Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:56 AM - Re: Re: Z-13 questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 08:02 AM - Re: Shielded wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:39 AM - Re: Shielded wire (Matt Prather)
4. 08:40 AM - Re: Shielded wire (DHPHKH@aol.com)
5. 09:25 AM - Re: Shielded wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:02 AM - Re: Shielded wire AND Wiring issues at the wing root (Steve Sampson)
7. 11:45 AM - Concord Battery Leaks? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 02:29 PM - Re: Wiring issues at the wing root (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 02:41 PM - Re: 10237 Smith (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 02:57 PM - Re: Shielded wire AND Wiring issues at the wing root (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 04:28 PM - Re: Manassas VA Seminar Date Set (Lonnie Benson)
12. 05:38 PM - Need a Battery (long, boring, please respond anyway) (Kyle Boatright)
13. 08:51 PM - Re: Need a Battery (long, boring, please (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 08:58 PM - Re: 10240 Venohr (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 09:12 PM - Re: Need a Battery (long, boring, please respond anyway) (Kyle Boatright)
Message 1
| 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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:29 PM 1/19/2003 -0600, you wrote:
--> 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....
If you have TWO ignition systems, why not TWO batteries?
Having and electrically dependent engine is the first reason
to consider an aux battery, even if it's smaller than
the main battery. If you're going to run both ignitions
from a single source, then a parts count reduction in the
power paths would add some value.
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.
Aha! I understand your question. I am mystified as to why
that fusible link was included in there. I can see that it's
been carried over from the All Electric Airplane on a Budget
Article and Figure Z-8 from Rev 9 of the book. I'm trying
to recall if that was recommended due to some special
circumstances in discussing a project with a builder . . .
but even then, I cannot dredge up any good reason for
the fusible link . . . the fault power path to open this
link comes through the normal feedpath diode. Due to the
long time constant of fusible links, faulting this path
would put the diode at risk. If on had very long alternate
feedpath wires and wanted to protect them for both sources,
one would use a fuse in the e-bus block to to do it, not
a fusible link.
The link has been in there for several years now, you're the
first one to pick up on it. Good job!
>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?
<snip>
Of course, your understanding of this was running out
ahead of where I was. I didn't pick up on the error
the first time around.
>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...
Don't be hard on yourself . . . just making sure you've
run all the traps on the decision making processes and have
a considered reason for what you decided to do. It doesn't
matter what anybody else's opinions are as long as yours
are founded on good information, well considered and you're
comfortable with them.
> 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?
You don't want to hook them together, this would smoke the
lamp driver in the regulator . . . the regulator wont care
if the lamp connection is simply left unconnected.
Thanks as always for the helpful input....
. . . and thank you too for helping be comb the tangles out of
the drawings. I've marked that for correction in Rev 11.
Bob . . .
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 10:21 PM 1/19/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> 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.
Hmmm . . . if you haven't called Jeff, don't worry about
it. He and I talked about this some years ago. I asked
him why he recommended shielded wire for his power leads.
He had neither a hypothetical based on known victim/antagonist
characteristics of his product . . . I think he was duplicating
Klaus's recommendations for his systems. Last time I talked
with them about it (which has been years ago now), neither
one had a good reason for shielding these leads other than
the notion that it seems like a good idea.
Don't worry about shielded wire for the power leads. Signal
leads between sensors and the ignition control computer may
benefit from some shielding but if their designs are even
reasonably robust, shielding these leads would add no
value.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I recently installed an older LSE system and didn't use a lick of sheilded
wire in the install. I did twist the wires to the crank trigger sensors, and
the outputs to the coils - to help keep things straight, and because it
seemed like cheap insurance. I am somewhat chagrinned to report that
the LSE is MUCH quieter than the remaining Bendix mag, even though
I didn't follow the wiring recommendations.
Regards,
Matt Prather
N34RD
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 10:21 PM 1/19/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>--> 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.
>
> Hmmm . . . if you haven't called Jeff, don't worry about
> it. He and I talked about this some years ago. I asked
> him why he recommended shielded wire for his power leads.
> He had neither a hypothetical based on known victim/antagonist
> characteristics of his product . . . I think he was duplicating
> Klaus's recommendations for his systems. Last time I talked
> with them about it (which has been years ago now), neither
> one had a good reason for shielding these leads other than
> the notion that it seems like a good idea.
>
> Don't worry about shielded wire for the power leads. Signal
> leads between sensors and the ignition control computer may
> benefit from some shielding but if their designs are even
> reasonably robust, shielding these leads would add no
> value.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: Shielded wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
<<I asked him (Jeff Rose) why he recommended shielded wire for his power
leads. He had neither a hypothetical based on known victim/antagonist
characteristics of his product .. I think he was duplicating Klaus's
recommendations for his systems>>
Still, it's a good question. Has anybody here actually checked or
measured the characteristics of the power supply current for these ignitions?
I recently asked Klaus "Is the ignition power cable a significant source of
noise?". With the assumption of shielded wire, his response was "Not
significant enough to bother your radios and nav system but possibly
significant enough to trigger your storm scope. You want to separate their
wiring." Further discussion related that several airplanes were flying with
Stormscopes, but it took a lot of shielding, including switches and breakers.
Me? I have no idea. I ran dual electronic ignitions on a previous
airplane, and it was a bastard for radio noise. I never found the source.
Dan
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: Shielded wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:39 AM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
>
><<I asked him (Jeff Rose) why he recommended shielded wire for his power
>leads. He had neither a hypothetical based on known victim/antagonist
>characteristics of his product .. I think he was duplicating Klaus's
>recommendations for his systems>>
>
>
> Still, it's a good question. Has anybody here actually checked or
>measured the characteristics of the power supply current for these ignitions?
> I recently asked Klaus "Is the ignition power cable a significant source of
>noise?". With the assumption of shielded wire, his response was "Not
>significant enough to bother your radios and nav system but possibly
>significant enough to trigger your storm scope. You want to separate their
>wiring." Further discussion related that several airplanes were flying with
>Stormscopes, but it took a lot of shielding, including switches and breakers.
I am skeptical of this. If you have a "noise" of any kind on a wire,
it exists all along that wire including things that it connects to.
Many folks are belabored of the notion that shielding of a wire
is to reduce its ability to behave like an antenna . . . to launch
or capture radiated signals. Hence the Stormscope anecdote.
If a device emits a noise potentially harmful to other systems in
the airplane . . . the VERY BEST place to deal with it is by filtering
off the stimulus AT THE SOURCE . . . i.e. inside the ignition system.
If one is aware of such a noise, and then admonishes a customer to
shield wires to mitigate effects of the noise, they are at least
obligated to suggest FILTERING as well.
Shielding has only very small effects upon signals that have a
potential for radiating from a wire. The notion that some noise
coming from the ignition system was conducted by the wire from
ignition-to-switch-to-circuit-breaker and simply decided to go
no further argues with the physics of noise conduction. If one
allows a known noise source to escape their product, one can
generally count on that noise propagating throughout the system
by CONDUCTION wherein shielding components along the route of
travel is irrelevant.
> Me? I have no idea. I ran dual electronic ignitions on a previous
>airplane, and it was a bastard for radio noise. I never found the source.
Klaus's earliest systems (off-the-shelf MSD ignitions
managed by Klaus's proprietary controller) were so raucous as to
be unusable in anything except Klaus's record setting Vary-Ez.
I've talked to dozens of folks at OSH who tried this configuration
and had to remove it to keep the airplane useful in a transportation
environment.
Modern incarnations of just about every system offered for
airplanes are automotive derivatives well engineered for
noise characteristics. Without taking their systems to the
EMI lab for detailed examination, we're stuck with trying
to deduce the truth from anecdotal information.
Be aware that any proscription for shielded power wiring
in the ignition system (or any other products) may be and
probably are based on no real data.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Shielded wire AND Wiring issues at the wing root |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Bob - I connect this shielded strobe wiring issue to the 'Wiring at the wing
root' one.
I fully understand your concerns over introducing 3 new joints in each wire
but some folk like Rob Houseman with his trailerable aircraft must. In order
to reduce the number of joints is it acceptable and effective to ground the
strobe cable shield at the wing tip and the power supply, but NOT take the
shield connection through the wing root junction? Also in an aircraft with a
glass tip on a metal structure IF grounding at the tip, is there any need to
shield the last 12" of wire into the glass tip. I am assuming no antenna out
there, only lights.
Thanks, Steve.
-----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: Shielded wire
--> 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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Concord Battery Leaks? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Comments/Questions: I've been a user of Concorde RG batteries for some
>time, and one recently failed on me in an interesting way. I have a two
>battery installation, both RG-35XC's, one installed in 1998, the other in
>1999. Sluggish cranking prompted me to open up the boxes to check them
>out. battery One, the '99 install, was sitting in a one-inch deep bath of
>water and acid! The interior of the box was stripped of paint, but the
>metal had not been breached. Obviously both batteries were long in the
>tooth, but the claim that RG's do not put out acidic vapor seems
>disproven. Load test of the failed RG showed a voltage drop to 6 volts.
>The older RG maintained 12 under testing. The alternator is regulated to a
>displayed 14.2 volts.
Have to talked to Concord about these? Call Skip Koss
at Concord and tell him what you've written here. One of
the common names for RG batteries is "starved electrolyte" . . .
the normal technique for "filling" an RG battery is to
drip the water/acid mix into the separators with a syringe.
There is supposed to be a calibrated quantity of liquid
that barely saturates the separators. If you have a
battery that leaked substantial liquid, I'm thinking
it was badly overfilled.
His number is 818-813-1234 I'd be very interested
in the results of your conversation.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
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: | Wiring issues at the wing root |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:57 AM 1/19/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> 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
Understand. Just published a suggestion for wing root connectors
at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wingwire/wingwire.html
These connectors are quite robust, easy to find, and very
accommodating to multiple mate-demate cycles. One could
lap-solder the joints in the wires instead of using butt-splices
which are fairly expensive. Heat shrink over the joints would
finish the splice.
Molex and mate-n-lock white nylon connectors would work fairly
well and are easy to replace if they get flaky with age. If you
want to go first class, AMP Series III, CPC connectors. Take a peek
at the versions with high current Series XII contacts that would do
a nice job of handling pitot heat and high-wattage landing light circuits.
See http://www.mouser.com//index.cfm?handler=fra_pdfset&pdffile=431
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Bob, I have a question about shielded wire termination, specifically, do
>you know of any standard regarding how far to strip back the shielding? I
>thought it was 3" max, but have been told 6" is OK... I have been in the
>avionics business for many years, but have had trouble finding anything
>considered a "standard". Collins install practices says 3" while a NASA
>doc I found says 4". There is nothing in 43.13... Thanks for your trouble.
The major benefit of shielding is to break the capacitive
coupling mode between adjacent wires where fast rising
and/or high voltage antagonists exist. The act of exposing
3-6" per conductor at the connectors is a trivial degradation
of the shielding effect. Develop a "standard" that works for
you . . . it wil be fine.
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: Shielded wire AND Wiring issues at the wing root |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:01 PM 1/20/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
><SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
>Bob - I connect this shielded strobe wiring issue to the 'Wiring at the wing
>root' one.
>
>I fully understand your concerns over introducing 3 new joints in each wire
>but some folk like Rob Houseman with his trailerable aircraft must. In order
>to reduce the number of joints is it acceptable and effective to ground the
>strobe cable shield at the wing tip and the power supply, but NOT take the
>shield connection through the wing root junction?
That's a tough one to answer because "effectiveness" is a function
of measurements and/or studies by folks who know a lot more about
it than I do. Give it a try . . . the worst thing that happens is
you have a noise issue to resolve later . . . these are generally
no big deal. If it works, you're home free.
> Also in an aircraft with a
>glass tip on a metal structure IF grounding at the tip, is there any need to
>shield the last 12" of wire into the glass tip. I am assuming no antenna out
>there, only lights.
I presume you're talking about the pigtails with connectors
that extend out of the fixtures that are generally not shielded.
Wouldn't worry about these being exposed . . .
If there are no antennas close by, just stick 'em in and
see how it plays.
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: | Re: Manassas VA Seminar Date Set |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lonnie Benson" <lonben@erols.com>
Bob,
Elsie and I would be pleased to have you stay with us again while your in
town for the seminar.
Elsie & Lonnie Benson
lonben@erols.com
Murphy Rebel 171R
About ready to start panel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Manassas VA Seminar Date Set
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> EAA chapter 186 has offered to host a seminar
> on the weekend of June 7/8, 2003. We did a program
> in Manassas about 3 years ago. We've had a number
> of requests for a repeat performance. Would appreciate
> it if folks on this list would spread the word to any
> other lists on which you participate, assuming of course
> that the list's rules will permit it.
>
> Links to the seminar programs description and Manassas
> sign up page are:
>
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars/seminars.html
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars/Manassas.html
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
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: | Need a Battery (long, boring, please respond anyway) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
Thanks to all who replied on and off-list to my battery question from yesterday.
After a review of the spec's for both Concorde's and Odyssey's offerings, I'm
still confused on which battery will provide the best cranking performance.
The problem is that the two manufacturers do not publish directly comparable
performance specifications.
For instance, Concorde publishes instantaneous cranking power after 0.3 seconds
of cranking. They also publish cranking power after 15 seconds. These tests
are conducted without letting voltage drop below 1/2 the battery's nominal voltage.
The output data is given at 3 different temperatures.
In contrast, Odyssey publishes output after 5 and 30 seconds of cranking time,
with the 5 second time only given at 80F, and the 30 second readings at 0F and
32F.
Here's some data:
Data at 32F:
The Concorde RG-25 provides 1254 cranking amps after 0.3 seconds and 250A after
15 seconds at 32F.
The RG-25 XC provides 536A after 0.3 seconds and 375A after 15 seconds. (interesting
that it provides much less up-front power than its sibling but significantly
more power at the end of 15 seconds).
The Odyssey PC 680 provides 300A after 30 seconds, but no initial output amperage
is given.
At higher temperatures (74F for the Concordes, and 80F for the Odyssey), the data
is:
RG-25 - 1278A at 0.3 seconds, 508A after 15 seconds.
RG-25XL - 846A at 0.3 seconds, 597A after 15 seconds.
PC-680 - 680A after 5 seconds. No data for 15 or 30 seconds.
Conclusions/Opinions - (Feel free to offer a different interpretation).
The RG-25 is the sprinter of the bunch. It offers the highest initial power, but
drops off rapidly. If you are looking to spin a propeller fast RIGHT NOW, this
is the battery for you.
It is more difficult to compare the PC-680 and the RG25XC, but my eyeball analysis
says the PC-680 may have an advantage in starting performance.
Some other things to consider are that the PC-680 is 9 pounds lighter than the
RG25XC and 8 pounds lighter than the RG-25. The PC-680 is a 16AH battery, and
the others are 25AH. Depending on the retailer, the Concordes are generally less
expensive than the PC-680.
Comments appreciated. My objective is to find the battery that is most likely to
give me a no-hassle start on a 30F morning. As some have suggested, I could
lay out a total of about $500 for a lightweight starter and a steel flywheel
ring. This would improve my starting performance over the Prestolite and keep
the CG where it needs to be. However, I'd rather spend $100 on a battery if
that would achieve my goal.
Side note... After sitting 3 weeks, the 3 year old RG-25XC spewed enough electrons
to crank the engine (reluctantly) on the first try this evening. I think
the 50F+ temperatures had something to do with it.
KB
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: Need a Battery (long, boring, please |
respond anyway)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:36 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright"
><kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
>
>Thanks to all who replied on and off-list to my battery question from
>yesterday. After a review of the spec's for both Concorde's and Odyssey's
>offerings, I'm still confused on which battery will provide the best
>cranking performance. The problem is that the two manufacturers do not
>publish directly comparable performance specifications.
Unless you're planning some engine that is VERY hard to
start, cranking shouldn't be an issue for you. Your
battery's most important task is to back up the alternator.
An RG battery of almost any pedigree will crank engines
well down to a fraction of their original capacity.
If you subscribe to the notion that it's a good thing
to carry sufficient battery capacity to utilize ALL
fuel aboard with just the e-bus running, then you're
going to replace batteries before they even begin
to exhibit poor cranking.
What architecture are you considering for your
electrical system?
Bob . . .
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: 10240 Venohr |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>I have a Cessna 170. All the fuses are Buss AGS series. I can't find
>these anywhere--plenty of AGC type. Any suggestions? Thanks a lot. Bill
>(live in Lawrence)
Unfortunately, the AGS series fuses are a discontinued
product.There are a number of folks on the 'net who
stock some sizes.
http://www.kadexaero.com/contact.htm
http://www.airpart.com/parts1.htm
http://netstarsurplus.com/stanley/MRO_Items/Page_4/page_4.html
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
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: Need a Battery (long, boring, please respond anyway) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
The architecture is lifted from the AeroElectric Connection. It's been 3 or
so years, and I don't remember what the system was labeled, but the high
points are that it is a single battery system with fuses, an essential bus,
and 2AWG fat wires from battery to starter and a similarly sized ground
strap. I have it on good authority ;-) that it is a well designed system.
The airplane is 99% day, 100% VFR, and has one mag and one EI. Battery
capacity isn't a huge issue, because I can shed mucho load if the alternator
dies. (Besides, I've got a B&C alternator and they have a pretty good track
record).
As stated before, the real goal is to make sure I can crank the Prestolite
fast enough on a cold morning, which has been a bit dicey since day one with
the Concorde. Part of the problem may be that I didn't keep the Concorde
well charged during the 9 months or so between when it was purchased and the
airplane's first flight.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Need a Battery (long, boring, please respond
anyway)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 08:36 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright"
> ><kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
> >
> >Thanks to all who replied on and off-list to my battery question from
> >yesterday. After a review of the spec's for both Concorde's and
Odyssey's
> >offerings, I'm still confused on which battery will provide the best
> >cranking performance. The problem is that the two manufacturers do not
> >publish directly comparable performance specifications.
>
> Unless you're planning some engine that is VERY hard to
> start, cranking shouldn't be an issue for you. Your
> battery's most important task is to back up the alternator.
> An RG battery of almost any pedigree will crank engines
> well down to a fraction of their original capacity.
>
> If you subscribe to the notion that it's a good thing
> to carry sufficient battery capacity to utilize ALL
> fuel aboard with just the e-bus running, then you're
> going to replace batteries before they even begin
> to exhibit poor cranking.
>
> What architecture are you considering for your
> electrical system?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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! --
|