Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:33 AM - coaxial cable center conductor (BAKEROCB@aol.com)
2. 09:45 AM - Re: System Planning (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 09:45 AM - Re: firewall pass through (HCRV6@aol.com)
4. 09:57 AM - Re: System Planning (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 10:11 AM - Re: System Planning (Dan Checkoway)
6. 10:34 AM - ACS 2002 Eng Mon (larry OKeefe)
7. 11:27 AM - Re: System Planning (Rob Housman)
8. 12:30 PM - Firewall Penetrations (Jack Haviland)
9. 01:18 PM - Re: Firewall Penetrations (John & Amy Eckel)
10. 01:36 PM - LED tail light (Eric M. Jones)
11. 01:47 PM - Re: System Planning (Dennis O'Connor)
12. 02:09 PM - Re: LED tail light (Rob Housman)
13. 02:12 PM - Re: LED tail light (Thomas Friedland)
14. 02:44 PM - Re: Firewall Penetrations (Bill Hibbing)
15. 02:44 PM - Stainless hardware (Miles McCallum)
16. 02:51 PM - Re: Firewall Penetrations (Jerzy Krasinski)
17. 03:23 PM - Re: System Planning (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 03:25 PM - Re: System Planning (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 03:26 PM - Re: System Planning (Billie Lamb)
20. 03:27 PM - Re: coaxial cable center conductor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 03:30 PM - Re: System Planning (Mark Phillips)
22. 03:47 PM - Re: citabria triiong overvoltage relay (Joe and Carole Tuminello)
23. 07:05 PM - Re: LED tail light (John Schroeder)
24. 09:56 PM - Re: Firewall Penetrations (CBFLESHREN@aol.com)
25. 11:14 PM - LASAR ignition wiring (Roy Glass or Mary Poteet)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | coaxial cable center conductor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
<wsweet@attbi.com>
<<..........skip....for aircraft, stranded center conductor coaxial cable
must be used.......skip......Wayne>
12/20/2002
Hello Wayne, That is a very definitive statement, but I am not sure that it
is valid in all regards.
If I remember right RG 142 coaxial cable (18 AWG silver coated, copper
covered, solid steel center conductor) has been "blessed" / is also being
used.
Bob Nuckolls can you please comment? Thanks
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
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: System Planning |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:24 PM 12/19/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 12/19/02 1:28:47 PM Central Standard Time,
>ripsteel@edge.net writes:
>
> > It appears that if things get
> > dicey while airborne, one would kill the Master, switch all the stuff
> > off, resume Master, then add only "essential" components for each phase
> > of flight pending safe arrival.
> >
>
>Good Afternoon Rip,
>
>This may not be at all applicable to your situation, but it does relate to
>just how much can be expected of a pilot when stuff hits the fan.
>
>When The Convair 340 was first put on the line, the electrical fire procedure
>said to kill the master. After that, one was to pull all of the circuit
>breakers. That was followed by restoring electrical power by switching the
>master back on.
<snip>
>Design and think through everything to your hearts content, but retain a
>familiar back up to keep you going if things don't work out the way you think
>they will.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
Exactly. When designing any new system I try to build on
a principal brought to light in the 14th century by William
of Occam who observed:
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Over the
centuries, scholarly thinkers have elaborated on this
theme in modern syntax by suggesting, "when you have two
competing theories which make exactly the same predictions,
the one that is simpler is the better."
Our goal in system design is to be tolerant of any single
failure and to recover the mission with the simplest possible
set of actions. Your description of the emergency procedures
for the 340 are not unique. I cringe at the size and complexity
of emergency procedures for many of our products. It seems
that our most sought after outcome for any failure is to
keep it from becoming an emergency. The second goal is
to minimize things a crew has to do to deal with
the failure event.
Over the past 15 years of conversation with you folks in
the land of OBAM aircraft, we've been refining the architecture
and companion check list down to a rather simple result. We still
still see a builder from time to time that wants an
avionics master or builds additional busses and feed-paths
between various sources and loads . . . which in the
OBAM aircraft world is just fine. If their checklists are
accurately thought out, and piloting/system analysis
skills for dealing with all situations they might
encounter are adequate, the end result (put the wheels
on the ground) will be the same.
But if one embraces the simple-idea offered by a
14th century thinker, less is better. Simplicity
may improve the statistical probability of a
successful, no-emergency outcome for a failure event.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: firewall pass through |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
In a message dated 12/19/02 7:41:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
samdacat@elp.rr.com writes:
<< ?Where can I get information on the Grand Rapids EIS?? >>
616-583-8000 or www.hometown.aol.com/emginfosys.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, electrical (still)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: System Planning |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:05 PM 12/19/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
>
> > It appears that if things get
> > dicey while airborne, one would kill the Master, switch all the stuff
> > off, resume Master, then add only "essential" components for each phase
> > of flight pending safe arrival.
>
>
>This is one of the points of the E buss arch. When things get "dicey", you
>want to concentrate on flying, not turning off and on switches. This
>simplifies the process. 1) alternator blows 2) turn off main 3) turn on E
>Buss 4) fly to appropriate landing site.
>
>Some of us have added options such as a crossfeed from the E bus to the main
>fuse block. IF you are in control of the situation after #1-4 above, then
>switch all non-E bus appliances off, turn on the crossfeed switch and then
>turn on the non- E buss appliance you want to power.
When and why would you want to do this? Once the airport
is in sight, and there is a matter of convenience to be
addressed in running more electrics, why not just turn
the master switch back on?
When you feed directly from the e-bus BACK to the main
bus, you put a requirement on the alternate feed path
that makes a simple fused protection too large for crash
safety.
I'll be publishing drawings with the next revision for
adding a battery relay, a sort of mini-contactor
at the battery to handle e-bus loads in special cases.
But if one is down to battery only operation, e-bus
alternate feed path loads can easily be shaved down
to 5 amps or less. If one has a well maintained battery,
then the likelihood of having power to run more goodies
during approach to landing is quite good and closing the
battery master contactor to do this is the appropriate
thing to do.
I'm going to quit calling the e-bus an "essential"
bus . . . this word implies the notion of tense
situation. Let's call it the "endurance" bus . . .
running in this mode should be no big deal so that
when we get where we're going, it's still no big
deal to complete the flight.
Burdening the e-bus with main bus loads says
we're not comfortable with what we've designed
into the architecture and companion checklist.
Would it not be better to eliminate the source
of discomfort?
Bob . . .
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: System Planning |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> I'll be publishing drawings with the next revision for
> adding a battery relay, a sort of mini-contactor
> at the battery to handle e-bus loads in special cases.
Bob, I'm curious why somebody would want/need that. Sounds like just an
additional point of failure...when that realy goes, would the battery bus
and/or e-bus be rendered useless? I'm just getting my feet wet here, so go
easy on me... 8
)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (fuselage)
http://www.rvproject.com
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: | ACS 2002 Eng Mon |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "larry OKeefe" <okeefel@adelphia.net>
anyone have any data and/or reliability on this new Advanced Control System ACS
2002 Eng Monitoring Sys?
I saw the article in Van's RVator, 5th issue, 2002, and it seems like an interesting
unit, even has flaps position indicator.
do not archive.
Larry OKeefe,RV7A, wings
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
Ah, yes, Occam's Razor. So true!
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airfarame complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: System Planning
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
<SNIP>
Exactly. When designing any new system I try to build on
a principal brought to light in the 14th century by William
of Occam who observed:
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Over the
centuries, scholarly thinkers have elaborated on this
theme in modern syntax by suggesting, "when you have two
competing theories which make exactly the same predictions,
the one that is simpler is the better."
<SNIP>
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: | Firewall Penetrations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jack Haviland <jgh@iavbbs.com>
Stainless steel shields for wire and cable firewall penetrations are
readily available (and easy to make) but who sells the asbestos washers
and "fire putty" used with them. That "system" is probably
significantly safer than the "plastic grommets and high temperature
RTV" combination used by many builders but the parts are hard to find.
Jack H.
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: Firewall Penetrations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John & Amy Eckel <eckel1@comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Penetrations
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jack Haviland <jgh@iavbbs.com>
>
> Stainless steel shields for wire and cable firewall penetrations are
> readily available (and easy to make) but who sells the asbestos washers
> and "fire putty" used with them. That "system" is probably
> significantly safer than the "plastic grommets and high temperature
> RTV" combination used by many builders but the parts are hard to find.
>
> Jack H.
Try the following page and search for "fire stop."
http://www.mcmaster.com/
John
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
I am having problems getting the price out of Whelan, so what does Whelan model
7080500 LED tail light cost?
I am considering putting a kit together that will be FAA spec or better but (of
course) not FAA approved.
Lifetime 100,000 hours ("about forever"). Amps 1/2 of #93/94 lamp. 14.5 and 28V.
What would anyone pay for such a kit?
Eric M. Jones
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: | Re: System Planning |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
RE changing 'essential bus' to "endurance bus'...
Wrong thing to do BOb... W R O N G!
ESSENTIAL says it all...
What happened to Ocams Razor?
Denny - who will have an essential bus, with diode selection for no brainer
switching cause I will be too busy messing my pants to be worried about
getting switches in the correct pattern...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: System Planning
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 12:05 PM 12/19/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey"
<rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > > It appears that if things get
> > > dicey while airborne, one would kill the Master, switch all the stuff
> > > off, resume Master, then add only "essential" components for each
phase
> > > of flight pending safe arrival.
> >
> >
> >This is one of the points of the E buss arch. When things get "dicey",
you
> >want to concentrate on flying, not turning off and on switches. This
> >simplifies the process. 1) alternator blows 2) turn off main 3) turn on
E
> >Buss 4) fly to appropriate landing site.
> >
> >Some of us have added options such as a crossfeed from the E bus to the
main
> >fuse block. IF you are in control of the situation after #1-4 above,
then
> >switch all non-E bus appliances off, turn on the crossfeed switch and
then
> >turn on the non- E buss appliance you want to power.
>
> When and why would you want to do this? Once the airport
> is in sight, and there is a matter of convenience to be
> addressed in running more electrics, why not just turn
> the master switch back on?
>
> When you feed directly from the e-bus BACK to the main
> bus, you put a requirement on the alternate feed path
> that makes a simple fused protection too large for crash
> safety.
>
> I'll be publishing drawings with the next revision for
> adding a battery relay, a sort of mini-contactor
> at the battery to handle e-bus loads in special cases.
>
> But if one is down to battery only operation, e-bus
> alternate feed path loads can easily be shaved down
> to 5 amps or less. If one has a well maintained battery,
> then the likelihood of having power to run more goodies
> during approach to landing is quite good and closing the
> battery master contactor to do this is the appropriate
> thing to do.
>
> I'm going to quit calling the e-bus an "essential"
> bus . . . this word implies the notion of tense
> situation. Let's call it the "endurance" bus . . .
> running in this mode should be no big deal so that
> when we get where we're going, it's still no big
> deal to complete the flight.
>
> Burdening the e-bus with main bus loads says
> we're not comfortable with what we've designed
> into the architecture and companion checklist.
> Would it not be better to eliminate the source
> of discomfort?
>
> 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
US$428.95 for the 28VDC LED tail light assembly (P/N 11-01228) from Aircraft
Spruce.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airfarame complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED tail light
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
I am having problems getting the price out of Whelan, so what does Whelan
model 7080500 LED tail light cost?
I am considering putting a kit together that will be FAA spec or better but
(of course) not FAA approved.
Lifetime 100,000 hours ("about forever"). Amps 1/2 of #93/94 lamp. 14.5 and
28V.
What would anyone pay for such a kit?
Eric M. Jones
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Thomas Friedland" <beecho@pw-x.com>
Eric
You know that Whelan's price will be 10 X reasonable. Why not go for
the whole enchilada and make kits for navigation and white wing tip
position lights?
Tom
beecho@pw-x.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
M. Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED tail light
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
I am having problems getting the price out of Whelan, so what does
Whelan model 7080500 LED tail light cost?
I am considering putting a kit together that will be FAA spec or better
but (of course) not FAA approved.
Lifetime 100,000 hours ("about forever"). Amps 1/2 of #93/94 lamp. 14.5
and 28V.
What would anyone pay for such a kit?
Eric M. Jones
=
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: Firewall Penetrations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh@bellsouth.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John & Amy Eckel" <eckel1@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Penetrations
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John & Amy Eckel
<eckel1@comcast.net>
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Penetrations
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jack Haviland <jgh@iavbbs.com>
> >
> > Stainless steel shields for wire and cable firewall penetrations are
> > readily available (and easy to make) but who sells the asbestos washers
> > and "fire putty" used with them. That "system" is probably
> > significantly safer than the "plastic grommets and high temperature
> > RTV" combination used by many builders but the parts are hard to find.
> >
> > Jack H.
The 3M fire barrier caulk (the red stuff) is available at most Home Depot
stores in the electrical dept for about $10.00 a tube. This may or may not
be what you are looking for but it is the same stuff that's sold by aircraft
supply houses for about $25 a tube. You have to look really close to find
the stuff as the stores I've visited had it hidden pretty well.
Bill (Skybolt)
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: | Stainless hardware |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Miles McCallum" <milesm@avnet.co.uk>
Gartmann stainless seems to have vanished - are they still going (does
anyone have a web address or phone #) - one in the aerocrafters and vans
listings don't work.
Or any other suggestions....
Cheers,
Miles
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: Firewall Penetrations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski <krasins@ceat.okstate.edu>
Actually, RTV is pretty good. Try to burn it with a torch. You will find
that it converts into white powdery stuff that pretty well sticks
together. RTV is a silicone rubber. At high temperature it decomposes
into quartz powder, increasing its volume and packing the opening.
Quartz is very resistant against high temperature. Firebricks are made
of quartz.
Jerzy
John & Amy Eckel wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John & Amy Eckel <eckel1@comcast.net>
>
>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Penetrations
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jack Haviland <jgh@iavbbs.com>
>>
>>Stainless steel shields for wire and cable firewall penetrations are
>>readily available (and easy to make) but who sells the asbestos washers
>>and "fire putty" used with them. That "system" is probably
>>significantly safer than the "plastic grommets and high temperature
>>RTV" combination used by many builders but the parts are hard to find.
>>
>>Jack H.
>>
>>
>
>Try the following page and search for "fire stop."
>http://www.mcmaster.com/
>
>John
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: System Planning |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:25 PM 12/19/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
>
>Dear Bob,
>
>If I have a mind left, please consider this inquiry:
>
>After following the Aeroelectric list since its inception, and even
>after my second reading of -The Book-, I am obviously missing something
>fundamental; please set me straight. In following your philosophy in
>all preliminary planning, I have faithfully designed for the Main and
>Essential/Endurance bus architecture. Now that my system drawing
>(basically Z-11) is staring back at me from the screen, I am trying to
>understand what the fundamental purpose is for this arrangement. I have
>looked for specific references that speak to this, even in your articles
>on the web, and have failed to locate them. (link me up, Scotty!) I
>understand shedding non-essential loads upon alternator failure,
. . . try to think more in terms of watching your
gas gage go down when it's 100 miles across an uninhabited
stretch of desert before you have any chance of buying
gas. What speed on your car gives you best gas mileage.
It's NOT 80 mph, it's probably not 10 mph either. At some
speed between 10 and 80 you'll stand the greatest chance
of arriving with perhaps fuel to spare.
If your alternator quits, all you've got is battery power.
What things are necessary for en route operations . . . how
do exterior lights help you get there? How do engine instruments
help? The major point of discussions in Chapter 17 is that
very few things are needed to adequately navigate to where
your destination is in sight. This shouldn't be a sweat'n
bullets deal. When I get into a rental machine, I don't
care if ANYTHING electrical on the panel is working
all the way . . . I intend to get where I'm going in
the J-3 mode if necessary. In fact, since I have no
in, should I have an alternator failure, I'd shut the
whole system down. I've been flying with dual hand
held GPS receivers for years. I've got a hand held
VOR/COM and flashlights in the bag. When I've got
the airport in sight, I'll raise any tower or
approach facility on the hand held first. Let them
know what's going on and then bring the battery back
on line.
If there's enough stuff to make the approach more
graceful, fine. If not, fine too.
That's what your e-bus is about. Since you're not
saddled with holy-watered hardware, YOUR plan-B
is the e-bus. Stuff in the flight bag is plan-C.
When I fly, all I've got is Plan B in the flight
bag but that's better than MOST of our spam-can
flying brethren understand and take advantage of.
I object to words like dicey, tense, critical, essential,
etc, when it comes to electrics. What's truly essential
is airframe, engine and pilot. Everything else is just
along for the adventure. If you have a trip from time
to time that lets you take advantage of superior
systems architecture and pilot understanding . . .
great. I presume that's at least of the reasons why
you're rolling your own flying machine.
> . . . and
>isolation of ailing systems (I think!),
. . . what system might be ailing to the extent
that shutting it down becomes either convenient
or necessary? That falls under the category
of single system failure that's usually handled
with the operating the appropriate switch to OFF
along with carefully chosen, colorful expletives.
After that, so what? You hammer on it when you get home.
> . . . but after distributing goodies
>to the busses, every single circuit attached to the Main bus is
>independently protected and switchable. (exceptions to "switchable":
>EIS engine monitor- but I'm thinking this belongs on the E-bus, please
>advise-, and your -201 low volts monitor).
How do engine instruments help you get where you're
going? How often do you expect any given instrument
to give you some bit of information en route that
is particularly interesting? Tooling along on the
e-bus doesn't keep you from bringing the master on
every 15 minutes to peek at a few things before
you turn it back off.
> . . . . It appears that if things get
>dicey while airborne, one would kill the Master, switch all the stuff
>off, resume Master, then add only "essential" components for each phase
>of flight pending safe arrival.
>
>My ship is a day/nite VFR RV, carb & dual mags, with 17ah batt,
>contactors and all fat wires FWF.
If you do plan to fly in clouds then there are a variety
of ways to keep a single failure from making your
trip go bad. ALL failures and the effects due to failure
can be deduced and dealt with by adjustments to
architecture and your understanding on how to use them.
Since you're going to stay out of clouds, then
building a system for sweat-free-flying is no big deal.
>Not questioning the validity of the E-bus architecture, I just prefer to
>understand the whats & whys of all this stuff before I commit (all stuff
>but them little black boxes, that is- them's still FM to me!)
Are you using fuse blocks? Got plenty of spares in each
block? You don't need to carve all these decisions
into stone today. In fact, after you've been flying
for a year and you decide some electro-whizzy needs to move
from one bus to another, you just move the wire to
the other fuse block and put in the appropriate
fuse. This airplane is experimental . . . you're going
to go find out what works best for you. Modifications
along the way are simply milestones along the pathway to
excellence.
Bob . . .
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: System Planning |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:51 PM 12/19/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
>Ok, Grok, I'm not Bob but try this on for size..... :-)
>
>If you don't use the E-bus system, how are you going to restore power to
>the essentials on a a conventional system if the main contactor is
>toast??
>
>Me thinks the purpose of the E-bus is to provide power even if
>EVERYTHING from the main contactor (including the contactor) forward is
>gone.
Yup . . . that too.
>Sam Buchanan (RV-6 with essential bus, still learning)
. . . and doing just fine with that too.
Bob . . .
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: System Planning |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Billie Lamb" <N254BL@cfl.rr.com>
I agree completely. I am very comfortable with the term essential and doubt
you'll be able to escape it. Let's just learn to enjoy it.
Bill Lamb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: System Planning
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor"
<doconnor@chartermi.net>
>
> RE changing 'essential bus' to "endurance bus'...
> Wrong thing to do BOb... W R O N G!
> ESSENTIAL says it all...
> What happened to Ocams Razor?
>
> Denny - who will have an essential bus, with diode selection for no
brainer
> switching cause I will be too busy messing my pants to be worried about
> getting switches in the correct pattern...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: System Planning
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> > At 12:05 PM 12/19/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey"
> <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
> > >
> > > > It appears that if things get
> > > > dicey while airborne, one would kill the Master, switch all the
stuff
> > > > off, resume Master, then add only "essential" components for each
> phase
> > > > of flight pending safe arrival.
> > >
> > >
> > >This is one of the points of the E buss arch. When things get "dicey",
> you
> > >want to concentrate on flying, not turning off and on switches. This
> > >simplifies the process. 1) alternator blows 2) turn off main 3) turn
on
> E
> > >Buss 4) fly to appropriate landing site.
> > >
> > >Some of us have added options such as a crossfeed from the E bus to the
> main
> > >fuse block. IF you are in control of the situation after #1-4 above,
> then
> > >switch all non-E bus appliances off, turn on the crossfeed switch and
> then
> > >turn on the non- E buss appliance you want to power.
> >
> > When and why would you want to do this? Once the airport
> > is in sight, and there is a matter of convenience to be
> > addressed in running more electrics, why not just turn
> > the master switch back on?
> >
> > When you feed directly from the e-bus BACK to the main
> > bus, you put a requirement on the alternate feed path
> > that makes a simple fused protection too large for crash
> > safety.
> >
> > I'll be publishing drawings with the next revision for
> > adding a battery relay, a sort of mini-contactor
> > at the battery to handle e-bus loads in special cases.
> >
> > But if one is down to battery only operation, e-bus
> > alternate feed path loads can easily be shaved down
> > to 5 amps or less. If one has a well maintained battery,
> > then the likelihood of having power to run more goodies
> > during approach to landing is quite good and closing the
> > battery master contactor to do this is the appropriate
> > thing to do.
> >
> > I'm going to quit calling the e-bus an "essential"
> > bus . . . this word implies the notion of tense
> > situation. Let's call it the "endurance" bus . . .
> > running in this mode should be no big deal so that
> > when we get where we're going, it's still no big
> > deal to complete the flight.
> >
> > Burdening the e-bus with main bus loads says
> > we're not comfortable with what we've designed
> > into the architecture and companion checklist.
> > Would it not be better to eliminate the source
> > of discomfort?
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Re: coaxial cable center conductor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:30 PM 12/20/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
><wsweet@attbi.com>
>
> <<..........skip....for aircraft, stranded center conductor coaxial cable
>must be used.......skip......Wayne>
>
>12/20/2002
>
>Hello Wayne, That is a very definitive statement, but I am not sure that it
>is valid in all regards.
>
>If I remember right RG 142 coaxial cable (18 AWG silver coated, copper
>covered, solid steel center conductor) has been "blessed" / is also being
>used.
>
>Bob Nuckolls can you please comment? Thanks
RG400 and RG142 are electrically equal to each other.
They differ only mechanically in that RG142 has a solid
center conductor. My personal preference is 400 but
I wouldn't throw away a fine piece of 142. The
connectors we sell work on both cables.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| 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: System Planning |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
>
> > > It appears that if things get
> > > dicey while airborne, one would kill the Master, switch all the stuff
> > > off, resume Master, then add only "essential" components for each phase
> > > of flight pending safe arrival.
> > >
> >
> >This may not be at all applicable to your situation, but it does relate to
> >just how much can be expected of a pilot when stuff hits the fan.
> >
> >When The Convair 340 was first put on the line, the electrical fire procedure
> >said to kill the master. After that, one was to pull all of the circuit
> >breakers. That was followed by restoring electrical power by switching the
> >master back on.
>
> ... Occam who observed:
>
> "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." .... "when you have two
> competing theories which make exactly the same predictions,
> the one that is simpler is the better."
...which is exactly why I am working at convincing myself that having a triple
bus
(main/"e"/batt) system is an advantage over dual (main/batt) - We're talking about
a simple
day/nite VFR experimental where total circuits requiring shutdown number about
3 to 5
(alternator, comm, xpndr, wing leveler, stereo, ?) for day ops, or about 7 to 9
(add strobes,
pos, panel lites, maybe landing lites if on) for nite. My RV certainly ain't no
full-dress
Lancair IVP (darn!) or Convair 340. Would it not be prudent to shut off anything
on the
E-bus if a problem is encountered before selecting "Alternate Feed"? ("...and
just what did
I hook to that E-bus? Best shut it all off anyway to be sure...")
What started this was trying to determine appropriate placement of circuits to
the
appropriate bus. Much is no-brainerism- outside lights, wing lever, stereo, coffee
pot:
Main!! Comm, Engine monitor, EFIS, GPS, panel lights: easy- "E-bus"!! ...or
is it? What
about flaps? Elevator trim? Transponder? Fuel pump? What are the important criteria
to
examine? I prefer solid rationale to "best guess", and as I am a low time pilot
and first
time builder, any guidance would be most appreciated! Got any simple rules this
lowly
grasshopper can abide by? Or better yet, just give me a simple list- (butcha better
be able
to tell me WHY what stuff goes WHERE!)
Thanks for your patience, opinions and for just being here- can't imagine doing
this alone-
And the best Holiday Wishes to all on the A-list!!
Mark Phillips - Columbia TN - losing hair over wires 8-)
do not archive
Message 22
| 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: citabria triiong overvoltage relay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joe and Carole Tuminello <mouseysf@pacbell.net>
My mechanic said id is a solid state regulator and that if it was that it
would simply go all together not act intermitent. I put the new battery in
and it still did it, but less frequently.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: citabria triiong overvoltage relay
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:45 AM 12/10/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joe and Carole Tuminello
> ><mouseysf@pacbell.net>
> >
> >Matt,
> >Thanks the old battery is fine. It reads the full voltage static, I think
> >12.8 volts. Somebody else having a similar problem says it is most likely
> >the old over voltage relay causing nuisance trips. We shall see.
> >Thank you
> >Joe
> >----- Original Message -----
> > > >>by wx30. The ampmeter jumps up and overvolts cuttign off the
alternator.
> > > >>Resest it and it does it again and again. I have a new alternator,
> > > >>only 3 years old. The battery is 3 years old also and has plenty of
> > > >>cranking power. Someone is trying to convince me the battery has a
> > > >>shorted cell.,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >Before I end up replacing the battery and voltage regulator, does
anyone
> >have any ideas?
>
> The only form of battery condition that can make
> the system unstable to the degree that an ov protection
> system trips is an OPEN battery. If it started
> your engine then this possibility is eliminated.
>
> If you get spikes in the ammeter the same time the ov trips,
> then there is a problem with the regulator -OR- wiring that
> hooks up the regulator/field wiring. I had a similar problem
> with an airplane that was getting transient shorts between the
> field and b-leads attached to the alternator. There have
> been situations where pieces came loose inside an alternator
> and allowed it to go into runaway mode but this is VERY rare.
>
> I think Dave S. commented on this and I agree that the problem
> seems most likely to reside in your regulator.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 23
| 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: LED tail light |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Eric -
Depends on the price. Ledtronics has a bunch of replacement bulbs made
from LEDs. Going commercial, or getting them to fabricate such a light
might be cheaper and less hassle. Anything will be cheaper and probably
better than Whelan!
John Schroeder
>
> I am considering putting a kit together that will be FAA spec or better but (of
course) not FAA approved.
> Lifetime 100,000 hours ("about forever"). Amps 1/2 of #93/94 lamp. 14.5 and 28V.
>
> What would anyone pay for such a kit?
>
> Eric M. Jones
Message 24
| 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: Firewall Penetrations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CBFLESHREN@aol.com
" RTV is a silicone rubber. At high temperature it decomposes
into quartz powder,"
Not trying to step on toes here but I believe "RTV" (Room Temperature
Vulcanizing) is simply a means by which many compositions "set" or "cure".
Granted there are "silicone rubbers" that "set" in this fashion. However,
most of the MANY different types of caulks (latex etc) at the hardware stores
do too ! Lastly, clearly not all of these would result in "quartz" if burned
. Just felt like clarifying- Happy Holidays to all . Chris
Message 25
| 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: | LASAR ignition wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Roy Glass or Mary Poteet <rlglass@alaska.net>
How does one wire the p-leads for a LASAR ignition? I want to use toggle
switches for each magneto and a push-button starter. The blue and green
wires from the LASAR low voltage control harness do not appear to be
shielded and do not go directly to a magneto, instead they go to the
controller box. I realize that each magneto needs to be grounded to be
"off," but how does one do this with a LASAR? Should I use a shielded
p-lead wire with the primary wire attached to terminal 3 of a
single-pole switch and the wire's shielding connected to both terminal 2
AND to panel ground? The other end of each shielded wire would not be
grounded to a magneto or engine ground (single-point ground, but with a
short length of shielded wire). The other end of the primary wire would
be spliced to the blue or green harness wire. Is there a better way? Is
a shielded p-lead even needed with the LASAR? Should I shorten the
non-shielded harness wires to reduce the chance of noise or leave them
be (about 6 feet long) and just use a short length of shielded wire to
get past the firewall? Lots of questions, and I haven't even gotten to
the CHT part yet. Can someone direct me to a wiring diagram for the
LASAR using toggle switches instead of a key switch?
Roy Glass, RV-6, fwf, Anchorage, Alaska
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! --
|