15, Smiley Jack's Auto Parts regulator.
All that extra cash will buy you a couple
trips worth of fuel which is a positive
return on investment.
Yes, that symbol is unique to the on-on-on
function of a 2-10 switch.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
It would be nice if the LED blinked to get your attention.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505306#505306
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DANIEL PELLETIER <pelletie1959(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
www.PerihelionDesign.com
Envoy=C3=A9 de mon iPad
> Le 17 d=C3=A9c. 2021 =C3- 17:58, Bill Boyd a =C3=A9
crit :
>
> =EF=BB
> I have a spare yellow incandescent light from B&C designed to be used with
their regulators. I used a pair of these regulators for my two-alternator d
esign, and have the low voltage warning light powered only by the regulator f
or the backup alternator wired so that it extinguishes as long as the main a
lternator is online, putting out its higher set voltage.
>
> If you are using B&C or similar regulators, this bulb might be just what y
ou need. Yours for an SASE if it can be of help to your project.
>
> Should show ok in this pic.
>
> -Bill B
>
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:26 PM Charlie England wr
ote:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 3:34 PM Peter Pengilly w
rote:
>>> I=99m looking for a low voltage warning light that illuminates at a
round 13.2 to 13.5 volts, can anyone recommend one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I like having a large, bright, low voltage warning light in my panel tha
t indicates when the battery is supporting the electrical loads.
>>>
>>> A few years ago I bought a self-contained large LED from Perihelion Desi
gn, but that is no longer available and I have sold that aeroplane.
>>>
>>> My current aeroplane does not have a good warning system so I would like
to buy another.
>>>
>>> I could build one from an op amp and a couple of resistors, but I=99
m not that great with electronics and I=99ve got too much other stuff t
o do right now. The Perihelion unit was well packaged and easy to install. I
would like to buy something similar. Can anyone recommend anything?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Dan Horton (posts on Van's Air Force, and sometimes on HBA) recommended t
hese modules, or a similar product, from TomTop:
>> https://www.tomtop.com/p-e1021.html#flow_qa
>>
>> I bought a couple to play with a couple of years ago, but have never take
n the time to experiment with them. The site says they're currently out of s
tock, but you might be able to find a similar product on the site. You'd sti
ll need to add your own display lamp or LED; the device just provides a set o
f 'dry' relay contacts.
>>
>> Depending on which alternator you're using, it may well have built-in low
voltage detection; all you'd need to do in that case is hook up a wire to y
our warning light (the alternator drives an 'idiot light').
>>
>> Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
Art Zemon wrote: the lesson seems to be that you get what you pay for.
Hi Art!
That's never been the lesson. Though, it is true that you seldom get
MORE than you pay for. I think the LEDs were probably innocent...
rather, it's the poorly filtered power supplies for the LEDs that caused
the interference. Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference,
but the LED itself is pretty interference free... but beware the support
system!
Paul, Thailand remote
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
>but the biggest fix was adding some noise filters to the lights.
Is there a filter available for purchase specific to this type of problem?
THANKS
Bill
On 12/17/2021 6:03 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> but the biggest fix was adding some noise filters to the lights.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
At 10:30 AM 12/20/2021, you wrote:
> >but the biggest fix was adding some noise filters to the lights.
>
>Is there a filter available for purchase specific to this type of problem?
So you know how the noise is getting into the avionics?
Through the antenna(s), ground loops or conducted power?
Refresh my memory, what combination of lights/power supplies
are being discussed?
Way back when, the BuckPuck was a popular but noisy
power supply for some DIY nav lights. We crafted
a filter assembly for that product which sold rather
well for a time.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/Buck-Puck/
This was for radiated noise that found it's way
in through antennas. I've got some residual
ecbs around here for another filter that used
surface mounted parts that also tamed radiated
noise from some auto-led conversions installed
as landing/taxi lights.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
cluros(at)gmail.com wrote:
> We had the same problem with our amazon lights making noise in the intercom.
Better headsets helped, finding one wiring problem in the intercom wiring helped,
but the biggest fix was adding some noise filters to the lights. Here's the
little filter box I made. It's not a great diagram, the box around the electronics
is not wiring, it's a box.
>
[/quote]
Can anyone help me understand what the component symbols and numbers in the diagram
refer to? I understand that they refer to components in the diagram, but
what are they? I could not find them in review of electrical component symbols
and the associated numbers.
A picture of the completed device would help a DIY builder understand it. if its
not too much trouble.
As the OP asked, if anyone is aware of a reference to a commercially available
device, it would be appreciated.
I'm a little surprised that the GTN 650 would be susceptible to such interference.
I wonder if the Garmin help technicians have anything to say about it? Many
years ago, my little GPS 92 would go blank whenever I tuned the nav radio to
our home field VOR frequency. Astonishingly, the Garmin help tech denied such
a thing could be happening.
Thanks,Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505314#505314
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
>So you know how the noise is getting into the avionics? Through the
antenna(s), ground loops or conducted power?
I do not how the noise is getting to the GTN.
>Refresh my memory, what combination of lights/power supplies are being
discussed?
The fiberglass airplane has a B&C alternator and it feeds power to two
"ships power" copper bus bars with Klixon circuit breakers and one of
these circuit breakers feeds the LED landing light.
The avionics copper bus bar gets its power from one of the ships power
copper bus bars through a LT-100 Honeywell switch that feeds the
avionics copper bus bar that powers the GTN, transponder, ADS-B, and the
SL-15 audio panel.
The switch panel for aircraft lighting is in the overhead and the power
from the overhead switch panel is routed in a different location than
the GTN radio unit and power wires however there is one location where
the LED power and ground wires will cross the antenna coax cable for the
radio however the wires do not run parallel to the coax cable just at a
90 degree angle.
The audio panel is a SL-15 and I have a Dynon radio that is quiet when
the LED landing light is turned on. If I select the GTN for the
transmit/receive then I hear the static. When I turn off the landing
light switch the static stops.
How would one (me) be able to determine the source of the static?
The lights in question are theses:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01H6Z2XZ6/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Again...always grateful for the help!!!
On 12/20/2021 10:29 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 10:30 AM 12/20/2021, you wrote:
>> >but the biggest fix was adding some noise filters to the lights.
>>
>> Is there a filter available for purchase specific to this type of
>> problem?
>
> So you know how the noise is getting into the avionics?
> Through the antenna(s), ground loops or conducted power?
> Refresh my memory, what combination of lights/power supplies
> are being discussed?
>
> Way back when, the BuckPuck was a popular but noisy
> power supply for some DIY nav lights. We crafted
> a filter assembly for that product which sold rather
> well for a time.
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/Buck-Puck/
>
> This was for radiated noise that found it's way
> in through antennas. I've got some residual
> ecbs around here for another filter that used
> surface mounted parts that also tamed radiated
> noise from some auto-led conversions installed
> as landing/taxi lights.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <Peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
> A few years ago I bought a self-contained large LED from Perihelion
Design, but that is no longer available
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of DANIEL
PELLETIER
Sent: 20 December 2021 00:15
Subject: ****SPAM**** Re: AeroElectric-List: Low voltage warning light
www.PerihelionDesign.com <http://www.PerihelionDesign.com>
Envoy=C3=A9 de mon iPad
Le 17 d=C3=A9c. 2021 =C3- 17:58, Bill Boyd > a =C3=A9crit :
=EF=BB
I have a spare yellow incandescent light from B&C designed to be used
with their regulators. I used a pair of these regulators for my
two-alternator design, and have the low voltage warning light powered
only by the regulator for the backup alternator wired so that it
extinguishes as long as the main alternator is online, putting out its
higher set voltage.
If you are using B&C or similar regulators, this bulb might be just what
you need. Yours for an SASE if it can be of help to your project.
Should show ok in this pic.
-Bill B
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:26 PM Charlie England > wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 3:34 PM Peter Pengilly > wrote:
I=99m looking for a low voltage warning light that illuminates at
around 13.2 to 13.5 volts, can anyone recommend one?
I like having a large, bright, low voltage warning light in my panel
that indicates when the battery is supporting the electrical loads.
A few years ago I bought a self-contained large LED from Perihelion
Design, but that is no longer available and I have sold that aeroplane.
My current aeroplane does not have a good warning system so I would like
to buy another.
I could build one from an op amp and a couple of resistors, but
I=99m not that great with electronics and I=99ve got too
much other stuff to do right now. The Perihelion unit was well packaged
and easy to install. I would like to buy something similar. Can anyone
recommend anything?
Peter
Hi Peter,
Dan Horton (posts on Van's Air Force, and sometimes on HBA) recommended
these modules, or a similar product, from TomTop:
https://www.tomtop.com/p-e1021.html#flow_qa
I bought a couple to play with a couple of years ago, but have never
taken the time to experiment with them. The site says they're currently
out of stock, but you might be able to find a similar product on the
site. You'd still need to add your own display lamp or LED; the device
just provides a set of 'dry' relay contacts.
Depending on which alternator you're using, it may well have built-in
low voltage detection; all you'd need to do in that case is hook up a
wire to your warning light (the alternator drives an 'idiot light').
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
snip
>
> How would one (me) be able to determine the source of the static?
>
snip
If you have or can borrow a spare 12V battery (could be a small one),
disconnect the feeder to the lights at the CB, and connect it to the
spare battery. Ground the spare battery at the common ground point in
the fuselage.
If you power up the a/c and there's no noise in the radio, then the
noise is likely coming in through the power wires. If you still have the
noise, it's likely getting radiated & detected by the radio.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DANIEL PELLETIER <pelletie1959(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
You can buy these on my website PerihelionDesign.com for $49.95. I have to charge
shipping of $10.00. The standard is red, blinking or steady. Please specify.
I can also supply other colors.
Envoy de mon iPad
> Le 19 dc. 2021 09:41, John M Tipton a crit :
>
>
> Hi Peter - Its a pity 'Bob' doesn't produce his AEC9005-201 'Low Voltage' module
any more, even the parts kit would be good for a home build project if it
were available - John
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505303#505303
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I don't see a low voltage warning light on PerihelionDesign.com
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505321#505321
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org> |
| Subject: | Whelen Flashing on One side Ceases after a Minute or |
so
Initially my Whelen flasher works on both the starboard and port wing.
After about a minute of flashing it ceases to work on the starboard wing
but continues on the port wing. This has been repeated with the same
result every time so I doubt whether the bulb or wiring are at fault.
What could be the problem and how can I make both sides flash
continuously? Thanks.
George Nielsen
Avid Flyer I-6640
The Hague, the Netherlands
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
| From: | "Edwardmoonlight" <pedrocolus(at)yahoo.com> |
You don't have to buy everything on Amazon.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505326#505326
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Static On GTN-650 |
| From: | "Edwardmoonlight" <pedrocolus(at)yahoo.com> |
It is necessary to read the comments about the product, if you have not ordered
it, it is not worth the risk.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505327#505327
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "Edwardmoonlight" <pedrocolus(at)yahoo.com> |
It's a complicated question, but an interesting one.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505328#505328
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 in an RV-10 |
| From: | "Edwardmoonlight" <pedrocolus(at)yahoo.com> |
If the main fails, Ill get a low voltage indication and will take the main alternator
offline manually before engaging the aux alternator.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505329#505329
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
At 03:39 AM 12/19/2021, you wrote:
>If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for
>the standby alternator (SD-20, now BC410-H)
>instead of the Ford regulator, would it be
>better to use the LR3D or the SB1B?=C2
use the cheaper one. ancillary features over and
above rudimentary voltage regulation are
superfluous.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101B Aux Alternator and Overvoltage protection |
>>For those with Z101B, what is your procedure for using the aux
>>alternator? My initial thought was to turn on the aux alternator
>>with the main alternator and use a lower voltage setpoint for the
>>aux regulator. This allows the aux alternator to take over without
>>intervention if the main alternator fails.
that was a 'feel-good' feature crafted for the
TC aircraft manufacturers who were adding the
SD20 and cousins to their production aircraft.
It adds complexity and cost to the device without
materially improving safety.
>>This causes a different problem, however. The main regulator could
>>fail resulting in an overvoltage condition. The crowbar
>>overvoltage protection circuits would blow the aux alt fuse and
>>trip the main field circuit breaker. Z101B shows the aux alt fuse
>>forward of the firewall so it can't be replaced in
>>flight. Essentially, an overvoltage event on the main regulator
>>will take out both alternators.
If memory serves, all the B&C regulators
with built in crowbar feature a field voltage
monitor loop . . . I can't remember which
model got it first but I think they eventually
all had it. When an OV is sensed, the trip
logic looks at field voltage. If the voltage
is 'high' then the logic assumes LOCAL
failure of the regulator and trips the system.
I field voltage is 'low' then the logic knows
that its companion regulator is functioning
and OV trip is INHIBITED.
>>The solutions I can think of are:
>>* Enable the aux alternator only in case of main alternator failure.
I would do this anyhow. There is no value
added by millisecond response to bringing the
aux alterantor on line.
>>* Move the aux field breaker/fuse to the main bus so it can be in
>>the cabin, but this removes some fault tolerance of the design.
Not necessary
>>* Come up with an arrangement for the aux regulator that allows a
>>slightly longer period before the overvoltage protection
>>activates. This seems like a fragile solution though.
Correct. Already fixed.
>>Note: My aux alternator is a BC410 with an LR3C regulator.
Check with B&C . . . my drawings for that product
are quite old and of uncertain validity. Inquire
as to whether the LR3C incorporates 'selective
OV trip'. I am pretty sure it does but getting
info from the source is certain.
>>Interested in hearing people's procedures for the aux alt switch
>>and/or if they've deviated from the Z101B wiring diagram to solve this problem
It's a problem that doesn't need solving. The aux alternator
should be off-line 99.99% of all operations. In fact, it's
duty factors are so small and it's tested every
flight cycle, I didn't even include OV protection in
Z101. Selective tripping isn't needed for independently
operated alternators. Hence, a builder could consider
a alternative alternator controller products for
either/both alternators.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Whelen Flashing on One side Ceases after a Minute |
or so
| From: | Rob Turk <matronics(at)rtist.nl> |
Hello George,
If you have the Whelen central power box, you can swap left and right
strobe connectors and see if the problem moves with the connection. If
it does, then the problem is in the power box. If it still fails on the
same side then it's with the wiring/bulb on that side.
Cheers,
Rob
Hoevelaken ;)
On 12/21/2021 9:17 AM, George Nielsen wrote:
>
>
> Initially my Whelen flasher works on both the starboard and port wing.
> After about a minute of flashing it ceases to work on the starboard
> wing but continues on the port wing. This has been repeated with the
> same result every time so I doubt whether the bulb or wiring are at
> fault. What could be the problem and how can I make both sides flash
> continuously? Thanks.
>
> George Nielsen
> Avid Flyer I-6640
> The Hague, the Netherlands
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <Peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
Daniel,
I can only see two wig-wag modules, some cable and switch guards on your website!
You used to have some great stuff, dimmers and these low-volts lights, where has
it all gone?
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
On Behalf Of DANIEL PELLETIER
Sent: 20 December 2021 23:06
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Low voltage warning light
-->
You can buy these on my website PerihelionDesign.com for $49.95. I have to charge
shipping of $10.00. The standard is red, blinking or steady. Please specify.
I can also supply other colors.
Envoy de mon iPad
> Le 19 dc. 2021 09:41, John M Tipton a crit :
>
>
>
> Hi Peter - Its a pity 'Bob' doesn't produce his AEC9005-201 'Low
> Voltage' module any more, even the parts kit would be good for a home
> build project if it were available - John
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505303#505303
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DANIEL PELLETIER <pelletie1959(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
Sorry,
It seems that the device is discontinued and no more available. Maybe you can write
to the guy if he have some in stock.
I copied the email he sended to me last year when I bought mine.
Daniel
Envoy de mon iPhone
> Le 21 dc. 2021 16:56, Peter Pengilly a crit :
>
>
> Daniel,
>
> I can only see two wig-wag modules, some cable and switch guards on your website!
> You used to have some great stuff, dimmers and these low-volts lights, where
has it all gone?
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
On Behalf Of DANIEL PELLETIER
> Sent: 20 December 2021 23:06
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Low voltage warning light
>
> -->
>
> You can buy these on my website PerihelionDesign.com for $49.95. I have to charge
shipping of $10.00. The standard is red, blinking or steady. Please specify.
I can also supply other colors.
>
> Envoy de mon iPad
>
>> Le 19 dc. 2021 09:41, John M Tipton a crit :
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Peter - Its a pity 'Bob' doesn't produce his AEC9005-201 'Low
>> Voltage' module any more, even the parts kit would be good for a home
>> build project if it were available - John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505303#505303
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
Thank you Bob, I've been hearing about using an off-the-shelf fuse link
product instead of the ones made from a short piece of wire. What is the
latest plan in that regard, and if using a produced product, do you have a
link to an example?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 1:01 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 03:39 AM 12/19/2021, you wrote:
>
> If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for the standby alternator
> (SD-20, now BC410-H) instead of the Ford regulator, would it be better to
> use the LR3D or the SB1B?=C3=82
>
> Also, relating the old switch terminology to Z101, are the master/alt and
> aux bus/aux alt switches what we would have called the 2-10, on-on-on?
>
>
> Suggest you use the cheapest one you can put
> your hands on.
>
> In the vast majority of installations, the s/b regulator
> will never see service under duress. Alternator system
> failures are rare. The s/b system is just that: 'stand by'.
> It should be preflight tested every flight cycle
> and then sit dormant the rest of the time.
>
> The system has an EXPECTED service
> life of thousands of hours but needed only
> minutes over it's total existence in your
> project. It is lightly used but often tested.
> Likelihood that it would become unavailable
> when needed is on the same order of probability
> of being brought down by a failure of prop bolts.
>
> A full-featured alternator controller in the s/b
> system secures no benefit. That's why z101 suggests
> a $15, Smiley Jack's Auto Parts regulator.
> All that extra cash will buy you a couple
> trips worth of fuel which is a positive
> return on investment.
>
> Yes, that symbol is unique to the on-on-on
> function of a 2-10 switch.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Sorry if I haven't followed this thread closely enough, but if you're
talking about protecting the alternator B-lead, you can get fusible link
wire from Amazon, as well as (probably) auto parts stores.
https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=fusible+link+wire&crid=1PLYTS1HT90M0&sprefix=fusible+link+wire%2Caps%2C166&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
Ignore the 1st couple of bizarre hits, and scroll down for the wire
products. Just use a link gauge 4 numbers (bigger number) smaller than
your B lead size.
Charlie
On 12/21/2021 7:27 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
> Thank you Bob, I've been hearing about using an off-the-shelf fuse
> link product instead of the ones made from a short piece of wire. What
> is the latest plan in that regard, and if using a produced product, do
> you have a link to an example?
>
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 1:01 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> wrote:
>
> At 03:39 AM 12/19/2021, you wrote:
>> If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for the standby
>> alternator (SD-20, now BC410-H) instead of the Ford regulator,
>> would it be better to use the LR3D or the SB1B?
>>
>> Also, relating the old switch terminology to Z101, are the
>> master/alt and aux bus/aux alt switches what we would have called
>> the 2-10, on-on-on?
>>
>
> Suggest you use the cheapest one you can put
> your hands on.
>
> In the vast majority of installations, the s/b regulator
> will never see service under duress. Alternator system
> failures are rare. The s/b system is just that: 'stand by'.
> It should be preflight tested every flight cycle
> and then sit dormant the rest of the time.
>
> The system has an EXPECTED service
> life of thousands of hours but needed only
> minutes over it's total existence in your
> project. It is lightly used but often tested.
> Likelihood that it would become unavailable
> when needed is on the same order of probability
> of being brought down by a failure of prop bolts.
>
> A full-featured alternator controller in the s/b
> system secures no benefit. That's why z101 suggests
> a $15, Smiley Jack's Auto Parts regulator.
> All that extra cash will buy you a couple
> trips worth of fuel which is a positive
> return on investment.
>
> Yes, that symbol is unique to the on-on-on
> function of a 2-10 switch.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kennethparker" <kenneth.parkerp1920(at)gmail.com> |
https://testbank2022.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505342#505342
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Settle" <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
What physically is the difference between a 12 ga wire and a 12 ga fuse
link?
Thank you,
Bill.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z101 with two B&C Regulators
Sorry if I haven't followed this thread closely enough, but if you're
talking about protecting the alternator B-lead, you can get fusible link
wire from Amazon, as well as (probably) auto parts stores.
https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=fusible+link+wire
&crid=1PLYTS1HT90M0&sprefix=fusible+link+wire%2Caps%2C166&ref=nb_sb
_noss_1
Ignore the 1st couple of bizarre hits, and scroll down for the wire
products. Just use a link gauge 4 numbers (bigger number) smaller than
your B lead size.
Charlie
On 12/21/2021 7:27 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
Thank you Bob, I've been hearing about using an off-the-shelf fuse link
product instead of the ones made from a short piece of wire. What is the
latest plan in that regard, and if using a produced product, do you have
a link to an example?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 1:01 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>
wrote:
At 03:39 AM 12/19/2021, you wrote:
If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for the standby alternator
(SD-20, now BC410-H) instead of the Ford regulator, would it be better
to use the LR3D or the SB1B?=C3=82
Also, relating the old switch terminology to Z101, are the master/alt
and aux bus/aux alt switches what we would have called the 2-10,
on-on-on?
Suggest you use the cheapest one you can put
your hands on.
In the vast majority of installations, the s/b regulator
will never see service under duress. Alternator system
failures are rare. The s/b system is just that: 'stand by'.
It should be preflight tested every flight cycle
and then sit dormant the rest of the time.
The system has an EXPECTED service
life of thousands of hours but needed only
minutes over it's total existence in your
project. It is lightly used but often tested.
Likelihood that it would become unavailable
when needed is on the same order of probability
of being brought down by a failure of prop bolts.
A full-featured alternator controller in the s/b
system secures no benefit. That's why z101 suggests
a $15, Smiley Jack's Auto Parts regulator.
All that extra cash will buy you a couple
trips worth of fuel which is a positive
return on investment.
Yes, that symbol is unique to the on-on-on
function of a 2-10 switch.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
_____
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
The link insulation is designed to contain the melting wire; regular wire i
nstallation will melt long before the wire melts=2E
=81=A3Get BlueMail
for Android =8B
On Dec 22, 2021, 3:44 AM, at 3:44 AM, Bill Settle wrote:
>What physically is the difference betwee
n a 12 ga wire and a 12 ga fuse
>link?
>
>
>
>Thank you,
>
>Bill=2E
>
>
>
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics=2Ecom
> On Behalf Of Charlie
>England
>Sent: Tuesday,
December 21, 2021 8:46 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics=2Ecom
>Subject:
Re: AeroElectric-List: Z101 with two B&C Regulators
>
>
>
>Sorry if I hav
en't followed this thread closely enough, but if you're
>talking about prot
ecting the alternator B-lead, you can get fusible
>link wire from Amazon, a
s well as (probably) auto parts stores=2E
>https://smile=2Eamazon=2Ecom/s?k
=fusible+link+wire
>
>&crid=1PLYTS1HT90M0&sprefix=fusible+link+wire%2Caps%2C166&ref
=nb_sb_noss_1
>Ignore the 1st couple of bizarre hits, and scroll down for
the wire
>products=2E Just use a link gauge 4 numbers (bigger number) smal
ler than
>your B lead size=2E
>
>Charlie
>
>
>On 12/21/2021 7:27 PM, Jared
Yates wrote:
>
>Thank you Bob, I've been hearing about using an off-the-she
lf fuse link
>product instead of the ones made from a short piece of wire
=2E What is
>the latest plan in that regard, and if using a produced produc
t, do you
>have a link to an example?
>
>
>
>On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 1:01
PM Robert L=2E Nuckolls, III
> >
>wrote:
>
>At 03:39 AM 12/19/2021, you w
rote:
>
>
>If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for the standby a
lternator
>(SD-20, now BC410-H) instead of the Ford regulator, would it be
better
>to use the LR3D or the SB1B?=C3=82
>
>Also, relating the old switc
h terminology to Z101, are the master/alt
>and aux bus/aux alt switches wha
t we would have called the 2-10,
>on-on-on?
>
>
> Suggest you use the cheap
est one you can put
> your hands on=2E
>
> In the vast majority of installa
tions, the s/b regulator
> will never see service under duress=2E Alternato
r system
> failures are rare=2E The s/b system is just that: 'stand by'=2E
> It should be preflight tested every flight cycle
> and then sit dormant t
he rest of the time=2E
>
> The system has an EXPECTED service
> life of th
ousands of hours but needed only
> minutes over it's total existence in you
r
> project=2E It is lightly used but often tested=2E
> Likelihood that it
would become unavailable
> when needed is on the same order of probability
> of being brought down by a failure of prop bolts=2E
>
> A full-featured a
lternator controller in the s/b
> system secures no benefit=2E That's why z
101 suggests
> a $15, Smiley Jack's Auto Parts regulator=2E
> All that extr
a cash will buy you a couple
> trips worth of fuel which is a positive
> re
turn on investment=2E
>
> Yes, that symbol is unique to the on-on-on
> fun
ction of a 2-10 switch=2E
>
>
> Bob =2E =2E =2E
>
> Un impeachable logi
c: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they
make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
>This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software=2E
>www=2Eavast=2Ecom
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
email(at)jaredyates.com wrote:
> Thank you Bob, I've been hearing about using an off-the-shelf fuse link product
instead of the ones made from a short piece of wire. What is the latest plan
in that regard, and if using a produced product, do you have a link to an example?
AFAIK the smallest FLW available in small quantities is 20 awg. I infer this is
why Bob Nuckolls changed the FLW from main bus to alternator switch to 20 awg
on newer Z dwgs in 2020 whereas older Z dwgs showed 22 awg hookup wire covered
with fiberglass tubing to contain the fire. The storebought FLW is a convenience
because you don't have to make your own with the fiberglass sheath.
Pico brand FLW is commonly available on Amazon and at Summit Racing.
FLW installed is nominally 6" long.
BTW when the FLW comes with a rubber flag molded on, that is simply a label.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505347#505347
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
Thank you Charlie! There is also a point depicted on Z101 labeled as the
"Fat wire tie point" which is where the aux bus, battery bus, engine bus,
standby alternator B line, and a short run from the battery all come
together. Has anyone found an elegant piece of hardware to accomplish that
point?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 8:38 AM Charlie England
wrote:
> The link insulation is designed to contain the melting wire; regular wire
> installation will melt long before the wire melts.
>
> Get BlueMail for Android
> On Dec 22, 2021, at 3:44 AM, Bill Settle wrote
:
>>
>> What physically is the difference between a 12 ga wire and a 12 ga fuse
>> link?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Bill.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <
>> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *Charlie
>> England
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:46 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Z101 with two B&C Regulators
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry if I haven't followed this thread closely enough, but if you're
>> talking about protecting the alternator B-lead, you can get fusible link
>> wire from Amazon, as well as (probably) auto parts stores.
>>
>> https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=fusible+link+wire&crid=1PLYTS1HT90M0&sp
refix=fusible+link+wire%2Caps%2C166&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
>> Ignore the 1st couple of bizarre hits, and scroll down for the wire
>> products. Just use a link gauge 4 numbers (bigger number) smaller than y
our
>> B lead size.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>> On 12/21/2021 7:27 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Bob, I've been hearing about using an off-the-shelf fuse link
>> product instead of the ones made from a short piece of wire. What is the
>> latest plan in that regard, and if using a produced product, do you have
a
>> link to an example?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 1:01 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 03:39 AM 12/19/2021, you wrote:
>>
>> If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for the standby alternator
>> (SD-20, now BC410-H) instead of the Ford regulator, would it be better t
o
>> use the LR3D or the SB1B?=C3=82
>>
>> Also, relating the old switch terminology to Z101, are the master/alt an
d
>> aux bus/aux alt switches what we would have called the 2-10, on-on-on?
>>
>>
>> Suggest you use the cheapest one you can put
>> your hands on.
>>
>> In the vast majority of installations, the s/b regulator
>> will never see service under duress. Alternator system
>> failures are rare. The s/b system is just that: 'stand by'.
>> It should be preflight tested every flight cycle
>> and then sit dormant the rest of the time.
>>
>> The system has an EXPECTED service
>> life of thousands of hours but needed only
>> minutes over it's total existence in your
>> project. It is lightly used but often tested.
>> Likelihood that it would become unavailable
>> when needed is on the same order of probability
>> of being brought down by a failure of prop bolts.
>>
>> A full-featured alternator controller in the s/b
>> system secures no benefit. That's why z101 suggests
>> a $15, Smiley Jack's Auto Parts regulator.
>> All that extra cash will buy you a couple
>> trips worth of fuel which is a positive
>> return on investment.
>>
>> Yes, that symbol is unique to the on-on-on
>> function of a 2-10 switch.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
>> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
>> out of that stuff?"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> [image: Avast logo]
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
The terminal on the contactor itself can work pretty well, if the area
around it allows a 'star' of ring terminals. If you use the battery bus as
shown, you could divide the stack between the contactor terminal and the
battery bus terminal, as long as you upsize the wire between the contactor
terminal & the bus to handle the total of the loads fed off the bus
terminal. If you include the battery bus and have room to upsize it, you
could use the extra fuse positions to feed the other 'destinations' that
are shown attached to the tie point. I'm sure there are dedicated tie point
devices out there, but I've never needed to search for them.
Charlie
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:58 AM Jared Yates wrote:
> Thank you Charlie! There is also a point depicted on Z101 labeled as the
> "Fat wire tie point" which is where the aux bus, battery bus, engine bus,
> standby alternator B line, and a short run from the battery all come
> together. Has anyone found an elegant piece of hardware to accomplish tha
t
> point?
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 8:38 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
>> The link insulation is designed to contain the melting wire; regular wir
e
>> installation will melt long before the wire melts.
>>
>> Get BlueMail for Android
>> On Dec 22, 2021, at 3:44 AM, Bill Settle
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What physically is the difference between a 12 ga wire and a 12 ga fuse
>>> link?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Bill.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <
>>> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> *On Behalf Of *Charlie
>>> England
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:46 PM
>>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Z101 with two B&C Regulators
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry if I haven't followed this thread closely enough, but if you're
>>> talking about protecting the alternator B-lead, you can get fusible lin
k
>>> wire from Amazon, as well as (probably) auto parts stores.
>>>
>>> https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=fusible+link+wire&crid=1PLYTS1HT90M0&s
prefix=fusible+link+wire%2Caps%2C166&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
>>> Ignore the 1st couple of bizarre hits, and scroll down for the wire
>>> products. Just use a link gauge 4 numbers (bigger number) smaller than
your
>>> B lead size.
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/21/2021 7:27 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you Bob, I've been hearing about using an off-the-shelf fuse link
>>> product instead of the ones made from a short piece of wire. What is th
e
>>> latest plan in that regard, and if using a produced product, do you hav
e a
>>> link to an example?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 1:01 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> At 03:39 AM 12/19/2021, you wrote:
>>>
>>> If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for the standby alternator
>>> (SD-20, now BC410-H) instead of the Ford regulator, would it be better
to
>>> use the LR3D or the SB1B?=C3=82
>>>
>>> Also, relating the old switch terminology to Z101, are the master/alt
>>> and aux bus/aux alt switches what we would have called the 2-10, on-on-
on?
>>>
>>>
>>> Suggest you use the cheapest one you can put
>>> your hands on.
>>>
>>> In the vast majority of installations, the s/b regulator
>>> will never see service under duress. Alternator system
>>> failures are rare. The s/b system is just that: 'stand by'.
>>> It should be preflight tested every flight cycle
>>> and then sit dormant the rest of the time.
>>>
>>> The system has an EXPECTED service
>>> life of thousands of hours but needed only
>>> minutes over it's total existence in your
>>> project. It is lightly used but often tested.
>>> Likelihood that it would become unavailable
>>> when needed is on the same order of probability
>>> of being brought down by a failure of prop bolts.
>>>
>>> A full-featured alternator controller in the s/b
>>> system secures no benefit. That's why z101 suggests
>>> a $15, Smiley Jack's Auto Parts regulator.
>>> All that extra cash will buy you a couple
>>> trips worth of fuel which is a positive
>>> return on investment.
>>>
>>> Yes, that symbol is unique to the on-on-on
>>> function of a 2-10 switch.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
>>> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
>>> out of that stuff?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> [image: Avast logo]
>>>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Flashing on One side Ceases after a Minute or so |
Howdy-
Has the unit been sitting dormant long? I seem to recall from some long time ago
that there were electrolytic capacitors in that power supply that could go
bad if they sat unused for long periods. There was the possibility of recovering
them if the went through repetitive power up cycles over time. So, you might
just try powering on every so often to see if it starts functioning properly
again. I
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Settle" <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
Thank you, Sir!
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z101 with two B&C Regulators
The link insulation is designed to contain the melting wire; regular
wire installation will melt long before the wire melts.
Get BlueMail for Android
On Dec 22, 2021, at 3:44 AM, Bill Settle > wrote:
What physically is the difference between a 12 ga wire and a 12 ga fuse
link?
Thank you,
Bill.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> On Behalf Of
Charlie England
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z101 with two B&C Regulators
Sorry if I haven't followed this thread closely enough, but if you're
talking about protecting the alternator B-lead, you can get fusible link
wire from Amazon, as well as (probably) auto parts stores.
https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=fusible+link+wire
&crid=1PLYTS1HT90M0&sprefix=fusible+link+wire%2Caps%2C166&ref=nb_sb
_noss_1
Ignore the 1st couple of bizarre hits, and scroll down for the wire
products. Just use a link gauge 4 numbers (bigger number) smaller than
your B lead size.
Charlie
On 12/21/2021 7:27 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
Thank you Bob, I've been hearing about using an off-the-shelf fuse link
product instead of the ones made from a short piece of wire. What is the
latest plan in that regard, and if using a produced product, do you have
a link to an example?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 1:01 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>
wrote:
At 03:39 AM 12/19/2021, you wrote:
If a person was going to use a B&C regulator for the standby alternator
(SD-20, now BC410-H) instead of the Ford regulator, would it be better
to use the LR3D or the SB1B?=C3=82
Also, relating the old switch terminology to Z101, are the master/alt
and aux bus/aux alt switches what we would have called the 2-10,
on-on-on?
Suggest you use the cheapest one you can put
your hands on.
In the vast majority of installations, the s/b regulator
will never see service under duress. Alternator system
failures are rare. The s/b system is just that: 'stand by'.
It should be preflight tested every flight cycle
and then sit dormant the rest of the time.
The system has an EXPECTED service
life of thousands of hours but needed only
minutes over it's total existence in your
project. It is lightly used but often tested.
Likelihood that it would become unavailable
when needed is on the same order of probability
of being brought down by a failure of prop bolts.
A full-featured alternator controller in the s/b
system secures no benefit. That's why z101 suggests
a $15, Smiley Jack's Auto Parts regulator.
All that extra cash will buy you a couple
trips worth of fuel which is a positive
return on investment.
Yes, that symbol is unique to the on-on-on
function of a 2-10 switch.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
_____
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <Peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
I have to apologise to Bob, there is a paper on exactly this topic on the Aeroelectric
website!
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
There are also some inexpensive commercially available options produced near to
me
http://www.sparkbright.co.uk/sparkright-eclipse-battery-voltage-monitor.php
https://gammatronixltd.com/epages/bae94c71-c5b6-4572-89a1-e89006e78fbe.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/bae94c71-c5b6-4572-89a1-e89006e78fbe/Categories/Category1
They don't do exactly what the old Perihelion device, and Bob's AEC9005, do but
for a modest price are perhaps adequate.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
On Behalf Of DANIEL PELLETIER
Sent: 21 December 2021 22:33
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Low voltage warning light
-->
Sorry,
It seems that the device is discontinued and no more available. Maybe you can write
to the guy if he have some in stock.
I copied the email he sended to me last year when I bought mine.
Daniel
Envoy de mon iPhone
> Le 21 dc. 2021 16:56, Peter Pengilly a crit :
>
>
>
> Daniel,
>
> I can only see two wig-wag modules, some cable and switch guards on your website!
> You used to have some great stuff, dimmers and these low-volts lights, where
has it all gone?
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> On Behalf Of DANIEL
> PELLETIER
> Sent: 20 December 2021 23:06
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Low voltage warning light
>
> -->
>
> You can buy these on my website PerihelionDesign.com for $49.95. I have to charge
shipping of $10.00. The standard is red, blinking or steady. Please specify.
I can also supply other colors.
>
> Envoy de mon iPad
>
>> Le 19 dc. 2021 09:41, John M Tipton a crit :
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Peter - Its a pity 'Bob' doesn't produce his AEC9005-201 'Low
>> Voltage' module any more, even the parts kit would be good for a home
>> build project if it were available - John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505303#505303
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with two B&C Regulators |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
email(at)jaredyates.com wrote:
> ... depicted on Z101 labeled as the "Fat wire tie point" which is where the aux
bus, battery bus, engine bus, standby alternator B line, and a short run from
the battery all come together. Has anyone found an elegant piece of hardware
to accomplish that point?
You could crimp or solder multiple wires into a single terminal in cases where
studs are not long enough to accommodate your stack of terminals.
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496373#496373
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505358#505358
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flashing on One side Ceases after a Minute or so |
| From: | George Nielsen <genie(at)swissmail.org> |
Glen, thank you for your reply. Indeed this unit has been dormant for a
few years. I reckon that I will have to switch it on regularly.
George
> From: GLEN MATEJCEK <fly4grins(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flashing on One side Ceases after a Minute or so
>
>
> Howdy-
> Has the unit been sitting dormant long? I seem to recall from some long time
ago
> that there were electrolytic capacitors in that power supply that could go
> bad if they sat unused for long periods. There was the possibility of recovering
> them if the went through repetitive power up cycles over time. So, you might
> just try powering on every so often to see if it starts functioning properly
> again. I
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
Does anyone have experience with this system? My friend is installing a
UL350 Engine and their wiring diagram and instructions specify no
protective devices between the alternator and the battery.
Does anyone know if this alternator/regulator combination can suffer from
an overvoltage event? Or is the regulator fault tolerant?
Regards,
Sebastien
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
When the alternator "B" lead shorts to ground, the pilot will be lucky if there
is no
fire when the "B" lead turns white hot and melts from high battery current.
Now that the alternator is no longer connected, the electrical
system relies on the battery. But half of the battery energy has already been
depleted melting the "B" lead. Either a large fuse or fusible link should
protect the "B" lead from excessive battery current, regardless of what UL Power
says.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505365#505365
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
At 11:16 AM 12/23/2021, you wrote:
>Does anyone have experience with this system? My friend is installing a
>UL350 Engine and their wiring diagram and instructions specify no protective
>devices between the alternator and the battery.
Protecting b-lead wiring from hard faults within
the alternator itself is a legacy protocol in
T/C aircraft since the first Ford alternator was
bolted to a Cessna (approx 1964).
However, LOTS of automotive applications tie
the alternator b-lead right to battery (+)
(like my '87 GMC) with some later models
adding a fusible link at the battery end
(like the 97 Chevy I worked on last week).
What kind of alternator is on the UL350, wound
field or permanent magnet?
>Does anyone know if this alternator/regulator combination
>can suffer from an overvoltage event? Or is the regulator
>fault tolerant?
There is NO alternator system immune to OV events.
Probability, severity and risk run the gamut from
a little puff of smoke to a major incendiary event.
That needs to be sorted out in a failure mode
effects analysis with appropriate prophylactics
incorporated.
As supplier of the system, the engine manufacturer
SHOULD have conducted those studies and published
well considered protocols in their manual . . .
unfortunately, few engine suppliers have any notion
of what that process entails.
The usual answer to a query on the matter is: "we've
got xxxx of these flying with no reported events of
noteworthy magnitude."
For this List to offer any more considered advice,
much more data are needed as to system characteristics.
The SAFE thing is to incorporate b-lead and ov protection
as a matter of policy . . . it's light, cheap and better
to have it and not need it as opposed to needing and
not having.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
| From: | "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com> |
> What kind of alternator is on the UL350, wound
> field or permanent magnet?
>From their website, all the UL 350 engines are listed as having integrated PMA
charging systems with external R/R. All listed at 30 amp total and requiring
15 amps for the engine ignition and fuel pumps, leaving15 amps for Avionics.
https://ulpower.com/en/engines/ul350/ul350is
--------
Dan Theis
Scratch building Sonex #1362
Still working on the Revmaster Alternator improvement
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505371#505371
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
| From: | "dj_theis" <djtheis58(at)gmail.com> |
> What kind of alternator is on the UL350, wound
> field or permanent magnet?
>From their website, all the UL 350 engines are listed as having integrated PMA
charging systems with external R/R. All listed at 30 amp total and requiring
15 amps for the engine ignition and fuel pumps, leaving15 amps for Avionics.
https://ulpower.com/en/engines/ul350/ul350is
--------
Dan Theis
Scratch building Sonex #1362
Still working on the Revmaster Alternator improvement
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505372#505372
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
As Dan already posted, the alternator is permanent magnet.
I was wondering more if anyone knows if the voltage regulator has any
over-voltage protection included. ULPower are apparently very good about
responding to inquiries so I will send them an email and post the reply to
this list.
In any case, the electrical system on the aircraft in question has already
been installed but was designed by a highly qualified and experienced
electrical & robotics engineer with no GA aircraft knowledge. The aircraft
owner sent me the diagram so that I could admire it but a quick and dirty
FMEA showed some problems. A review of the manufacturer's instructions lead
me to suggest that they rewire it to conform with those instructions but
since the alternator wiring already includes a current limiter and a
solenoid I thought it would be appropriate to leave those in rather than
create the problem Joe pointed out vis a vis shorted b lead.1 If I can get
permission I will post the schematic to the list; notwithstanding its
problematic features it's quite a work of art.
Regards,
Sebastien
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 2:11 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:16 AM 12/23/2021, you wrote:
>
> Does anyone have experience with this system? My friend is installing a
> UL350 Engine and their wiring diagram and instructions specify no
> protective
> devices between the alternator and the battery.
>
>
> Protecting b-lead wiring from hard faults within
> the alternator itself is a legacy protocol in
> T/C aircraft since the first Ford alternator was
> bolted to a Cessna (approx 1964).
>
> However, LOTS of automotive applications tie
> the alternator b-lead right to battery (+)
> (like my '87 GMC) with some later models
> adding a fusible link at the battery end
> (like the 97 Chevy I worked on last week).
>
> What kind of alternator is on the UL350, wound
> field or permanent magnet?
>
> Does anyone know if this alternator/regulator combination
> can suffer from an overvoltage event? Or is the regulator
> fault tolerant?
>
>
> There is NO alternator system immune to OV events.
> Probability, severity and risk run the gamut from
> a little puff of smoke to a major incendiary event.
> That needs to be sorted out in a failure mode
> effects analysis with appropriate prophylactics
> incorporated.
>
> As supplier of the system, the engine manufacturer
> SHOULD have conducted those studies and published
> well considered protocols in their manual . . .
> unfortunately, few engine suppliers have any notion
> of what that process entails.
>
> The usual answer to a query on the matter is: "we've
> got xxxx of these flying with no reported events of
> noteworthy magnitude."
>
> For this List to offer any more considered advice,
> much more data are needed as to system characteristics.
> The SAFE thing is to incorporate b-lead and ov protection
> as a matter of policy . . . it's light, cheap and better
> to have it and not need it as opposed to needing and
> not having.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Yahoo Mail <gjermundwestad(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
Hi!
Here is what ULPower says about their regulators capacity to handle failure
s. The capacitor is key....
This is from the 520T manual available on net. The 30 Amp installation migh
t be different, but is also available online.
"The ECU needs a stable DC output . If the battery fails, or there is an op
en contact inside, the buffering characteristics from the battery fail also
. Such a situation may result in an unstable power supply to the ECU. Ther
efore, we strongly recommend the installation of a genuine ULP capacitor (t
his capacitor is able to cover for the big amount of amps coming from the a
lternator/regulator) parallel on the battery.
Likewise, a failure of the RR may result in an erratic power output, which
is buffered by the battery and capacitor."
Best regards
Gjermund Westad
________________________________
Fra: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com p=E5 vegne av Sebastien
Sendt: l=F8rdag 25. desember 2021 05:23
Til: aeroelectric-l.
Emne: Re: AeroElectric-List: ULPower Alternator/Regulator
As Dan already posted, the alternator is permanent magnet.
I was wondering more if anyone knows if the voltage regulator has any over-
voltage protection included. ULPower are apparently very good about respond
ing to inquiries so I will send them an email and post the reply to this li
st.
In any case, the electrical system on the aircraft in question has already
been installed but was designed by a highly qualified and experienced elect
rical & robotics engineer with no GA aircraft knowledge. The aircraft owner
sent me the diagram so that I could admire it but a quick and dirty FMEA s
howed some problems. A review of the manufacturer's instructions lead me to
suggest that they rewire it to conform with those instructions but since t
he alternator wiring already includes a current limiter and a solenoid I th
ought it would be appropriate to leave those in rather than create the prob
lem Joe pointed out vis a vis shorted b lead.1 If I can get permission I wi
ll post the schematic to the list; notwithstanding its problematic features
it's quite a work of art.
Regards,
Sebastien
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 2:11 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroe
lectric.com> wrote:
At 11:16 AM 12/23/2021, you wrote:
Does anyone have experience with this system? My friend is installing a
UL350 Engine and their wiring diagram and instructions specify no protectiv
e
devices between the alternator and the battery.
Protecting b-lead wiring from hard faults within
the alternator itself is a legacy protocol in
T/C aircraft since the first Ford alternator was
bolted to a Cessna (approx 1964).
However, LOTS of automotive applications tie
the alternator b-lead right to battery (+)
(like my '87 GMC) with some later models
adding a fusible link at the battery end
(like the 97 Chevy I worked on last week).
What kind of alternator is on the UL350, wound
field or permanent magnet?
Does anyone know if this alternator/regulator combination
can suffer from an overvoltage event? Or is the regulator
fault tolerant?
There is NO alternator system immune to OV events.
Probability, severity and risk run the gamut from
a little puff of smoke to a major incendiary event.
That needs to be sorted out in a failure mode
effects analysis with appropriate prophylactics
incorporated.
As supplier of the system, the engine manufacturer
SHOULD have conducted those studies and published
well considered protocols in their manual . . .
unfortunately, few engine suppliers have any notion
of what that process entails.
The usual answer to a query on the matter is: "we've
got xxxx of these flying with no reported events of
noteworthy magnitude."
For this List to offer any more considered advice,
much more data are needed as to system characteristics.
The SAFE thing is to incorporate b-lead and ov protection
as a matter of policy . . . it's light, cheap and better
to have it and not need it as opposed to needing and
not having.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
> >From their website, all the UL 350 engines are listed as having
> integrated PMA charging systems with external R/R. All listed at 30
> amp total and requiring 15 amps for the engine ignition and fuel
> pumps, leaving15 amps for Avionics.
Okay, thanks . . . is there a recommended system
wiring diagram I can access?
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> >From their website, all the UL 350 engines are listed as having
> integrated PMA charging systems with external R/R. All listed at 30 amp
> total and requiring 15 amps for the engine ignition and fuel pumps,
> leaving15 amps for Avionics.
>
>
> Okay, thanks . . . is there a recommended system
> wiring diagram I can access?
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
If that 40 amp fuse blows, the engine quits. Remove it.
Repurpose that 40 amp fuse to protect the electrical system from a shorted
alternator or its "B" lead. Or use a fuselink.
Good workmanship will prevent the engine busbar from shorting out.
Relocate the engine Fuses. They should be between the busbar and the switches.
The 60 amp fuse is not needed. Eliminate it.
I suggest that you use battery contactor in series with the aircraft main power
bus
(not to be confused with the engine bus).
There should be a fuse between the engine busbar and the start push button.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505388#505388
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
At 06:23 AM 12/25/2021, you wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Here is what ULPower says about their regulators capacity to handle
>failures. The capacitor is key....
>
>This is from the 520T manual available on net. The 30 Amp
>installation might be different, but is also available online.
>"The ECU needs a stable DC output . If the battery fails, or there
>is an open contact inside, the buffering characteristics from the
>battery fail also . Such a situation may result in an unstable power
>supply to the ECU. Therefore, we strongly recommend the installation
>of a genuine ULP capacitor (this capacitor is able to cover for the
>big amount of amps coming from the alternator/regulator) parallel on
>the battery.
>
>Likewise, a failure of the RR may result in an erratic power output,
>which is buffered by the battery and capacitor."
This narrative is nearly a clone of legacy legends about
alternator/battery operations and he real needs of automotive
electronics. Just the high points:
Batteries don't 'buffer' anything. They deliver energy at
12.5 and below, they require something on the order of
13.8 to 14.4 to charge. Between those conditions,
they're very nearly an open circuit. They cannot
act as some sort of super-capacitor that smooths the
alternator's output voltage.
Put an oscilloscope on the DC bus while your
car is operating under various electrical
system demands . . . VERY trashy whether the battery
is connected or not.
A battery IS a storage vessel for energy when the
alternator quits . . . it WILL stand off the over-
excited alternator run-away and/or alternator-
load dump for the hundreds of milliseconds that
the OV management system needs to make up its mind.
But in no way is it any kind of filter for normal
operations of the ship's electro-whizzies.
Check out the suite of plots taken from a B&C
SD-8 alternator under various conditions of
load, and existence of battery and/or 'filter'
capacitor.
https://tinyurl.com/y6tgyzaa
Note that under light loads is when ripple is
greatest. The presence of a battery or capacitor
makes little observable difference . . . cause
under load, the alternator's ripple voltage
is rather small.
"Unstable power supply" is not defined. What's nominal?
What are acceptable excursions from nominal that
degrade ECU performance?
What size capacitor? You can easily calculate capacitor size
needed to reduce a KNOWN ripple voltage under KNOWN current
demands to an ACCEPTABLE amplitude per requirements
stated above. (Hint . . . it's a LOT bigger than
the 'recommended' sizes published by most manufacturers)
Since requirements for the ECU and alternator
output characteristics are not stated the value
of or justification for a capacitor is not
validated.
If OBAM aviation has a significant downside, it's
that many products are sold and operated on aircraft
with meager knowledge of the performace NUMBERS. We're
the world's largest consumers of field-qualified
products in aviation.
If I were tasked to integrate this engine and its
supplied accessories into a TC aircraft, ALL those
numbers would be KNOWN by qualification and flight
tests documented in voluminous reports. Both
alternator/battery system AND ECU would be qualified
to some normal and adverse conditions and NUMBERS
secured to assure a harmonious marriage with the
ship's compliment of electrics.
The statement quoted is pretty 'generic' . . .
offered up by most engine suppliers to OBAM aviation
for decades but not backed up with documented,
quantified physics.
If ANY supplier to the OBAM aviation market finds
these assertions in error, please, Please, PLEASE
join us here and make your argument. The last
thing we wish to do here is be an echo chamber
for bad information.
Make my day . . . show me where I'm wrong!
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | 2021 List of Contributors |
Dear Listers,
The 2021 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended a couple of
weeks ago and it's time that I published this year's List of Contributors (LOC).
It is the people on this list that directly make these Email Lists and Forums
possible! Their generous Contributions keep the servers and Internet connection
up and running!
You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same
time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure:
https://matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
And finally, I'm proud to present The 2021 Fund Raiser List of Contributors (LOC):
https://matronics.com/loc
Thank you again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List & Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
At 10:23 PM 12/24/2021, you wrote:
> If I can get permission I will post the schematic to the list;
> notwithstanding its problematic features it's quite a work of art.
>
>Regards,
>
>Sebastien
Is this document published on the 'net? If so, permission to republish
should not be an issue as long as original source is not obscured.
If you know of a link, you can share that and let people download
themselves.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
No, it was sent to me by a member of our local Recreational
Aircraft Association and was created by a friend of his for his Zenith 750.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 19:19 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:23 PM 12/24/2021, you wrote:
>
> If I can get permission I will post the schematic to the list;
> notwithstanding its problematic features it's quite a work of art.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sebastien
>
>
> Is this document published on the 'net? If so, permission to republish
> should not be an issue as long as original source is not obscured.
>
> If you know of a link, you can share that and let people download
> themselves.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
> survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
> out of that stuff?"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 12/27/2021 6:15 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 10:23 PM 12/24/2021, you wrote:
>> If I can get permission I will post the schematic to the list;
>> notwithstanding its problematic features it's quite a work of art.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sebastien
>
> Is this document published on the 'net? If so, permission to republish
> should not be an issue as long as original source is not obscured.
>
> If you know of a link, you can share that and let people download
> themselves.
>
> Bob . . .
>
A little google-foo yields:
https://ulpower.com/en/engines/manuals
The website itself doesn't seem to have a public-facing link to the
page, but there it is.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 12/27/2021 6:22 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> No, it was sent to me by a member of our local Recreational
> AircraftAssociation and was created by a friend of his for his Zenith
> 750.
I thought we were talking about ULPower's diagram in their installation
manual. Are we talking about some individual's self-created diagram?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
There are two documents mentioned in this discussion Charlie. One is the
ULPower diagram I attached to the thread, the other is a document that I
cannot share at this time. I was reviewing this document and found several
problems with it and was trying to help them correct these problems by
pointing them to the installation instructions from ULPower. Unfortunately
while these instructions are much better than their current architecture,
I'm still finding them problematic for their own reasons as Joe and Bob
have pointed out. I have also pointed them to the AEC and Z101b.
They seem receptive to suggestions but the aircraft is already built. I'm
not sure how far they are willing to redo the electrical system. As it
stands there are 3 circuit protective devices, one solenoid, and one switch
between the battery and the EDC. The alternator power goes through 2 extra
protective devices and an additional solenoid before getting to the EDC for
a whopping total of 8 points of failure in series between alternator and
engine but only 5 from the battery.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 4:35 PM Charlie England
wrote:
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
>
> On 12/27/2021 6:22 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> > No, it was sent to me by a member of our local Recreational
> > Aircraft Association and was created by a friend of his for his Zenith
> > 750.
> I thought we were talking about ULPower's diagram in their installation
> manual. Are we talking about some individual's self-created diagram?
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 12/27/2021 6:53 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> There are two documents mentioned in this discussion Charlie. One is
> the ULPower diagram I attached to the thread, the other is a document
> that I cannot share at this time. I was reviewing this document and
> found several problems with it and was trying to help them correct
> these problems by pointing them to the installation instructions from
> ULPower. Unfortunately while these instructions are much better than
> their current architecture, I'm still finding them problematic for
> their own reasons as Joe and Bob have pointed out. I have also pointed
> them to the AEC and Z101b.
>
> They seem receptive to suggestions but the aircraft is already built.
> I'm not sure how far they are willing to redo the electrical system.
> As it stands there are 3 circuit protective devices, one solenoid, and
> one switch between the battery and the EDC. The alternator power goes
> through 2 extra protective devices and an additional solenoid before
> getting to the EDC for a whopping total of 8 points of failure in
> series between alternator and engine but only 5 from the battery.
>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 4:35 PM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/27/2021 6:22 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> > No, it was sent to me by a member of our local Recreational
> > AircraftAssociation and was created by a friend of his for his
> Zenith
> > 750.
> I thought we were talking about ULPower's diagram in their
> installation
> manual. Are we talking about some individual's self-created diagram?
>
Ah; got it now. If it's a dual ECU, the factory diagram has its own
issues, that while they may not be single points of outright failure,
they could cause serious issues with engine operation. For instance, it
looks like a failed injector current sink (switches, labeled A, B, a, &
z) in either ECU could cause the injector to stay open.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
In this particular case it's a single ECU installation. Single battery and
alernator as well.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 20:25 Charlie England wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 6:53 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>
> There are two documents mentioned in this discussion Charlie. One is the
> ULPower diagram I attached to the thread, the other is a document that I
> cannot share at this time. I was reviewing this document and found several
> problems with it and was trying to help them correct these problems by
> pointing them to the installation instructions from ULPower. Unfortunately
> while these instructions are much better than their current architecture,
> I'm still finding them problematic for their own reasons as Joe and Bob
> have pointed out. I have also pointed them to the AEC and Z101b.
>
> They seem receptive to suggestions but the aircraft is already built. I'm
> not sure how far they are willing to redo the electrical system. As it
> stands there are 3 circuit protective devices, one solenoid, and one switch
> between the battery and the EDC. The alternator power goes through 2 extra
> protective devices and an additional solenoid before getting to the EDC for
> a whopping total of 8 points of failure in series between alternator and
> engine but only 5 from the battery.
>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 4:35 PM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
>> ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> On 12/27/2021 6:22 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>> > No, it was sent to me by a member of our local Recreational
>> > Aircraft Association and was created by a friend of his for his Zenith
>> > 750.
>> I thought we were talking about ULPower's diagram in their installation
>> manual. Are we talking about some individual's self-created diagram?
>>
> Ah; got it now. If it's a dual ECU, the factory diagram has its own
> issues, that while they may not be single points of outright failure, they
> could cause serious issues with engine operation. For instance, it looks
> like a failed injector current sink (switches, labeled A, B, a, & z) in
> either ECU could cause the injector to stay open.
>
>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_-8456691566823616747_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ULPower Alternator/Regulator |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
I've found that a failed open injector in flight is of little concern.
At high power settings it may not even be noticed. At mid power levels
it might run a little rough. Close the throttle too far and it merely
encourages you to not reduce power too much until you have to. Most
injectors are sized to run fairly high duty cycles at full power.
Ken
On 27/12/2021 8:26 PM, Charlie England wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 6:53 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>> There are two documents mentioned in this discussion Charlie. One is
>> the ULPower diagram I attached to the thread, the other is a document
>> that I cannot share at this time. I was reviewing this document and
>> found several problems with it and was trying to help them correct
>> these problems by pointing them to the installation instructions from
>> ULPower. Unfortunately while these instructions are much better than
>> their current architecture, I'm still finding them problematic for
>> their own reasons as Joe and Bob have pointed out. I have also
>> pointed them to the AEC and Z101b.
>>
>> They seem receptive to suggestions but the aircraft is already built.
>> I'm not sure how far they are willing to redo the electrical system.
>> As it stands there are 3 circuit protective devices, one solenoid,
>> and one switch between the battery and the EDC. The alternator power
>> goes through 2 extra protective devices and an additional solenoid
>> before getting to the EDC for a whopping total of 8 points of failure
>> in series between alternator and engine but only 5 from the battery.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 4:35 PM Charlie England
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/27/2021 6:22 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>> > No, it was sent to me by a member of our local Recreational
>> > AircraftAssociation and was created by a friend of his for his
>> Zenith
>> > 750.
>> I thought we were talking about ULPower's diagram in their
>> installation
>> manual. Are we talking about some individual's self-created diagram?
>>
> Ah; got it now. If it's a dual ECU, the factory diagram has its own
> issues, that while they may not be single points of outright failure,
> they could cause serious issues with engine operation. For instance,
> it looks like a failed injector current sink (switches, labeled A, B,
> a, & z) in either ECU could cause the injector to stay open.
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Z101b NTE53016 Equivalent, also Switches, Relay Alternatives |
I'm in the process of going through the electrical architecture on an
already-flying airplane and need to do some shopping.
Z101b specifies the diode bridge NTE53016 which is available from Digikey.
But I'm placing an order from Mouser, and was wondering if this might be a
suitable equivalent?
https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/80/KBPC10005_G_Thru911241__KBPC5010_G_Series_RevB-2506443.pdf
or maybe this one, which is half the cost:
https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/169/kbpc3506t-2451205.pdf
Also, I'm needing some switches and B&C is closed until next week, has
anyone found good alternative suppliers for the S700 switches or the S704-1
Relay?
For switches, the most likely candidates I can find are the Carling Series
F for the single pole and Carling Series G for the double pole. It looks
like I'll need two s700-2-10 which B&C calls on-on-on but Carling doesn't
use the same terminology in their data sheet for the G series:
https://www.carlingtech.com/sites/default/files/documents/G-SeriesSW_Details_%26_COS.pdf
Which makes me wonder if I'm barking up the wrong tree with the G series.
Although, it looks like their 6GM5B-78 will work for the s700-2-5, which I
plan to use for magnetos and starter as per z-figures note 2.
For the S704-1 relay, I haven't found the same one yet, but I wonder if
something like this would work?
https://www3.panasonic.biz/ac/e_download/control/relay/vehicle/catalog/mech_eng_cb.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101b NTE53016 Equivalent, also Switches, Relay |
Alternatives
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 12/27/2021 8:04 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
> I'm in the process of going through the electrical architecture on an
> already-flying airplane and need to do some shopping.
>
> Z101b specifies the diode bridge NTE53016 which is available from
> Digikey. But I'm placing an order from Mouser, and was wondering if
> this might be a suitable equivalent?
> https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/80/KBPC10005_G_Thru911241__KBPC5010_G_Series_RevB-2506443.pdf
> or maybe this one, which is half the cost:
> https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/169/kbpc3506t-2451205.pdf
>
> Also, I'm needing some switches and B&C is closed until next week, has
> anyone found good alternative suppliers for the S700 switches or the
> S704-1 Relay?
>
> For switches, the most likely candidates I can find are the Carling
> Series F for the single pole and Carling Series G for the double pole.
> It looks like I'll need two s700-2-10 which B&C calls on-on-on but
> Carling doesn't use the same terminology in their data sheet for the G
> series:
> https://www.carlingtech.com/sites/default/files/documents/G-SeriesSW_Details_%26_COS.pdf
> Which makes me wonder if I'm barking up the wrong tree with the G series.
> Although, it looks like their6GM5B-78 will work for the s700-2-5,
> which I plan to use for magnetos and starter as per z-figures note 2.
>
> For the S704-1 relay, I haven't found the same one yet, but I wonder
> if something like this would work?
> https://www3.panasonic.biz/ac/e_download/control/relay/vehicle/catalog/mech_eng_cb.pdf
>
Just about any bridge rectifier rated at 50 amps and 200 volts will
work, but you can get that p/n from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/NTE-Electronics-NTE53016-Rectifier-Recurrent/dp/B007Z7LXVQ
Manufacturer Part No NTE53016
Repetitive Reverse Voltage Vrrm Max: 200V
Forward Current If(AV): 50A
Bridge Rectifier Case Style: Module
Forward Voltage VF Max: 1.1V
8 more rows
I'm pretty sure that the switches B&C sells are Carling, but I'm not in
the hangar at the moment to check.
For the relay, I wouldn't hesitate t use any quality 12V automotive
'cube' relay, like these from amazon:
https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=12v+automogive+cube+relay&crid=2TKICJOUWW2YT&sprefix=12v+automogive+cube+relay%2Caps%2C181&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
They're available with current ratings from around 25A to over 100A. B&C
lists one as their S8009:
https://bandc.com/product/spdt-relay-12v-40a-w-terminals/
There's no harm in using a higher current relay; as long as the coil
current is reasonable. The cube relays should meet that requirement.
FWIW,
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101b NTE53016 Equivalent, also Switches, Relay |
Alternatives
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A Schottky diode such as DSS2X61-0045A has less voltage drop.
They are out of stock at most major suppliers. But some are available on eBay
for less money.
Mouser has 747-DSS2X121-0045B in stock.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505492#505492
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
| From: | "John M Tipton" <johntiptonuk(at)hotmail.com> |
So: what we all want it seems, is for 'Bob' to reintroduce his
AEC9005 Series Low Voltage Warning mudules
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505497#505497
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
All it would take is someone ordering a batch of printed circuit boards, right?
On December 28, 2021 06:09:44 "John M Tipton" wrote:
>
>
> So: what we all want it seems, is for 'Bob' to reintroduce his
> AEC9005 Series Low Voltage Warning mudules
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505497#505497
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101b NTE53016 Equivalent, also Switches, |
Relay Alternatives
Thanks guys, I appreciate the help. Sometimes it takes some doing to go
from the theoretical to the actual in these things.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 10:27 PM user9253 wrote:
>
> A Schottky diode such as DSS2X61-0045A has less voltage drop.
> They are out of stock at most major suppliers. But some are available on
> eBay for less money.
> Mouser has 747-DSS2X121-0045B in stock.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505492#505492
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
fwiw i tried a circuit board, under the guidance of an elect. wizard i
also built a board from scratch and in the end i ordered the light from
perihelion .this is in the last couple of years. i talked to eric[owner]
and he can design it for any voltage. and his worked, at a
consistent voltage.lot different voltage for lead acid compared to lipo.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 6:36 AM Jared Yates wrote:
> All it would take is someone ordering a batch of printed circuit boards,
> right?
>
> On December 28, 2021 06:09:44 "John M Tipton"
> wrote:
>
>> johntiptonuk(at)hotmail.com>
>>
>> So: what we all want it seems, is for 'Bob' to reintroduce his
>> AEC9005 Series Low Voltage Warning mudules
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505497#505497
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ================
>
> c-List Email Forum -
> n, FAQ, roElectric-List ================= MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - s!
> ================= EW MATRONICS LIST WIKI - v> ================= ntribution
> Web Site - bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. iv>
> ================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 12/28/2021 2:58 PM, bob noffs wrote:
> fwiw i tried a circuit board, under the guidance of an elect. wizard i
> also built a board from scratch and in the end i ordered the light
> from perihelion .this is in the last couple of years. i talked to
> eric[owner] and he can design it for any voltage. and his worked, at a
> consistentvoltage.lot different voltage for lead acid compared to lipo.
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 6:36 AM Jared Yates wrote:
>
> All it would take is someone ordering a batch of printed circuit
> boards, right?
>
> On December 28, 2021 06:09:44 "John M Tipton"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So: what we all want it seems, is for 'Bob' to reintroduce his
>> AEC9005 Series Low Voltage Warning mudules
>
If we're using the LV warning to alert for alternator failure, I'd think
the setpoint wouldn't change; the alternator is going to operate at a
bit north of 14V regardless of battery chemistry. Once I know I've lost
the alternator and know I'm operating on battery power (electrically
dependent engine), I want to be finding the ground ASAP, and can monitor
battery voltage with the voltmeter. Same should apply if in IMC with an
all-electric panel, though urgency might be a *little* lower if battery
consumption is lower.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <Peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
In theory all that is needed is something like a TLV431 Zener, 2 or 3
resistors and a flashing 12V LED. Wouldn=92t need a PCB, so Veroboard
would
suffice. The values of the resistors is key to the voltage set point
(and so
2 or 3 in series are probably required). I have no idea of the
temperature
stability. Small flashing 12v LEDs are available, but a 10mm item would
be
desirable. So a flashing circuit would be desirable, using something
like a
555IC, meaning more components, complexity and testing. Perhaps an LM311
comparator would make a better a better job of monitoring the voltage as
Bob
has used.
But when something that will just about do the job is available for
=A311
it is hardly worth breaking out the soldering iron. I have
learnt a
lot about what is available, and what is not. Seems that the component
cost
is greater than the commercially available product, even though the
commercial item doesn=92t do exactly I would like. Probably better to
spend
the time on other aspects of the overall aeroplane project.
Peter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Jared Yates
Sent: 28 December 2021 12:32
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Low voltage warning light
All it would take is someone ordering a batch of printed circuit boards,
right?
On December 28, 2021 06:09:44 "John M Tipton" > wrote:
>
So: what we all want it seems, is for 'Bob' to reintroduce his
AEC9005 Series Low Voltage Warning mudules
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505497#505497
================
c-List Email Forum -
n,
FAQ,
roElectric-List
================
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
s!
================
EW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
v> ================
ntribution Web Site -
bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
iv> ================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
the problem with some low voltage monitors in the past was they let you use
up a lot of lipo reserve power as they were set too low.you are right, you
should be alerted as soon as alternator goes off line.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 4:14 PM Charlie England
wrote:
> On 12/28/2021 2:58 PM, bob noffs wrote:
>
> fwiw i tried a circuit board, under the guidance of an elect. wizard i
> also built a board from scratch and in the end i ordered the light from
> perihelion .this is in the last couple of years. i talked to eric[owner]
> and he can design it for any voltage. and his worked, at a
> consistent voltage.lot different voltage for lead acid compared to lipo.
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 6:36 AM Jared Yates wrote:
>
>> All it would take is someone ordering a batch of printed circuit boards,
>> right?
>>
>> On December 28, 2021 06:09:44 "John M Tipton"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> johntiptonuk(at)hotmail.com>
>>>
>>> So: what we all want it seems, is for 'Bob' to reintroduce his
>>> AEC9005 Series Low Voltage Warning mudules
>>>
>> If we're using the LV warning to alert for alternator failure, I'd think
> the setpoint wouldn't change; the alternator is going to operate at a bit
> north of 14V regardless of battery chemistry. Once I know I've lost the
> alternator and know I'm operating on battery power (electrically dependent
> engine), I want to be finding the ground ASAP, and can monitor battery
> voltage with the voltmeter. Same should apply if in IMC with an
> all-electric panel, though urgency might be a *little* lower if battery
> consumption is lower.
>
>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_5199142161192957910_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
| From: | Charles Davis <charlesdavis(at)iuncapped.co.za> |
Would a Hall-effect current transducer not be a solution ... configured
to keep an LED off if current is flowing, and come ON at zero current.
If all systems are off, and the battery is full there may be a low
enough current to light the LED, switching on a load (eg landing light)
will draw current, and extinguish the LED
Charles
On 29/12/21 01:52 pm, bob noffs wrote:
> the problem with some low voltage monitors in the past was they let
> you use up a lot of lipo reserve power as they were set too low.you
> are right, you should be alerted=C2-as soon as alternator goes off li
ne.
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 4:14 PM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2021 2:58 PM, bob noffs wrote:
>> fwiw i tried a circuit board, under the guidance of an elect.
>> wizard i also=C2- built a board from scratch and in the end i
>> ordered the light from perihelion .this is in the last couple of
>> years. i talked to eric[owner] and he can design it for any
>> voltage. and his worked, at a consistent=C2-voltage.lot differen
t
>> voltage for lead acid compared to lipo.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 6:36 AM Jared Yates
>> wrote:
>>
>> All it would take is someone ordering a batch of printed
>> circuit boards, right?
>>
>> On December 28, 2021 06:09:44 "John M Tipton"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So: what we all want it seems, is for 'Bob' to reintroduce hi
s
>>> AEC9005 Series Low Voltage Warning mudules
>>
> If we're using the LV warning to alert for alternator failure, I'd
> think the setpoint wouldn't change; the alternator is going to
> operate at a bit north of 14V regardless of battery chemistry.
> Once I know I've lost the alternator and know I'm operating on
> battery power (electrically dependent engine), I want to be
> finding the ground ASAP, and can monitor battery voltage with the
> voltmeter. Same should apply if in IMC with an all-electric panel,
> though urgency might be a *little* lower if battery consumption is
> lower.
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>
> <#m_5199142161192957910_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is a link to a homemade low voltage indicator circuit:
https://www.homemade-circuits.com/low-battery-indicator-circuit-using-two/
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505522#505522
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage warning light |
At 10:44 AM 12/29/2021, you wrote:
>
>Here is a link to a homemade low voltage indicator circuit:
>https://www.homemade-circuits.com/low-battery-indicator-circuit-using-two/
These are functional after a fashion. They don't exploit
the performance of a precision (stable) voltage
reference . . . and they don't drive the full
constellation of led/incandescent lamps and/or
digital data ports.
I'm working an upgrade of the original AEC9005
LV warn/battery management module that will use
modern surface mount parts and 'package' by
soldering the board to the solder-cups of a
d-sub connector. Surface mount will greatly
shrink the real estate on the ecb. This will
get us more bare-boards per coupon on the low
cost, fast turn prototype service I use. Makes
the individual boards a lot less expensive.
I should have a sketch of the schematic to
share shortly . . . I'm in the middle of
a fabrication project in the mess-making shop
that needs to get done asap . . . but this
ol' dog needs to sit down and rest the
feet from time to time . . . chance to do
some fun stuff and herd electrons.
Bob . . .
Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes
survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane
out of that stuff?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator Field Failure? |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
I have an O200 with a TCM 633661 alternator and Zeftronics R15V00 Rev. A regulator.
On my last flight charging to the bus/battery stopped. After replacing
the regulator with a know good one and still no charging I started to follow the
Zeftronic installation/trouble shooting instructions. Checking the resistance
for the field resulted in infinite resistance from the field terminal to ground
whereas the instructions indicated 3.5-6 ohm is normal resistance. I'm
assuming this would indicate a break in the field wiring and hence no charging
or could the problem be something else?. If so, is this repairable? Are there
alternative alternators (certificated airplane) if replacement is necessary?
Thanks, John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=505569#505569
November 10, 2021 - January 02, 2022
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-qh