Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:40 AM - Re: Shielded wire (Larry Bowen)
2. 07:49 AM - Re: Shielded wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:43 AM - Dual Alernators on M-14P (Don Boardman)
4. 08:45 AM - Re: Wire (ing) Questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:48 AM - Re: OV Protection/Internal Regulator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:02 AM - Re: Fuses (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:06 AM - Failed horizons (Fergus Kyle)
8. 09:40 AM - Re: Failed horizons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 10:58 AM - Re: Wiring issues at the wing root (Rob Housman)
10. 01:02 PM - pre-heaters (Shannon Knoepflein)
11. 01:29 PM - Re: pre-heaters (Denis Walsh)
12. 02:01 PM - SEC: UNCLASSIFIED : Illuminated toggle swithches (Francis, David CMDR)
13. 03:06 PM - Re: Wire (ing) Questions (Don Boardman)
14. 03:20 PM - Re: Wiring issues at the wing root (Cliff Shaw)
15. 07:16 PM - Re: Wire (ing) Questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 07:21 PM - Re: Shielded wire (Larry Bowen)
17. 07:30 PM - Re: Z-13 questions (czechsix@juno.com)
18. 10:42 PM - Re: Z-13 questions,,, duel ignitions (Benford2@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
OK. Thanks. Does it matter which end? This is the rule no matter what
is using the shielded wire -- p-leads, avionics, etc?
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003: The year of flight!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Jim V. Wickert
> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:06 AM
> To: INTERNET:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shielded wire
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim V. Wickert"
> --> <JimW_btg@compuserve.com>
>
> Larry,
>
> >From over thirty years of noise supression for analog and other line
> problems it is one end of the shield grounded because with
> two you create a loop. And they you chase it for ever.
>
> Jim Wickert
> Vision #159
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:40 AM 1/19/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
>
>OK. Thanks. Does it matter which end? This is the rule no matter what
>is using the shielded wire -- p-leads, avionics, etc?
Follow the instructions . . .
For example, p-leads on our z-drawings are GROUNDED at the
engine end . . . the switch end is use to PROVIDE A GROUND
for the switch. Here is an example of a case where the
shield is connected at both ends but only one end is
GROUND.
Same kind of thing happens in the installation drawings
I published for our Microair transceiver harness . . .
shields are connected at both ends, grounded at the
radio and provide grounds for mic/headset jacks.
Your 3-conductor shielded strobe wiring should ground
the shield at the power supply end . . . and if the
strobe head is mounted on an insulated surface, the
shield should provide ground for the shell of the head.
If the head mounts on a metal surface, then the shield
is left unconnected at the strobe head.
If the instructions are not clear, let's talk about it
here on the list . . .
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: | Dual Alernators on M-14P |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
<<Our Murphy Moose will be powered by the M-14PF radial engine....We will be
running dual alternators using the B&C 8Amp back up and a single battery.>>
Don,
I'm curious about the physical arrangement of two alternators on an
M14.
How is that done?
Dan,
There is an adapter available for the engine that allows you to drive a
vaccum pump. It therefore will also allow you to use the B&C vac. drive
alternators.
They are available from George Coy at george@gesoco.com.
His web site is: http://www.gesoco.com
Regards,
Don
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: Wire (ing) Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:55 AM 1/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Hope all is well.
>
>Panel is cut and the firewall forward is on its way. Avionics are on the
>bench. I have a copy of The AeoElectric Connection. All the items I could
>think of where ordered from B&C Specialty and are sitting on the shelf.
>About the last prep task is to order wire.
>
>Our Murphy Moose will be powered by the M-14PF radial engine. It uses an air
>start so there is no electric starter and it's associated contactor.
>I am using a Skytronics 50 amp alternator with a Jasco j12M20SP regulator
>which incorporates a SVP-3 voltage protector. We will be running dual
>alternators using the B&C 8Amp back up and a single battery.
>
>I would appreciate it if you would verify my thinking.
>
>1. Without electric start do I run the wire from the B output terminal on
>the alternator to the anl-60 and then directly to the S701-2 battery
>contactor?
Yes . . .
>2. The Skytronics people indicate the use of #8 wire for single routing and
>#6 wire when bundled to handle the output of the 50 amp alternator. I see #2
>& #4 wire used from Battery to contactor, to starter contactor, to
>alternator. in most schematics. The wire chart says #8 carries 40A, #6 54A
>with a 35C rise. At a 10C rise 40A would call for #4 wire and at 50A a bit
>larger. Your recommendation for wire size from Battery to contactor and then
>to the alternator output in this application?
I stocked #4 and #2 as the two most useful "fat" wires to
keep on hand. While smaller wires can be used for situation
you cited, I never bothered to stock the wires because these
segments are always very short and it would take years to
use up a minimum purchase spool of sizes like #6 to #12 et. als.
Using and "oversized" wire is not sinful and in the short
lengths we're talking about, weight savings would be measured
in grams. Where you don't have a starter current pathway to
consider, then a 40A system's fat wires could be #6
throughout.
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: OV Protection/Internal Regulator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:26 PM 1/18/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
>
>Hi Bob (Nuckolls),
>
>In your book (page 6-6, diagram 6-4 (The Ultimate Protection, the
>"Relayless" O.V. Relay)) an OV circuit is shown that does not include an
>alternator OV disconnect contactor. In figure Z-24 the contactor is
>shown. Could you please elaborate on the differences? I would guess
>that the concern is when the alternator field is cut (fuse blows) the
>alternator may not immediately stop producing power (but since I know
>nothing about electricity my assumptions are dangerous!)?
>
>FYI: my situation is a auto engine (Subaru) with an internally regulated
>alternator.
If you have an INTERNALLY regulated alternator, then shutting
of the +14 volts going into the control lead is not a 100%
sure means of shutting down a working alternator . . . much
less a failed one. THEN is when we add the external b-lead
disconnect relay.
If your alternator is EXTERNALLY regulated, then opening
the alternator field path is certain to corral the runaway
charging system and the b-lead relay is not needed.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:52 AM 1/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
In a message dated 1/17/2003 9:22:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
emjones@charter.net writes:
>
> Everything I think know about fuses, but just my opinions:
>
> European fuses seem to have poor ability to withstand vibration. This is an
> important spec for aircraft. The fuses in German-made machinery have
> historically been less reliable than US stuff. For the last 28-years I
> would see German fuses come apart in a million pieces: Two end-caps, an
> element, a glass tube and 999,996 grains of sand.
Maybe the Germans need to spend a little of their excellent
automotive engineering skills looking for a better means of
assembling their fuses.
I was never very impressed with the tapered-end, cartridge fuses
in my Volkswagens of years past, but then, the HKP coil spring
fuseholders from Bussmann are only a few cuts above . . .
The modern, ATC style fuses with their high-pressure, gas-tight
connecting clips and one piece conductors in the fuse are at the
top of the heap these days. It will be interesting to see what's
next in the evolution of high efficiency, stone simple, circuit
protection . . .
>
> NASA technicians replaced lots of fuses with brass rods (called no-blows)
> when manned launches started.
I've worked a number of systems wherein fuses or breakers were
included in major feeders for the purpose of protecting the
system during development and test (never could tell when
some bumble-fingered engineer would drop his screwdriver into
a j-box somewhere.
Once the truly risky work was completed, the feeders were
connected hard to the supply when protection during normal
operations were adequately protected with downstream
distribution hardware.
>
> It took me two years to find the short-circuit in my Jeep that blew the
> foglight fuses every nine months.
Had a fuses that popped in my Voyager's cruise control system.
Wasn't worth the time and trouble to look for the problem . . .
fuses were cheap and seldom needed. Years later, problem went away
when switch finally failed and got replaced.
> People get PhD's in fusing technology, but there is always stuff that will
> burn up and not blow a fuse.
Yup, they don't pop thermal or most magnetic breakers either.
That's why many of my contemporaries are busy trying to devise
"smart breakers" that analyze the nature of a fault signal
in an attempt to identify current limited arcing . . . Maybe
Boeing has an interest in these things since there are so many
lawyers just dying to sue them . . . but I can't get very
excited about this technology for little airplanes.
>
> Don't plug a vacuum cleaner into your computer power strip.
>
Heat guns are a bad deal too . . .
Bob . . .
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: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Cheers,
If we're talking Artificial Horizon failure, I was amazed to
hear that the 'failure flag' meant ONLY electric power failure - after
months of transporting inoocents to JFK in a DC9. A quick review of previous
training course papers slid over this point without drawing the attention it
deserved. That is all over now, but it pays to ask!
"There is no procedure that I know of that will allow an aviator to discern
an impending Attitude Gyro Failure faster than to include the rate
instrument in his/her everyday scan."
Couldn't agree more. Testing for 'rate one' is all OK when doing
air work, but ordinary flying calls for quick response when internal failure
dogs the A/H. As discussed, a short jab of the rudder reveals the security
of T&B (or Turn and Slip) and also confirms the reliability of the Horizon.
In the 1011, primary controls were doubled (one set/seat) and separated by
springs with failure indicators. The fail light spoke of disagreement but
the pilots had to confirm which seat had control in this case. The rudder
tap (swift, it's indiscernible to passengers) showed the which A/H to be
faulty internally. Of course in airliners three A/Hs confirmed failure if
suspected. T&B is indispensable in my machine.
"I, personally, think the T&B is a vastly superior instrument to the Turn
Coordinator, but if either one is regularly included in the normal flight
scan, it should do the job rapidly and efficiently.
One more thing. Be sure you carry a pasty note or some other do-hickey to
cover up a failed attitude instrument. Makes partial panel flight much
easier if you can't see that leaning gyro."
Thanks for the reminder, Bob.
That's plain good 'business'.
Ferg
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: Failed horizons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/19/03 11:06:52 AM Central Standard Time, VE3LVO@rac.ca
writes:
> If we're talking Artificial Horizon failure, I was amazed to
> hear that the 'failure flag' meant ONLY electric power failure -
Good Morning Ferg,
I believe that many of the more sophisticated gyros also have some sort of
gyro RPM sensor that will warn of internal failures as well as power source
failures. I don't have any documentation to that effect, just some ancient,
often unreliable, memory cells are telling me that. Most of our GA
instruments that have flags are just denoting a power failure.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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: | Wiring issues at the wing root |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.com>
As the builder of a trailerable aircraft with removable wings this issue is
very important so I would appreciate your comments on what type connectors
are suitable for very frequent use.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear
Airframe complete
-----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: Wiring issues at the wing root
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:51 AM 1/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lynwood Stagg" <woody6@yahoo.com>
>
>Thanks Randy. I had not run across your site yet. Very helpful.
>
>With the Whelen install kit for strobes, the 3 conductor cable has a
shield
>for attach at the power supply end. Did you just run this through the wing
>root connector too? I wasn't sure how this would impact the shielding
>re:noise.
The wing root connectors thing comes around periodically.
Keep in mind that every connector you put in a wire bundle
adds three new joints to every wire. I am flying airplanes
that are 40 years old and never had the wings removed.
Does the convenience of the wing root connector(s) offset
the decreased reliability that every connector adds?
If it were my airplane, I'd leave long pigtails hanging
out of the wing roots for wing wiring that would be left
un-connected until final mating of wings to fuselage.
Wire routing would leave enough slack for about a 6"
diameter "service loop" of wire in each bundle. Should
the wings require removal at some later date, there is
sufficient slack in the wires to allow cutting and splicing
with PIDG butt-splices . . . nearly as reliable as original
wire.
Coaxes, of course, would need to have connectors installed
suited to this special case.
If you MUST have connectors in wire bundles that use
shielded wire, the shields should be treated as separate
conductors and enjoy their own pin for carrying shield
integrity across the connector.
If you DO install wing root connectors, allow for the
service-loop slack I suggest above anyhow. You may
find this extra wire handy in the future should you
find it useful to cut the connector out of the wire
bundle and close the gap with butt-splices.
Bob . . .
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: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
With all this cold weather here lately in KY, I've been researched
engine pre-heaters. I came up with a nice system made by Reiff,
http://www.reiffpreheat.com/product.htm#Standard%20System. Any comments
or experience?
However, in my search on their site, I cam across a product that heats
the battery, which they say is beneficial for a lead acid battery,
http://www.reiffpreheat.com/Battery%20Heater.htm. I wondering if this
was true, and if it was also true for the RG style batterys (17ah) I
will have in my Legacy.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
> <kycshann@kyol.net>
>
> With all this cold weather here lately in KY, I've been researched
> engine pre-heaters. I came up with a nice system made by Reiff,
> http://www.reiffpreheat.com/product.htm#Standard%20System. Any comments
> or experience?
>
> However, in my search on their site, I cam across a product that heats
> the battery, which they say is beneficial for a lead acid battery,
> http://www.reiffpreheat.com/Battery%20Heater.htm. I wondering if this
> was true, and if it was also true for the RG style batterys (17ah) I
> will have in my Legacy.
>
> ---
> Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
I am on my sixth winter with the Reiff original hot padd sump heater. It
has worked without fault. The newer systems look better.
I really like it. You do need to have about 20 minutes or more, to heat up
the oil enough to make it start better and warm up better. Don't think you
need worry about heating the Odyssey since it has more than enough snort
even when cold.
Denis
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: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED : Illuminated toggle swithches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Francis, David CMDR" <David.Francis@defence.gov.au>
For illuminated toggle swithh see the Series M2100 at www.nkkswitches.com
<http://www.nkkswitches.com> For aircraft you just need to be careful about
the brightness of the handle led. Whats fine by day might be too bright at
night.
David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra, Australia, surrounded by bushfires.
> I have been searching without luck for ANY alternative to bat-handle
> toggle switches for my panel- let's face it, when was the last time you
> plopped yer fanny down in a $60K sports car and saw bat-handles? The
> combinations of these critters that Bob shows in the Connection are
> testimony to their variety and versatility, but I'd sure like to know if
> anyone's dug up some alternatives. I would really like to find some
> illuminated rockers (or short handled toggles) with the single small LED
> (or light) indicating the circuit is energized for stuff like exterior
> lights, fuel pump, e-bus feed etc. but so far have only come up with
> some that are SPST i.e., OFF-ON, and precious little else. Have
Email: David.Francis@defence.gov.au <mailto:David.Francis@defence.gov.au>
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: | Re: Wire (ing) Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
Hi Bob,
> Where you don't have a starter current pathway to
> consider, then a 40A system's fat wires could be #6
> throughout.
The Skytronics alternator puts out 50 Amps will #6 still work?
Thanks,
Don B.
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: Wiring issues at the wing root |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Cliff Shaw" <flyinggpa@attbi.com>
Rod
I have found that the AMP CPC is very good. I used them in Bob Jacobsen's
Europa and am using them in mine. They are in both the Dig-a Key and the
Mouser catalogs.
Cliff Shaw
1041 Euclid ave.
Edmonds WA 98020
(425) 776-5555
N229WC "Wile E Coyote"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wiring issues at the wing root
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman"
<robh@hyperion-ef.com>
>
> As the builder of a trailerable aircraft with removable wings this issue
is
> very important so I would appreciate your comments on what type connectors
> are suitable for very frequent use.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
> Europa XS Tri-Gear
> Airframe complete
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L.
> Nuckolls, III
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring issues at the wing root
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 10:51 AM 1/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lynwood Stagg"
<woody6@yahoo.com>
> >
> >Thanks Randy. I had not run across your site yet. Very helpful.
> >
> >With the Whelen install kit for strobes, the 3 conductor cable has a
> shield
> >for attach at the power supply end. Did you just run this through the
wing
> >root connector too? I wasn't sure how this would impact the shielding
> >re:noise.
>
> The wing root connectors thing comes around periodically.
> Keep in mind that every connector you put in a wire bundle
> adds three new joints to every wire. I am flying airplanes
> that are 40 years old and never had the wings removed.
> Does the convenience of the wing root connector(s) offset
> the decreased reliability that every connector adds?
>
> If it were my airplane, I'd leave long pigtails hanging
> out of the wing roots for wing wiring that would be left
> un-connected until final mating of wings to fuselage.
>
> Wire routing would leave enough slack for about a 6"
> diameter "service loop" of wire in each bundle. Should
> the wings require removal at some later date, there is
> sufficient slack in the wires to allow cutting and splicing
> with PIDG butt-splices . . . nearly as reliable as original
> wire.
>
> Coaxes, of course, would need to have connectors installed
> suited to this special case.
>
> If you MUST have connectors in wire bundles that use
> shielded wire, the shields should be treated as separate
> conductors and enjoy their own pin for carrying shield
> integrity across the connector.
>
> If you DO install wing root connectors, allow for the
> service-loop slack I suggest above anyhow. You may
> find this extra wire handy in the future should you
> find it useful to cut the connector out of the wire
> bundle and close the gap with butt-splices.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | Re: Wire (ing) Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:06 PM 1/19/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
> > Where you don't have a starter current pathway to
> > consider, then a 40A system's fat wires could be #6
> > throughout.
>
>The Skytronics alternator puts out 50 Amps will #6 still work?
>
>Thanks,
>Don B.
yes . . it just runs a tad warmer IF you can continuously
load your alternator to 50A . . . There are a lot of airplanes
flying with 10AWG wire for the b-lead of a 40A or even a 50A
machine. The owners will tell you, "gee, I've been flying
this airplane for years with no problems."
As long as you don't find yourself in the situation typical
of that which nuisance trips the breaker on most single
engine airplanes (cold morning, new battery but totally
discharged, jump start the airplane and turn on lots of
stuff before the battery charge begins to taper off), the
average draw from a large machine is indeed within the
capability of 10AWG wire.
It's that rare condition that produces sustained output
that begins to stress things . . . 6AWG will be just fine
on a 50A machine.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
To be honest, I haven't looked in your book for this info. I have no
excuse. I'll refer to it now!
What raised this question was the wiring of the Jeff Rose EI. It just
says to use shielded wire. I spoke to Jeff last week, but I didn't ask
about this issue. I will tomorrow.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003: The year of flight!
> -----Original Message-----
>
> At 08:40 AM 1/19/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen"
> >--> <Larry@BowenAero.com>
> >
> >OK. Thanks. Does it matter which end? This is the rule no matter
> >what is using the shielded wire -- p-leads, avionics, etc?
>
> Follow the instructions . . .
>
> For example, p-leads on our z-drawings are GROUNDED at the
> engine end . . . the switch end is use to PROVIDE A GROUND
> for the switch. Here is an example of a case where the
> shield is connected at both ends but only one end is
> GROUND.
>
> Same kind of thing happens in the installation drawings
> I published for our Microair transceiver harness . . .
> shields are connected at both ends, grounded at the
> radio and provide grounds for mic/headset jacks.
>
> Your 3-conductor shielded strobe wiring should ground
> the shield at the power supply end . . . and if the
> strobe head is mounted on an insulated surface, the
> shield should provide ground for the shell of the head.
> If the head mounts on a metal surface, then the shield
> is left unconnected at the strobe head.
>
> If the instructions are not clear, let's talk about it
> here on the list . . .
>
> Bob . . .
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: Z-13 questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-13 questions
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:08 PM 1/18/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>
>Hi Bob, I have a few questions on Z-13:
>
>1) I'm wondering if there's any compelling reason not to eliminate the
>6-slot fuseblock you show for the always hot battery bus in favor of
more
>direct connections. Specifically, I am running dual Lightspeed
ignitions
>so the connection to the battery is absolutely critical to engine
>operation. I'm thinking about connecting the wires to the Lightspeeds
>directly to the + battery lead (perhaps by crimping/soldering them in
>right with the ring terminal) and using fusible links for protection.
>This eliminates the connection at the master relay and another one at
the
>fuseblock as potential single point failures (I know they are robust
>connections, but nevertheless, they have to increase the odds of failure
>at least slightly...). The only other connections to the battery bus
>would be the e-buss alternate path, which I would connect to the master
>relay (battery side terminal) and protect with a fusible link, and the
>clock power which I could connect also from the relay and use a 1 A
>inline fuse. Any disadvantages to going this route?
Why are you agonizing over a failure of these components? Are they
the ONLY components capable of failure in that system? Do you not
plan to have two ignition systems? In your OBAM aircraft you are
free to wire as you wish but I think you're swatting at a swarm
of gnats with a popsicle stick . . .
No, of course these connections aren't the ONLY components capable of
failure, and yes, I do have two ignition systems....but the issue here is
that the aformentioned connections are single-point failures that will
wipe out BOTH ignition systems at once. I don't see why it's swatting
gnats with a popsicle stick to be concerned about trying to reduce the
number of single point failures for my entire ignition system? I know
there are other architectures that include dual batteries providing
better redundancy, but I think I can be comfortable with Z-13 as long as
I can tie the ignition power supply wires directly to the + batt terminal
eliminating a couple failure points. Inspect battery frequently, change
every other year, etc etc. Wasn't trying to agonize about such trivial
things as dual ignition system failure (heck, it'll still glide even when
the engine quits...no big deal, eh?!), just wondered if there were any
plausible technical DISadvantages to my alternative proposal instead of
using the Z-13 battery fuseblock for both ignition systems. If anybody
has some useful TECHNICAL input on this question I'd be most interested
in hearing it. If not, I'll assume my proposal to be at least
equivalent--and hopefully better--than Z-13 for a dual Lightspeed system
and proceed without the battery bus fuseblock....
>2) What is the purpose of the fusible link shown between the e-bus
>switch and the e-bus? The only thing I can think of is to protect the
>wire to the switch during normal operations where power is coming
through
>the diodes and there's no upstream protection. Is this correct?
That's what fusible links, fuses and other circuit protective
devices do . . . the lead from battery contactor to e-bus alternate
feed switch is of considerable length and is probably tied in with
other wires. If you don't have a battery bus, then a fusible link
is suggested. If you DO have a battery bus, then the alternate
feed pat can get protection via one of the battery bus fuses.
Ok I understand what circuit protective devices DO...but Z-13 shows a
battery bus with the alternate feed path coming off a 7A fuse, AND a
fusible link downstream between the switch and e-bus fuseblock. Not
either / or. I just wondered why BOTH were shown....maybe I could have
worded my question better by asking why the specific placement for the
fusible link? I think I understand it but wasn't sure....nevermind, I'll
just follow the schematic.
>I have a
>friend who took the e-bus normal power via the diodes from a 7 A fuse on
>the main bus fuseblock.
that doesn't hurt anything. If the e-bus and main bus are right
next to each other such that the leads to the diode are 6"
or less, it's permissible to forego protection of these wires
in a certified ship.
Ok.
> Would this be an acceptable alternative to the
>fusible link technique? I suppose the downside is that if the wire to
>the switch shorted to ground, it would then take out everything on the
>e-bus instead of just the fuselink....is that the reason for the
proposed
>architecture?
I lost you here. Which "wire to the switch? source side or
e-bus side?
The wire between the e-bus fuse block and the e-bus switch. The one with
the aformentioned fusible link that I was inquiring about. If my
understanding is correct, the only reason for that fusible link is to
protect this wire when the e-bus switch is in the Normal (i.e. not
"alternate feed") position. In this case if the power for the normal
path to the e-bus fuseblock (via diodes) was taken off a 7 A fuse on the
Main Power Distribution Bus fuse block, the wire from the e-bus fuse
block to the e-bus switch would already be protected upstream and
shouldn't need the fusible link. But I repeat myself....I'll just wire
it as shown since I think my understanding of it gets better and better
the more I keep writing it out : ).
>3) Z-13 shows a 3 A fuse supplying power to the B&C voltage regulator
OV
>Sense pins and the low voltage lamp. Other Z drawings show a 2 A fuse
>for the same thing. I'm thinking about eliminating the low voltage lamp
>altogether since I have a Grand Rapids EIS engine monitor that has a
>flashing light alarm for low voltage so the v. regulator lamp is
>redundant.
It's cheap and you've already paid for it. Why not install it?
Because it's redundant and it takes time and panel space to install it.
Why would I want two lights to tell me the same thing? And the EIS light
I have is an LED therefore theoretically more reliable...but there I go
again swatting gnats...
> If I eliminate the lamp, can I just use a 1 A fuse for the OV
>sense input to the regulator? Do I need to replace the low voltage lamp
>with a resistor of any sort or will it be fine just to leave that pin
>disconnected entirely?
That pin must be connected whether or not you install the light.
A fuse of 1 to 5A would protect the 22AWG wire that feeds this
pin.
Ok, so I'll connect pins 3 and 5 together and to the main bus via a 1 A
breaker...but no need to use any resistor or other device to "fool" the
voltage regulator into thinking there's a lamp present, right?
Thanks as always for the helpful input....
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D swatting gnats
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: Z-13 questions,,, duel ignitions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
In a message dated 1/19/2003 8:31:10 PM Mountain Standard Time,
czechsix@juno.com writes:
>
> No, of course these connections aren't the ONLY components capable of
> failure, and yes, I do have two ignition systems....but the issue here is
> that the aformentioned connections are single-point failures that will
> wipe out BOTH ignition systems at once. I don't see why it's swatting
> gnats with a popsicle stick to be concerned about trying to reduce the
> number of single point failures for my entire ignition system? I know
> there are other architectures that include dual batteries providing
> better redundancy, but I think I can be comfortable with Z-13 as long as
> I can tie the ignition power supply wires directly to the + batt terminal
> eliminating a couple failure points. Inspect battery frequently, change
> every other year, etc etc. Wasn't trying to agonize about such trivial
> things as dual ignition system failure (heck, it'll still glide even when
> the engine quits...no big deal, eh?!), just wondered if there were any
> plausible technical DISadvantages to my alternative proposal instead of
> using the Z-13 battery fuseblock for both ignition systems. If anybody
> has some useful TECHNICAL input on this question I'd be most interested
I am also running duel Ignitions on my V-8 Ford 801 Zenith. I will supply
power to the MSD#1 through the main buss that is switched by the relay in the
master circuit. MSD#2 gets its power direct from the + post of the battery
via a fusible link. That way if the whole main grid should take a crap the
motor will get me to the nearest airport. Since this sprint car engine has
only one plug per cylinder, all I need to do is go from IGN# 1 to IGN# 2 by
flipping a double pole double throw toggle which changes the coil switcher
and powers up MSD# 2. Simple, efficient and betas the hell out of 50 year old
technology mags.
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! --
|