Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:39 AM - Re: Re: S-701 Master (Battery Contactor) (Jim Stone)
2. 05:47 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Dennis O'Connor)
3. 05:54 AM - List management (John Slade)
4. 06:11 AM - (Gary Casey)
5. 06:21 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Jim Sower)
6. 06:56 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (DHPHKH@aol.com)
7. 07:32 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com)
8. 09:22 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Jim Sower)
9. 09:29 AM - Re: OVM Installation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:31 AM - Re: OVM Installation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 09:32 AM - Re: OVM Installation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 09:44 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Garfield Willis)
13. 09:53 AM - SL40 & Flightcom 403 (Steve J Hurlbut)
14. 10:16 AM - Re: List management (HCRV6@aol.com)
15. 10:33 AM - Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power (Shannon Knoepflein)
16. 11:56 AM - Re: My other life . . . (Dennis O'Connor)
17. 12:15 PM - Re: OVM Installation (Robert Dickson)
18. 12:26 PM - Re: OVM Installation (Robert Dickson)
19. 03:34 PM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified (Michael Hartmann)
20. 05:45 PM - Over voltage and battery management module (Rob W M Shipley)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: S-701 Master (Battery Contactor) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
> Positioning on a schematic seldom has any significance with
> the physical placement in a 3-D world with real estate,
> available volume and convenience of interconnection to
> contend with. Schematics just tell you where the wires
> go, not how they go.
>
> Bob . . .
If schematics don't tell you how they go, why not, and what does tell
you (us) how they go.
Jim
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
I believe in the big sky theory... Like you I have had a plane suddenly
cross in front of me on a hazy day... The miss was so near I could see his
wifes mouth hanging open and her eyes bugging out... Since that time I have
gone to the "there ain't enough places to hang a Comet Flash on this plane
to make me happy...", theory...
Light em up! And a TCAS can't hurt...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
> I used to subscribe to the "big sky" theory but two recent incidents
> changed my mind. About half way between Houston and Waco, well away from
> any airways and at 8500', i.e. middle of nowhere, I got distracted by a
> long distance reflection that looked like traffic. When I convinced
> myself it wasn't a threat, I turned my head and a Bonanza crossed less
> than 100 yds in front of me at exactly my altitude. The other was a
> EAA chapter flyout on a low-vis (4-5 mi) day. We had a perfect setup for
> overtake collisions. Everyone with the same origin, destination and ETA
> following an exact track thanks to GPS with limited altitude separation
> due to the length of the trip. I flew a couple miles off track to
> compensate. The skies may not be crowded but it only takes one to ruin
> your day. I'm seriously considering getting one of those "poor man's"
> TCAS boxes.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
> RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
> Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
>
> > don't see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the
> > skies are NOT crowded. Step outside and look up. You will
> > see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane (unless you
> > live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
> > avoided). Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
Hello Matt,
You seem like a nice guy, and you're efforts are, I'm sure, well
intentioned.
I'm sending this note not so much as a complaint, more to give you a little
feedback from my perspective.
The main problems with email as a communication medium are volume and
content value. There is increasingly too much of the former and too little
of the latter. Over the past month I've received 57 messages from you, two
of which had content which was of interest to me.
Obviously, most of the email volume was fund raiser stuff. While a $50 or
$100 contribution isnt going to break me either way, I do not agree with the
fund raising concept simply because this list is a commercial enterprise,
every message has links to your aviation related business, and you use the
list as a sales tool.
The information I receive from the Aeroelectric list is important to me, so
I choose to stay subscribed - but my preference would be to see these
communications moved to the new free forum ( http://cozyaircraft.com/forum )
which has sections for each aspect of building, including electrical, and is
a professionally written software system with all the features already in
place.
No offense intended - just a different perspective.
Regards,
John Slade
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<I used to subscribe to the "big sky" theory but two recent incidents
changed my mind. About half way between Houston and Waco, well away from
any airways and at 8500', i.e. middle of nowhere, I got distracted by a
long distance reflection that looked like traffic. When I convinced
myself it wasn't a threat, I turned my head and a Bonanza crossed less
than 100 yds in front of me at exactly my altitude. The other was a
EAA chapter flyout on a low-vis (4-5 mi) day. We had a perfect setup for
overtake collisions. Everyone with the same origin, destination and ETA
following an exact track thanks to GPS with limited altitude separation
due to the length of the trip. I flew a couple miles off track to
compensate. The skies may not be crowded but it only takes one to ruin
your day. I'm seriously considering getting one of those "poor man's"
TCAS boxes.>>
Interesting discussion. The sky may be big in most places, but when it gets
small I'd rather not be there, and the VOR's are one place that I usually
track about a mile off course (on purpose, now that I use a GPS) to the
right. I was flying eastbound many years ago in the winter over Nebraska at
night at 10,000 ft. How could there possibly be any traffic? I saw a
"star" dead ahead that didn't look quite like a star. I was studying it's
position, which was almost, but not quite fixed in the windscreen when the
star blinked its landing light. I replied and noticed a movement of the
light source to my left, which still seemed like a long ways away, leading
me to believe we would miss by a reasonable margin. About 2 seconds later
the plane passed off my left wingtip by maybe 500 feet at exactly the same
altitude. The controller simultaneously called traffic in a voice that was
at least 2 octave higher that before. Then just recently I was practicing
approaches and received a traffic callout for converging traffic at 3:00. I
quit flying under the hood so both of us could look. The traffic was under
and to the right of us climbing and slowly converging at about a 30-degree
angle. I kept my eye on it and since we were faster and since we were
definitely going to pass ahead and under I held my course. Only problem was
the margin, which turned out to be only a couple of hundred feet - at the
last minute planes get really big really fast. Moral of the story is that
judging distances in the air is not easy and it is best to stay a
more-than-adequate distance away. A couple of years ago I had the
opportunity to fly out of Oshkosh in a borrowed plane with TCAS. Even
without azimuth information the approximate relative distance and altitude
were VERY useful. This poor man is going to have one of those boxes in my
ES.
Gary Casey
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Garfield Willis <garwillis@msn.com>
>
> On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 21:42:38 -0500, Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>sooner or
> later two of them are going to converge within that 3meter locus of
> hocus pocus.
That's certainly a possibility. It presupposes that none of them are on flight
following. A bit of a leap IMO.
>
>
> <snip> accuracy/resolution of GPS is now on the order of the dimensions of
> your favorite airframe (and even higher), it would seem the likelyhood
> has suddenly become much greater.
Again, it's possible. A bit shrill since it presupposes a lot of conditions (like
no
radar advisories) that are kind of far fetched.
>
> IIRC, this was also the crux of the worry about publishing, disclosing,
> or broadcasting (as in TCAS, ADS-B, et al) current airliner location
> (and perhaps even more dangerous, future location in timeNspace), is
> that it makes it quite possible to build an 'intercept' or even a
> 'loiter' terrorist weapon that could rendesvous with the airliner, and
> again within that same 3meter locus, detonate in timeNspace without any
> actual homing/seeker apparatus needed. Sounds far fetched maybe, but
> think about it; it's relatively low-tech given what we have in our hands
> at this very moment, at least as far as the positioning part is
> concerned.
You're right. It sounds far fetched. Has all the intellectual allure of missile
defense. A scheme like that would require an airplane of roughly equal performance
and sophistication to intercept (unaided) a 450 kt airliner in the stratosphere,
under positive radar control (read evasion capability). Even on approach or
departure it would be tall order and require a high performance intercept vehicle.
Now, why in the world would a terrorist choose to use such an expensive, complex,
training intensive, chancy and basically unreliable weapon when he can grab an
off-the-shelf shoulder fired IR missile (which they already possess in large
quantities thanks to your Uncle Sam)? A couple of guys could cruise around the
roads
outside the fence of any major airport until a wide body launched over them. They
could stop the vehicle, arm, aim and fire the missile in maybe 30 - 40 seconds.
They
bag a crowd-killer with a full bag of fuel in a populated urban area and could
very
well get away clean. I was surprised that it wasn't raining wide bodies during
the
Gulf War, and I fully expect it to start happening pursuant to current operations,
either in Iraq or Afghanistan or other places. We'll discuss nukes later ....
I'm a lot more worried about them than us .... Jim S.
>
>
> This isn't my bailiwick, but GPS sure seems to have some interesting
> side-effects when combined with (1) a system that relied in part on
> randomness & imprecision for separation, OR (2) when combined with a
> whirld where organized fanaticism's whole fascination with technology is
> in turning it into destructive instruments to be used against the
> cultures with the high-tech.
>
> Uugh.
>
> Gar
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
Gang,
Interesting debate. It's gotten a bit far from "reliability", but
interesting none the less.
Midairs and track convergence due to GPS accuracy: I'd suggest it's a
potential problem that has nothing to do with the equipment.
When you opt for an IFR flight plan, separation is the controller's job.
For better or for worse, the pilot elects to hand that trust to him. No
choice in hard IFR.
VFR (or VFR on an IFR flight plan) is another matter. Perhaps too many
pilots spend too much cockpit time playing with their selection of fancy
toys. Some spend 40 or 50 seconds of every cockpit minute with their head
down, twiddling and tweaking, striving to attain "perfect" nav accuracy and
flight management. It's just mental masturbation. They actually gain
little, as arrival time wouldn't be much different using the wet compass on
the glareshield. In the process, they almost totally abandon a primary
responsibility, visual separation.
It seems like the official trend is to apply more technology (Let's all
get TCAS!). Perhaps the answer is better found in less electrons and more
photons (Look out the window!)
While I have the soapbox, let's not forget the many "good" pilots who
arrive at an uncontrolled field, broadcast on the unicom frequency, and
proceed to fly like their radio swept the airspace clean. Not to mention the
guys who forget about visual separation in the presence of a tower
controller. See:
<< http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021120X05496&key=1 >>
Dan Horton
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Garfield Willis <garwillis@msn.com>
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:21:40 -0500, Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
wrote:
>> sooner or
>> later two of them are going to converge within that 3meter locus of
>> hocus pocus.
>
>That's certainly a possibility. It presupposes that none of them are on flight
>following. A bit of a leap IMO.
Actually, the "sooner or later" only presupposes that two unlucky guys
opt for no flight following. Not many of my buddies us FF to hop over
the hill to HMB, but if they have their GPS onboard, they'll usually
dial in that VOR for the crossing, and "see how close we can nail the
VOR". Argh. BTW, all my comments have been related to VFR pilotage.
>Again, it's possible. A bit shrill since it presupposes a lot of conditions (like
>no
>radar advisories) that are kind of far fetched.
What is 'shrill' and far fetched in your area sure isn't in mine.
>You're right. It sounds far fetched. Has all the intellectual allure of missile
>defense. A scheme like that would require an airplane of roughly equal performance
>and sophistication to intercept (unaided) a 450 kt airliner in the stratosphere,
>under positive radar control (read evasion capability). Even on approach or
>departure it would be tall order and require a high performance intercept vehicle.
>Now, why in the world would a terrorist choose to use such an expensive, complex,
>training intensive, chancy and basically unreliable weapon when he can grab an
>off-the-shelf shoulder fired IR missile (which they already possess in large
>quantities thanks to your Uncle Sam)?
Noooo, no, the example certainly wasn't a 'high speed intercept'; all
you have to be doing is maintaining an intercept *course* with the aid
of accurate positioning and knowledge of location. No high-speed
airframe required. If the target is moving along a predictable
straight-line and you have the time to position yourself, I doubt an
intercept of that sort would be difficult at all. But whatever, it was,
as you're wont to say, 'just a theory' :); I wouldn't have believed we'd
see 9/11 and airliners slicing thru skyscrapers, either.
Gar
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
> Interesting debate. It's gotten a bit far from "reliability", but
> interesting none the less.
>
> Midairs and track convergence due to GPS accuracy: I'd suggest it's a
> potential problem that has nothing to do with the equipment.
>
> When you opt for an IFR flight plan, separation is the controller's job.
> For better or for worse, the pilot elects to hand that trust to him. No
> choice in hard IFR.
>
> VFR (or VFR on an IFR flight plan) is another matter. Perhaps too many
> pilots spend too much cockpit time playing with their selection of fancy
> toys. Some spend 40 or 50 seconds of every cockpit minute with their head
> down, twiddling and tweaking, striving to attain "perfect" nav accuracy and
> flight management. It's just mental masturbation. They actually gain
> little, as arrival time wouldn't be much different using the wet compass on
> the glareshield. In the process, they almost totally abandon a primary
> responsibility, visual separation.
HEAR HEAR!! THAT'S where the midair threat comes from. That's why I use flight
following whenever I can (which is virtually always).
>
> It seems like the official trend is to apply more technology (Let's all
> get TCAS!). Perhaps the answer is better found in less electrons and more
> photons (Look out the window!)
HEAR HEAR AGAIN !!
>
>
> While I have the soapbox, let's not forget the many "good" pilots who
> arrive at an uncontrolled field, broadcast on the unicom frequency, and
> proceed to fly like their radio swept the airspace clean. Not to mention the
> guys who forget about visual separation in the presence of a tower
> controller. See:
>
> << http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021120X05496&key=1 >>
>
There's a LOT of guys are IFR all the time (... there's no visual reference to
the horizon when you've got your head up your ass ... :o)
> Just a theory .... Jim S.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:27 PM 11/30/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Perry" <eperry@san.rr.com>
>
>OK, I have the overvoltage module now....
>
>1) As I read the instructions for an external regulator it looks like I
>can wire this to the regulator "in" line that is controlled by the
>alternator switch and then ground it locally at by the voltage regulator.
>Is this correct?
Essentially. You can wire the OVM into the system at any convenient
place DOWNSTREAM of the circuit breaker that supplies either field
excitation power (external regulator) or alternator control power
(internally regulated).
>2) Why is it necessary to wire the alternator to a resettable circuit
>breaker? Is it only to reset for nuisance tripping? or is there another
>reason why I would want to have the over voltage turned back on?
Yes, to allow resetting for nuisance trips. OBAM aircraft
are famous for situations that might trigger the OV module.
Eventually, we track them down and fix them. If it were
my airplane, the 5A breaker for OVM system would be on
the panel as shown in all of the switch panel layouts
we've published.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:06 PM 11/30/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
>
>My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to the
>alternator field on an over voltage condition as determined by the OV
>module (crowbar). When the OV module "sees" voltage rise on the
>alternator field supply wire above a preset level and for a specific
>time interval as determined by the OV module, the controlling transistor
>gates the SCR on(both components are in the OV module), providing a dead
>short between the alternator field supply line and ground, or the same
>thing as would happen if this wire were to short to a rib- the breaker
>pops, removing voltage from the alternator and eliminating the source of
>the OV condition, and also dumping the inductive spike from the
>alternator windings harmlessly to ground- I may not have explained it
>quite right, but the concept is pure brilliance and you have the
>honorable Mr. Knuckolls to thank! I don't have the book open before me,
>but the wiring you suggest sounds correct. I believe the feed for the
>OV module can be connected direct to the downstream side of the circuit
>breaker.
Your understanding is correct. I stole the idea from
the design of power supplies for large main-frame computers
common to the 80's . . .
Bob . . .
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OVM Installation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:00 AM 12/1/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
>
> > My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to
> > the alternator field on an over voltage condition
>Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module
>shorts the breaker as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it
>kills the voltage to the field of the contactor which is connecting the
>alternator output (B lead) to the battery, thus removing the offending
>voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
>power internally to the alternator itself.
Internally and externally regulated alternators ARE slightly
different in the way that the OVM tames a runaway alternator.
For internally regulated machines, the external B-lead
contactor is not necessary.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Garfield Willis <garwillis@msn.com>
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:21:40 -0500, Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
wrote:
>> sooner or
>> later two of them are going to converge within that 3meter locus of
>> hocus pocus.
>
>That's certainly a possibility. It presupposes that none of them are on flight
>following. A bit of a leap IMO.
Actually, the "sooner or later" only presupposes that *two* unlucky guys
opt for no flight following. Not many of my buddies us FF to hop over
the hill to HMB, but if they have their GPS onboard, they'll usually
dial in that VOR for the crossing, and "see how close we can nail the
VOR". Argh. BTW, all my comments have been related to VFR pilotage.
>Again, it's possible. A bit shrill since it presupposes a lot of conditions (like
>no
>radar advisories) that are kind of far fetched.
What is 'shrill' and far fetched in your area sure isn't in mine.
>You're right. It sounds far fetched. Has all the intellectual allure of missile
>defense. A scheme like that would require an airplane of roughly equal performance
>and sophistication to intercept (unaided) a 450 kt airliner in the stratosphere,
>under positive radar control (read evasion capability). Even on approach or
>departure it would be tall order and require a high performance intercept vehicle.
>Now, why in the world would a terrorist choose to use such an expensive, complex,
>training intensive, chancy and basically unreliable weapon when he can grab an
>off-the-shelf shoulder fired IR missile (which they already possess in large
>quantities thanks to your Uncle Sam)?
Noooo, no, the example certainly wasn't a 'high speed intercept'; all
you have to be doing is maintaining an intercept *course* with the aid
of accurate positioning and knowledge of location. No high-speed
airframe required. If the target is moving along a predictable
straight-line and you have the time to position yourself, I doubt an
intercept of that sort would be difficult at all. But whatever, it was,
as you're wont to say, 'just a theory' :); I wouldn't have believed we'd
see 9/11 and airliners slicing thru skyscrapers, either.
Gar
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | SL40 & Flightcom 403 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
I'm trying to wire the SL40 comm and the Flightcom 403 (stereo).
The 403 wiring shows 4 wires going to radio:
1. Avionics Ground
2. Transmit audio
3. Receive audio
4. Transmit Keyline
The ground is easy enough but I can't match the other 3 to the SL40 wiring
diagram.
Also the 403 shows all the wiring to the headphones, PTT, and mic jacks. The
SL40 also
shows these hook-ups (although not near as clearly). Does the SL40 need to
be wired to these
as well or are there internal circuits to take care of this (i.e. just wire
the 4 wires above
and you're done)?
Does some one have a 'dumbed down' wiring diagram of this? I suck at
deciphering
these wiring diagrams.
Steve
RV7A
panel
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: List management |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
In a message dated 12/2/02 5:53:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sladerj@bellsouth.net writes:
snip<< I do not agree with the fund raising concept simply because this list
is a commercial enterprise, every message has links to your aviation related
business, and you use the list as a sales tool. >>
This is total BS! Hopefully several of those listers more eloquent than I
will address this nonsense with a lot more words. I personally have little
patience with people who are not willing to cough up a few bucks to support
Matt's efforts to maintain and improve upon a communications medium that has
been so valuable to so many builders.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, electrical (still)
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
What I would consider would be one of George Braly@GAMI's alternators.
He is soon to be offering a 35A pad mounted device that weighs 6#'s and
is FULLY self-exciting. It is called the Supplenator It comes with a
little 2" round gauge mount control unit (PDU) that give you some
diagnostic info and allows you to shed loads. It is set up to power 3
busses, the ignition bus (designed primarily for his PRISM system, but
would work for any electronic ignition in the 5A range), then an ESS
bus, and then a normal bus. The PDU sheds the load of the normal bus
first, just holding the ESS and IGN busses on. If this still isn't
enough, it will shed the ESS buss too and just power the IGN buss. This
shouldn't be a problem, because no ones ESS buss should get anywhere
close to the 35A limit. Therefore, you could literally throw your
battery overboard and still fly home with the Supplenator.
I've just about finalized the last details of my electrical system, and
when I do, I will let everyone know. My plan at this point is 3
alternators, one Kelly 70A/14VDC unit up front belt driven with the
supercharger to power the PRI buss. If you recall, Kelly is also making
a 70A/14VDC pad mount, which I was considering for use as my AUX.
However, I'm concerned about this unit a bit, especially when it will be
powering my AUX/ESS buss, so I've decided to go with a 35A/14VDC 6#
Supplenator on the pad to power my AUX/ESS buss. Since the 35 amps
won't be enough to power my A/C system, I plan to add another
Supplenator, without the PDU (self exciting features and load sheding),
running at 28VDC to power just the A/C system. Switching the
Supplenator to 28VDC is as simple as moving a jumper. The regulator is
also built into the unit, which is another cost savings, as well as a
noise consideration (the field trace is about 0.75" long instead of 6').
Anyway, my point was to check out the Supplenator from GAMI. I think
you'll find its features useful for a electrically dependent engine.
http://www.gami.com
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred
Stucklen
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy
Power
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Stucklen"
<wstucklen1@cox.net>
John,
The issue is that when a complete electrical failure does occur that
takes
down the buss voltage (it does represent a single point failure), your
ignition
would also stop working until you can isolate the failure (assuming
there is
enough energy left in the battery).
With a dual battery design, with automatic isolation of the secondary
battery,
when a buss under voltage condition occurs, the ignition systems never
looses
power. I'm designing in such a system in the new RV-6A I'm now building.
Once the
engine is running, oil pressure switches (2) and diodes connect the
batteries
(both of them) directly to the ignition module power inputs. Shutting
off either or
both battery masters will not shut down the engine (engine shutdown,
once running,
is ONLY achieved via the ingition switch OR mixture.) Bob's buss under
voltage
detection circuit immediately isolated the AUX battery from the buss
guaranteeing essential bus and ignition power.
Another issue that is overted is electronic ignition module misfiring
during
the engine start sequence. Some of the permanent magnet starters draw a
LOT
of current when they first start turning, drawing the battery buss
voltage down to 9 Volts
or less for some very short period of time. My electronic ignition (Jeff
Rose system,
but I'm sure the others will do it also) would cut out, and sometimes
misfire, under
this condition. The AUX battery prevents this from happening as it's
always isolated
from the buss during the engine start sequence, again guarenteeing the
proper power
to the electronic ignition modules.
I've flown my other RV-6A (N925RV) for 2000+ hours with a single
electonic ignition
and an impulse mag. The mag has been the least dependable over the last
10 years (Slick).
I've had an electrical issue in flight where I did have to shut down the
master, leaving
the electronic ignition dead, and the engine running on the mag (that's
why we design
in redundency and have no conditions where a single point failure will
cause a flight mishap).
I was able to isolate the problem, and re-power the electronic ignition.
The engine never
sputtered....
This next plane (also full IFR) will be even safer....
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (sold after 2008 Hrs of safe flying!)
working on the new RV-6A
Time: 08:11:38 AM PST US
From: "John" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
Subject: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
--> RV-List message posted by: "John" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
This is just for the archives
There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the
need/wisdom of
dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in
RV's
. Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only
draw
about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far
longer in
flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not
be
necessary.
I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short
in
the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise really
burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation
where
the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the
ignitions
systems.
With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to
drop
out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from
the
electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to
one of
the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going
to
my GPS-NavAid system.
I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is
such a
remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
shaft or cam shaft failure.
This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or
so
the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
battery.
FWIW
John at Salida, CO
=
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: My other life . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
I know that you are simply supplying the customer with what he wants... But,
there are way too many failure points in a last chance device that
complicated...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: My other life . . .
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> I haven't been ignoring you folks, just tied up in the
> final efforts to check out and install a recovery parachute
> controller on our experimental flight test Premier.
>
> The chute is launched with explosive devices triggered
> in sequence by applying a 5A constant current source to
> each initiator bridge-wire in turn. There are redundant
> channels of command and control that blow off the tail cone
> fairing, cut the static pressure trailing cone from
> the top of the vertical fin, drive a locking pin into
> the lanyard post to attache the 'chute to the airplane
> and finally, trigger separate bridge-wires in each of
> two initiators that ignite the charge to launch the chute.
>
> The chute is cut away from the airplane by separate
> initiators that drive a cutter through the lanyard. The
> system contains a total of 16 bridge-wires, each of which
> has it's own firing relay.
>
> I've published a few pictures of this system at
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp2
>
> I've finished the bench testing and will box it all
> up for a trip out to the experimental flight hangar to
> install it in the airplane and test it some more.
>
> Should be finished with the installation today so
> I can get back to "fun" things here at home. Will try
> to catch up on AeroElectric-List things this weekend.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert Dickson" <robert@thenews-journal.com>
Bob and others:
>> > My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to
>> > the alternator field on an over voltage condition
>>Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module
>>shorts the breaker as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it
>>kills the voltage to the field of the contactor which is connecting the
>>alternator output (B lead) to the battery, thus removing the offending
>>voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
>>power internally to the alternator itself.
>
> Internally and externally regulated alternators ARE slightly
> different in the way that the OVM tames a runaway alternator.
> For internally regulated machines, the external B-lead
> contactor is not necessary.
I don't understand the statement that "For internally regulated machines,
the external B-lead contactor is not necessary." I'm looking at the diagram
that comes with the OVM and it clearly shows an "alternator disconnect
contactor" in the "typical wiring for internal regulator" section. I've just
installed said regulator (S701-1). Is it really not necessary, or what is it
I'm not understanding here?
TIA for explaining
Robert Dickson
RV-6A electrical
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert Dickson" <robert@thenews-journal.com>
>>1) As I read the instructions for an external regulator it looks like I
>>can wire this to the regulator "in" line that is controlled by the
>>alternator switch and then ground it locally at by the voltage regulator.
>>Is this correct?
>
> Essentially. You can wire the OVM into the system at any convenient
> place DOWNSTREAM of the circuit breaker that supplies either field
> excitation power (external regulator) or alternator control power
> (internally regulated).
>
>>2) Why is it necessary to wire the alternator to a resettable circuit
>>breaker? Is it only to reset for nuisance tripping? or is there another
>>reason why I would want to have the over voltage turned back on?
>
> Yes, to allow resetting for nuisance trips. OBAM aircraft
> are famous for situations that might trigger the OV module.
> Eventually, we track them down and fix them. If it were
> my airplane, the 5A breaker for OVM system would be on
> the panel as shown in all of the switch panel layouts
> we've published.
Well, this is something else I'm not understanding completely. I'm using an
internally regulated alternator in a Z-11 system with over voltage
protection. The 5A fuse shown should be a switch/breaker mounted on the
panel? Does it still come off the fuseblock main bus? Is it fused at the
bus?
I'm sure these are basic questions, but I'll appreciate any help I can get.
Robert Dickson
RV-6A electrical
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified |
GPS
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michael Hartmann <hartmann@sound.net>
At 09:55 AM 12/2/02 EST, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
> When you opt for an IFR flight plan, separation is the controller's
job.
>For better or for worse, the pilot elects to hand that trust to him. No
>choice in hard IFR.
Dan,
You've made some very good points. Here's some more perspective from one
controller's point of view.
My responsibility for separation, as an enroute controller, is strictly
IFR/IFR. Regardless of weather conditions, I do NOT have any
responsibility to provide separation between ANY VFR aircraft that may be
on my frequency for flight following from any other aircraft, and I do NOT
have any responsibility to separate an IFR aircraft from any other non-IFR
aircraft.
When IFR you get traffic advisories, workload permitting (a VERY low
priority), on identified VFR traffic and that fraction of non-identified
traffic that may show up on radar. When VFR getting flight following you
get traffic advisories, workload permitting (on an even lower priority
basis), on identified IFR and VFR and the small fraction of non-identified
traffic that shows up on radar. IFR or VFR, the closest thing you get to
separation from VFR traffic, identified or otherwise is a safety alert and
a recommended resolution if, in the controller's judgement the two aircraft
involved are so close to each other as to be unsafe.
In class B airspace it is a little different. Separation is provided
between all aircraft legitimately in the airspace, whether IFR or VFR.
There are still a handful of pilots who just can't seem to figure out how
to stay out of what used to be the TCA, and the controllers can't see them
all. Class A is similar in that there shouldn't be any non-IFR, and
therefore non-separated aircraft in the airspace. And yet, I've had
unidentified non-IFR traffic reported to me in the flight levels. I've
even had pilots try to cancel IFR while still in class A airspace.
Hypoxia, I guess.
I've called a lot of "VFR" traffic to IFR aircraft operating in solid IMC
and I've had a lot of traffic reported that just doesn't show up on radar.
No transponder - no target. Transponder off - no target. Low altitude -
no target. Aircraft manuvering at constant distance from my antenna within
the MTI (Moving Target Indicator) gate - no target. Significant precip
between the antenna and the aircraft - no target. Temperature inversion -
lots of targets, most of them false - way too many to call as traffic.
Your best, almost only hope of being tracked on our radar is a functional
transponder. Not all pilots/owners take this seriously. How about the guy
in that other aircraft closing on you from out of the sun at 10 O'clock?
You have windows/canopies. Look outside. Take pride in spotting traffic
before it is called, and note how many other aircraft you see when you
really look for them. They ARE out there. While controllers have
responsibility for separation in some situations, pilots always have the
ultimate responsibility for the safety of a flight, which includes the
responsibility to avoid a collision.
Finally I get to the issue I have with GPSs, handheld or otherwise, which
is where this discussion began. A pilot fiddling around with a GPS in
flight, or doing anything else that requires more than an infrequent quick
second or two of heads down time, is the aeronautical equivalent of the
minivan driver with a cell phone glued to the side of his head. Something
you shouldn't want to be and certainly hope to avoid getting too close to.
- Mike
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Over voltage and battery management module |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
Hi Bob,
I think you were planning on producing this. Is this available yet and if so where
can I get one?
Keep up the excellent work.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|