Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:48 AM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (Randy Pflanzer)
2. 06:18 AM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (Scott Bilinski)
3. 06:43 AM - Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (Eric M. Jones)
4. 06:56 AM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (DHPHKH@aol.com)
5. 06:59 AM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (Bill Steer)
6. 07:03 AM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (DHPHKH@aol.com)
7. 07:58 AM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:58 AM - Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com (Dave Grosvenor)
9. 08:02 AM - Re: aec7_1.zip (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:14 AM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (William Shaffer)
11. 08:25 AM - Re: aec7_1.zip (Bob Kuc)
12. 08:29 AM - Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 08:40 AM - Re: Aerial spacing requirements (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 08:42 AM - Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 08:52 AM - Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical Diagram? (Julia)
16. 09:57 AM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (David Carter)
17. 10:02 AM - Electric Fuel Booster Pump - Auto Pressure Switch (Julia)
18. 10:34 AM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (Canyon)
19. 10:35 AM - Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 11:09 AM - Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical Diagram? (Julia)
21. 11:47 AM - Re: Aerial spacing requirements (Miles Simon)
22. 12:06 PM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (David Carter)
23. 12:53 PM - Re: Electric Fuel Booster Pump - Auto Pressure Switch (Phil Birkelbach)
24. 01:46 PM - Re: aec7_1.zip (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 02:20 PM - Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . (Canyon)
26. 04:24 PM - Halon (was Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . ] (David Carter)
27. 05:20 PM - Re: Halon (RSwanson)
28. 05:34 PM - Re: Halon (was Re: Firewall penetrations (Canyon)
29. 06:15 PM - Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 07:28 PM - Re: Re: Halon (Alex Peterson)
31. 07:41 PM - Z-14 considerations (TimRhod@aol.com)
32. 10:01 PM - Re: Z-14 considerations (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
Eric,
A few years ago, a new RV-8 builder/pilot had an inflight fire when his
engine put a connecting rod through the crankcase. The resulting
engine fire was catostrophic. For reasons unknown, he exited his
airplane while still in the air. Sadly, he did not survive.
I don't recall anyhting in the NTSB report to indicate that the fire
has made it's way into the cockpit. There was scortching on the right
side of his windshield and canopy.
Fires do happen. When you consider the speed at which aluminum melts,
I think some concern for protecting the integrity of the firewall is
prudent. Whether one wants to go to the extent of fabricating
stainless tubing for wire pass throughs is an individual builder
decision.
Randy
F1 Rocket #95
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
> Here's my Airplane Builder's Epiphany (or it could be something I
> ate):
> -----The extreme amount of care in putting wires through the
> firewall is a bogus deal. Maybe this is left over from the days
> when the airplane was all wood except the engine compartment.
>
> Can anyone point to a single case where this care was rewarded?
> The auto makers decided long ago that a little rubber and UL 94 V-
> O plastic bulkhead connector was good enough. As for me, I can't
> imagine a fire situation where concern about the feedthroughs
> would make any sense. If my engine is on fire...some fire putty
> wouldn't be worth a tinker's dam (which is also made of putty...)
>
> Opinions? Anybody been there and done that?
>
> Eric
>
>
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= !! NEWish !!
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= List Related Information
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
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: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
There is a silicone that is used to seal wires through the fire wall that
will swell up and seal the opening when exposed to flame. Aircraft Spruce
sells it.
At 09:18 PM 3/4/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>Here's my Airplane Builder's Epiphany (or it could be something I ate):
>
>-----The extreme amount of care in putting wires through the firewall is a
>bogus deal. Maybe this is left over from the days when the airplane was all
>wood except the engine compartment.
>
>Can anyone point to a single case where this care was rewarded? The auto
>makers decided long ago that a little rubber and UL 94 V-O plastic bulkhead
>connector was good enough. As for me, I can't imagine a fire situation where
>concern about the feedthroughs would make any sense. If my engine is on
>fire...some fire putty wouldn't be worth a tinker's dam (which is also made
>of putty...)
>
>Opinions? Anybody been there and done that?
>
>Eric
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: | Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>Think "blow torch" into your lap through the hole(s) 10 seconds after your
>fuel fire melts your rubber and aluminum cheapo shields.
I'd rather not thanks....
>Think "car fire in engine compartment, black spot beside hiway" where driver
>pulled over and got out and watched the car burn up. Can't do that in an
>airplane.
True, but if you don't count old rotted rubber fuel hoses (like in VWs) the number
would be VERY close to zero.
Yes that's true. However, long before that, my fiberglass cowling would be gone.
And I am not saying one shouldn't take care, but I think routine modern stuff
is more than adequate. How about regular multipin bulkhead connectors (industrial,
automotive or Mil) covered with a couple wraps of NASA "Rocket Tape"--?
Have you seen some of the V0 plastic, or 3M dot paper (Nextel)? They are very
good.
>Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls
Those are the rules, but I'm not suggesting violating them. What I am saying is
that we should think about safety and fire control. NOT ( it sounds to me like)
building some kind of fireplace.
Fuel/electrical cutoff, no flammable materials in engine compartment and plumbed
fire extinguisher. That makes better sense. Thanks!
Eric
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: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
Gang,
Couple years back I needed to some check firewall issues in a one-off
project for which weight was critical. Couldn't get the specific burn test
info out of the government printing office. Turned out that it wasn't very
hard to set up a simple shop test based on the regs Bob quoted.
You need a simple fixture to hold a common O/A torch with a rosebud
tip. Also a simple fixture to hold the material under test, something you
can slide forward and backward on the bench with the test material centered
in the flame. Fire up the torch, put a sheet of thin copper flashing
material in the holding fixture, slide it forward toward the flame a little
bit at a time. When it melts a hole, you've found the 2000 F position in the
flame. Without changing the torch settings, just substitute your test
material at the same position.
Copper flashing is a good calibration material. Copper melts at 1981 F.
Being thin, it responds quickly to slight changes in temperature.
So, if you really want to know how well that fire putty, magic paint,
Fiberfrax, or whatever holds up under fire....
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: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Steer" <bsteer@gwi.net>
I don't know if it's comparable to the material Scott mentions, but Home Depot
sells something called Fire Barrier that's used to seal openings in floors and
walls. I've seen it in both the electrical and plumbing sections. It's about
$10 a tube.
Bill
>
> There is a silicone that is used to seal wires through the fire wall that
> will swell up and seal the opening when exposed to flame. Aircraft Spruce
> sells it.
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
John writes:
<<Think about putting the engine on the "Wright" end of the airplane.>>
Hmmmm. That would be just to the "Wright" of the prone pilot?
<g>
Dan
Do not archive
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: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>True, but if you don't count old rotted rubber fuel hoses (like in VWs)
>the number would be VERY close to zero.
>
>Yes that's true. However, long before that, my fiberglass cowling would be
>gone.
Maybe not. The distribution of combustion energy under the cowl is
affected by air-flow or lack thereof. Testing of penetrations
under 23.1191 takes the broad-brush approach and assumes
the fitting MIGHT be located in a hot spot for any particular
event. The flow of air through the cowl carries the combustion
energies with it. Stagnation of flow near the inside surface of the
cowl and in restricted volumes will drop the stresses to a small
fraction of test levels.
> And I am not saying one shouldn't take care, but I think routine modern
> stuff is more than adequate.
How big is "adequate"?
> How about regular multipin bulkhead connectors (industrial, automotive
> or Mil) covered with a couple wraps of NASA "Rocket Tape"--? Have you
> seen some of the V0 plastic, or 3M dot paper (Nextel)? They are very good.
How big is "very good"?
Not very good engineering terms.
An engineer told me of tests he conducted some years ago
on an airframe that demonstrated less than 30% of the expected
stresses hit upon certain "protected" areas on firewalls . . . I think
the upper outboard corners. This wasn't a Cessna with a floating cowl.
He was able to certify some less-robust penetration protection
based on his tests . . . The folks who are paid to worry about
such things are generally friendly to departures from generally
accepted techniques when backed by test data . . .
Got a letter from a builder who wished not to participate in this
conversation on the list. His Lancair plastic feed-thrus are now covered
with thin, stainless dog-houses that are two-piece and easily
removed to expose the connectors. He used ordinary grommets
under fire-stop to support the bundle as it exits from the
doghouse.
He hasn't tested this two-layer approach but it borrows
from proven techniques to add some protection over an
already installed connector. He allowed as how he wouldn't
use plastic again but the modification made him feel better
about the one already installed. It wouldn't be difficult
to test this approach to see if it would certify.
> >Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls
>
>Those are the rules, but I'm not suggesting violating them. What I am
>saying is that we should think about safety and fire control. NOT ( it
>sounds to me like) building some kind of fireplace.
>
>Fuel/electrical cutoff, no flammable materials in engine compartment and
>plumbed fire extinguisher. That makes better sense. Thanks!
Sure. Those firewall mounted oil filters with hoses
always gave me the willies . . . the only time I
came close to setting my car on fire was from an
atomizing sized hole in an oil line on my '41 Pontiac.
The numbers of lines and fittings under the cowl
can be reduced by design but when a rod comes
thorough the crankcase the most careful designs become moot.
Again, rare but it has happened. The neat thing I
noticed about the technique used on the airplanes-who-
shall-remain-nameless is that they stopped using
fire-stop inside the fire-sleeve . . . messy to
rework. The modified technique is simple,
maintenance friendly and easy to implement. Given
that it's so easy to do, I can conceive no
good reason not to do it.
Bob . . .
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: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg@iafrica.com>
Hi Bob
Is there any chance of having a seperate zip file on the site with just the
updates from the one CD version to the next, or is that a real hassel? If
someone has downloaded 7.0, it's another big download to get 7.1.
Regards
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: New Feature on aeroelectric.com
>
> Also, the latest CD_Rom has been uploaded to
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
>
>
> Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
> who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
> latest edition.
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>
At 11:48 AM 3/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>I downloaded it and open it up. Do you really need to have AEC7_0.zip in
>there also?
Don't think it's in there also . . . when you put the .zip file into
a directory and unzip it, the contents end up in the same directory
unless you specify otherwise. The original .zip file is still
there when you're done.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: William Shaffer <shafferaviation@yahoo.com>
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net> wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>True, but if you don't count old rotted rubber fuel hoses (like in VWs)
>the number would be VERY close to zero.
>
>Yes that's true. However, long before that, my fiberglass cowling would be
>gone.
Maybe not. The distribution of combustion energy under the cowl is
affected by air-flow or lack thereof. Testing of penetrations
under 23.1191 takes the broad-brush approach and assumes
the fitting MIGHT be located in a hot spot for any particular
event. The flow of air through the cowl carries the combustion
energies with it. Stagnation of flow near the inside surface of the
cowl and in restricted volumes will drop the stresses to a small
fraction of test levels.
> And I am not saying one shouldn't take care, but I think routine modern
> stuff is more than adequate.
How big is "adequate"?
> How about regular multipin bulkhead connectors (industrial, automotive
> or Mil) covered with a couple wraps of NASA "Rocket Tape"--? Have you
> seen some of the V0 plastic, or 3M dot paper (Nextel)? They are very good.
How big is "very good"?
Not very good engineering terms.
An engineer told me of tests he conducted some years ago
on an airframe that demonstrated less than 30% of the expected
stresses hit upon certain "protected" areas on firewalls . . . I think
the upper outboard corners. This wasn't a Cessna with a floating cowl.
He was able to certify some less-robust penetration protection
based on his tests . . . The folks who are paid to worry about
such things are generally friendly to departures from generally
accepted techniques when backed by test data . . .
Got a letter from a builder who wished not to participate in this
conversation on the list. His Lancair plastic feed-thrus are now covered
with thin, stainless dog-houses that are two-piece and easily
removed to expose the connectors. He used ordinary grommets
under fire-stop to support the bundle as it exits from the
doghouse.
He hasn't tested this two-layer approach but it borrows
from proven techniques to add some protection over an
already installed connector. He allowed as how he wouldn't
use plastic again but the modification made him feel better
about the one already installed. It wouldn't be difficult
to test this approach to see if it would certify.
> >Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls
>
>Those are the rules, but I'm not suggesting violating them. What I am
>saying is that we should think about safety and fire control. NOT ( it
>sounds to me like) building some kind of fireplace.
>
>Fuel/electrical cutoff, no flammable materials in engine compartment and
>plumbed fire extinguisher. That makes better sense. Thanks!
Sure. Those firewall mounted oil filters with hoses
always gave me the willies . . . the only time I
came close to setting my car on fire was from an
atomizing sized hole in an oil line on my '41 Pontiac.
The numbers of lines and fittings under the cowl
can be reduced by design but when a rod comes
thorough the crankcase the most careful designs become moot.
Again, rare but it has happened. The neat thing I
noticed about the technique used on the airplanes-who-
shall-remain-nameless is that they stopped using
fire-stop inside the fire-sleeve . . . messy to
rework. The modified technique is simple,
maintenance friendly and easy to implement. Given
that it's so easy to do, I can conceive no
good reason not to do it.
Bob . . .
As an old drag racer from the 60's and 70's AA/FUEL ALTERED AND AA/FUEL DRAGSTER
owner and driver, I have ridden more than one car down with a fuel fire and
I had a nomix fire suit it is no fun I will do every thing posable to keep fire
out of the cockpit
W.P. Shaffer
---------------------------------
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: "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1@tampabay.rr.com>
I used winzip to look at what was there. I clicked on size and aec7_0.zip
shows up near the end with a size of 20,663,300 with a location os
AEROELECTRIC\seminars.
when I extracted it and then tried to unzip it, it came back with an erro :
"not a valid archive"
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: aec7_1.zip
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 11:48 AM 3/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Kuc"
<bkuc1@tampabay.rr.com>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I downloaded it and open it up. Do you really need to have AEC7_0.zip in
> >there also?
>
> Don't think it's in there also . . . when you put the .zip file into
> a directory and unzip it, the contents end up in the same directory
> unless you specify otherwise. The original .zip file is still
> there when you're done.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical |
Diagram?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:40 AM 3/4/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
>
>
>March 4, 2003
>
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>
>OK Ill go with this diagram (Z-11 Ref. 03/03/03).
>
>
>Question #1. Can I run the F output on the Alternator to the #4 pin on
>the Master Switch (thereby eliminating the voltage regulator). My
>alternator already has a built in regulator its an auto alternator one
>which Im told has been good in experimentals (I dont know off the top of
>my head exactly what it is).
You would modify Z-11 with the changes shown in Figure Z-24. You'll
need to add the external disconnect contactor to assist in unhooking
a failed alternator from the airplane's electrical system.
>#2. Is the line out of the B lead on the Alternator the line on which the
>Ampmeter Shunt would go? Also, you show an ANL60 I already own an ANL80
>(off another diagram I was following) is that ok?
What kind of ammeter do you have? The ANL80 will be okay.
Thanks for reminding me. I've added a loadmeter shunt
in the b-lead for the alternator. You can download the
update at
http://216.55.140.222/temp/z11h_2.pdf
Bob . . .
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: Aerial spacing requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:07 PM 3/4/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neville Kilford"
><nkilford@etravel.org>
>
>Do not archive
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>It's jolly reassuring to have your independent and expert view on things --
>manufacturers say lots of different things about spacing, groundplanes, etc.,
>and it's difficult to read between the lines.
Over the years, I've been amazed by the numbers of
folk who supply products to the aviation industry
who have never educated themselves on the practical
limits of the market they sell to. I avoided that as
an engineer myself. My entrance to this activity
was with a very small company where the engineers
worked directly with the customer and personally
put their products into the airplane for the first time.
I'm the only engineer at the missiles group at RAC
that routinely wears jeans and sneakers. I'm one
of those gets-his-hands-dirty guys with a desire
for first-hand knowledge of how his efforts
fit into the airplane.
>BTW, not strictly on-topic, but many thanks for the excellent manual. USPS
>does a great shipping here. All I need to do now is find a US-style ring
>binder and I'll be laughing.
That's been a problem. I've had a number of folks
over the pond remark how difficult it is some times
to find the right binder. I elected to not ship binders
early on to reduce packaging and postage costs. I might
be well advised to add an "overseas option" for the
book where a binder is included. It would only
add $4 to cost of book but the book would no longer
fit into the flat-rate, global priority mail envelope.
Shipping increases could be breathtaking.
Another alternative is to bind the book as a paperback.
Keeps the size and weight down so it will still go
into the envelopes . . . but the cost of binding low
quantities of books may more than offset the savings
for shipping. I'll look into it again.
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: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:16 PM 3/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>Bob,
>
>It worked fine for me. IE 6 and winzip.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
Thanks for the feedback on this guys. Even with
cable modem, it takes 1.5 hours to upload these
fat CDs . . . I'm wary of hoping for a totally
error free upload. I appreciate your help with
quality assurance.
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: Need Help Understanding the electrical Diagram? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
Bob:
Any chance of getting you to add these changes so I don't make a mistake? I would
really appreciate it. This would be just Z-11 with the modes mentioned in
Z-24 added.
It seems there must be a bunch of builders using internally regulated alternators
- if you added this change to Z-11 - then we'd have just what we need.
The ampmeter I have is the one Vans sells - an inexpensive one.
Thanks.
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net> wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 08:40 AM 3/4/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia
>
>
>March 4, 2003
>
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>
>OK Ill go with this diagram (Z-11 Ref. 03/03/03).
>
>
>Question #1. Can I run the F output on the Alternator to the #4 pin on
>the Master Switch (thereby eliminating the voltage regulator). My
>alternator already has a built in regulator its an auto alternator one
>which Im told has been good in experimentals (I dont know off the top of
>my head exactly what it is).
You would modify Z-11 with the changes shown in Figure Z-24. You'll
need to add the external disconnect contactor to assist in unhooking
a failed alternator from the airplane's electrical system.
>#2. Is the line out of the B lead on the Alternator the line on which the
>Ampmeter Shunt would go? Also, you show an ANL60 I already own an ANL80
>(off another diagram I was following) is that ok?
What kind of ammeter do you have? The ANL80 will be okay.
Thanks for reminding me. I've added a loadmeter shunt
in the b-lead for the alternator. You can download the
update at
http://216.55.140.222/temp/z11h_2.pdf
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Eric,
"Very close to zero" ??? I've personally assisted 2 motorists with
carb/fuel fires at side of road, 1 successful, 1 not. Also watched an RX-7
burn up in the Auto Parts store parking lot 4 months ago. RV-6 pilot
jumped to his death 2 or so years ago when fire up front breached into the
cockpit - he chose to die suddenly from sudden stop at the ground rather
than burn to death.
- I can't count high enough to tell you of the "black spots by the side of
the road" that I've seen. It happens ALL THE TIME.
I'll be buying a sheet of stainless sheet to put under my RV-6 belly from
firewall back to main spar area. Fire can flow under firewall and melt the
skin under my feet - not going to happen to me with the "firewall" extended
further back. I figure the heat and density of heat back at the spar and
beyond (aft) will be diluted by ambient airflow so that fire won't breach
baggage compartment.
Yes, I've also got the halon fire extinguishers bookmarked in my web browser
and fully plan to have a spray system in cockpit in front of me and also a
spray system in the engine compartment, along with a hand-held in cockpit.
I've also borrowed and copied 4 volumes of Harry Robertson's U.S. Army
manuals on fire- and crash-worthy design factors. He is the major player in
reducing lethal fires in Army helicopters. His business has expanded
greatly - one of most respected folks in the field.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
>
> >Think "blow torch" into your lap through the hole(s) 10 seconds after
your
> >fuel fire melts your rubber and aluminum cheapo shields.
>
> I'd rather not thanks....
>
> >Think "car fire in engine compartment, black spot beside hiway" where
driver
> >pulled over and got out and watched the car burn up. Can't do that in an
> >airplane.
>
> True, but if you don't count old rotted rubber fuel hoses (like in VWs)
the number would be VERY close to zero.
>
> Yes that's true. However, long before that, my fiberglass cowling would be
gone. And I am not saying one shouldn't take care, but I think routine
modern stuff is more than adequate. How about regular multipin bulkhead
connectors (industrial, automotive or Mil) covered with a couple wraps of
NASA "Rocket Tape"--? Have you seen some of the V0 plastic, or 3M dot paper
(Nextel)? They are very good.
>
>
> >Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls
>
> Those are the rules, but I'm not suggesting violating them. What I am
saying is that we should think about safety and fire control. NOT ( it
sounds to me like) building some kind of fireplace.
>
> Fuel/electrical cutoff, no flammable materials in engine compartment and
plumbed fire extinguisher. That makes better sense. Thanks!
>
> Eric
>
>
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: | Electric Fuel Booster Pump - Auto Pressure Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
With the electric booster pump, might it be a good idea to put a pressure switch
in the fuel line so if the fuel pressure dropped, the electric pump would automatically
come on? This way if you where landing or departing, and forgot to
turn this booster pump on and the regular mechanical pump failed, it would
kick on automatically.
The problem I see might be that once the electric pump built pressure in the line,
the presssure switch would turn the pump off - once pressure dropped it would
turn on again- you might end up with a pulsating system. What you might
want is some system which would basically flip ON the manual switch. How might
this be done electrically? maybe a relay system could be used where either
an electrical pulse from the pressure switch or a pulse from the dash switch would
turn the pump on? Above this dash switch you might have a bulb to indicate
that the electric fuel pump is ON - that way if in normal flight the mechanical
pump failed, you would have some way of knowing it. It sounds like a neat
idea to me. www.periheliondesign.com has some really neat little solid state
relays which might be used in such a design?
Imagine, your engine quits on take off, you forget about the booster pump and trash
your airplane only to find that if the electrical boost pump had just gone
on automatically, you would still be flying!
I'd be really interested in a slick electrical design for such a system.
thanks
---------------------------------
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: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
David Carter wrote:
>Yes, I've also got the halon fire extinguishers bookmarked in my web
>browser
>and fully plan to have a spray system in cockpit in front of me and
>also a
>spray system in the engine compartment, along with a hand-held in
>cockpit.
---
If you are familiar with halon's effects, you might pull this off
effectively. For those unfamiliar, be prepared to suffocate quickly
without proper provision for independent air/oxygen supply for breathing.
Steve
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: Need Help Understanding the electrical |
Diagram?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:52 AM 3/5/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
>
>
>Bob:
>
>Any chance of getting you to add these changes so I don't make a
>mistake? I would really appreciate it. This would be just Z-11 with the
>modes mentioned in Z-24 added.
>
>
>It seems there must be a bunch of builders using internally regulated
>alternators - if you added this change to Z-11 - then we'd have just what
>we need.
Okay . . . but this still isn't "exactly" what you
want. There will be decisions to make about other
features both shown and not shown. You need to redraw
the schematic on an 11x17 sketch pad. This exercise
is something akin to typing your handwritten notes
after class. More than a simple duplication of prior
work but a cementing of ideas in the gray matter.
Download this:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Zxx.pdf
and then redraw it. Use #2 pencil. straight edge, and
a pink-pearl eraser to help make changes.
Take the list of electro-goodies I suggested
in my earlier reply and start noting their
feed-points from the various busses. Eliminate
the ones already there that you're not going
to use.
This drawing will be a work in process that may
never be complete. It serves two tasks to (1)
help you become conversant in the language
of the art and (2) provide a record of how
your airplane is assembled. You don't need
to be a computer graphics driver . . .
a simple pad, straight-edge, pencil and
eraser will take care of the whole task.
>The ampmeter I have is the one Vans sells - an inexpensive one.
I think this one has a zero-center scale designed for use
as a battery ammeter. This instrument is compatible with
the 1940's electrical system architectures common to most
certified aircraft; not compatible architectures published
in the 'Connection.
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: Need Help Understanding the electrical Diagram? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
Bob:
Thank you very very much - that sure looks to me like the perfect setup for me.
I look forward to further discussions about what else needs to be considered
with this set up.
have a great day.
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net> wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 08:52 AM 3/5/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia
>
>
>Bob:
>
>Any chance of getting you to add these changes so I don't make a
>mistake? I would really appreciate it. This would be just Z-11 with the
>modes mentioned in Z-24 added.
>
>
>It seems there must be a bunch of builders using internally regulated
>alternators - if you added this change to Z-11 - then we'd have just what
>we need.
Okay . . . but this still isn't "exactly" what you
want. There will be decisions to make about other
features both shown and not shown. You need to redraw
the schematic on an 11x17 sketch pad. This exercise
is something akin to typing your handwritten notes
after class. More than a simple duplication of prior
work but a cementing of ideas in the gray matter.
Download this:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Zxx.pdf
and then redraw it. Use #2 pencil. straight edge, and
a pink-pearl eraser to help make changes.
Take the list of electro-goodies I suggested
in my earlier reply and start noting their
feed-points from the various busses. Eliminate
the ones already there that you're not going
to use.
This drawing will be a work in process that may
never be complete. It serves two tasks to (1)
help you become conversant in the language
of the art and (2) provide a record of how
your airplane is assembled. You don't need
to be a computer graphics driver . . .
a simple pad, straight-edge, pencil and
eraser will take care of the whole task.
>The ampmeter I have is the one Vans sells - an inexpensive one.
I think this one has a zero-center scale designed for use
as a battery ammeter. This instrument is compatible with
the 1940's electrical system architectures common to most
certified aircraft; not compatible architectures published
in the 'Connection.
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: Aerial spacing requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Miles Simon" <Simon.Miles@skynet.be>
Bob,
Why not simply supply the manual with pages punched for both U.S. and
overseas standards? I've got your manual here in front of me and the U.S.
standard holes in the pages you supply seem to be suitably different from
the A4 standard used here in Europe.
Simon Miles
> >BTW, not strictly on-topic, but many thanks for the excellent manual.
USPS
> >does a great shipping here. All I need to do now is find a US-style ring
> >binder and I'll be laughing.
>
> That's been a problem. I've had a number of folks
> over the pond remark how difficult it is some times
> to find the right binder. I elected to not ship binders
> early on to reduce packaging and postage costs. I might
> be well advised to add an "overseas option" for the
> book where a binder is included. It would only
> add $4 to cost of book but the book would no longer
> fit into the flat-rate, global priority mail envelope.
> Shipping increases could be breathtaking.
>
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: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Steve, study it before making such an inaccurate and alarming comment.
According to what I've read and phoned and talked about (what do I know,
other than that?), and considering the environment, you don't understand
enough yet. I apologize in advance for using "you" and pointing the finger
and being blunt, simply the time to wax tactful and elequent. Your opinion
deserves as much attention as mine. I just think we have different info
and/or understanding of the info available. Sorry, not mad at you, etc,
etc, etc.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Canyon" <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
>
> David Carter wrote:
> >Yes, I've also got the halon fire extinguishers bookmarked in my web
> >browser
> >and fully plan to have a spray system in cockpit in front of me and
> >also a
> >spray system in the engine compartment, along with a hand-held in
> >cockpit.
> ---
> If you are familiar with halon's effects, you might pull this off
> effectively. For those unfamiliar, be prepared to suffocate quickly
> without proper provision for independent air/oxygen supply for breathing.
>
> Steve
>
>
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: Electric Fuel Booster Pump - Auto Pressure Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil@petrasoft.net>
It is a very simple circuit to make a latching relay that once the pressure
switch trips the it closes a a relay that runs the pump and that relay has
another set of contacts that would hold supply power to itself so that it
stays on until power is removed. This is how we do platform shutdowns in my
business. Once the triggering event comes in we make sure it is latched
until the operator has time to deal with it.
I can envision a switch that has three positions, Off, Auto, On. Off
removing power from the system (also resetting the latch), Auto lets the
pressure switch control the pump and On bypasses everything and runs the
pump. I guess you would leave the switch in Auto. There would need to be an
indicator light to warn the pilot that the pressure switch tripped.
If you leave the switch in Auto all the time when you turn on the master the
fuel pump comes on. Start the engine and reset the fuel pump. Now you
simply leave the switch in Auto until you shut down the engine. Shut the
engine down and the fuel pump comes on. Turn off the master and all goes
off. Now if you use the switch to turn the pump off you don't have these
problems but then you have to remember to turn the switch back to Auto,
before take off.
Now this begs the question. Is this simpler and more reliable than the good
old fashioned On/Off switch? It is not simpler to build, but it may be
simpler to operate. More reliable? Probably not since the part count goes
up but if all this stuff fails you still have the On position of the switch
and that circuit is no different that the one we started with. Just some
thoughts.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julia" <wings97302@yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electric Fuel Booster Pump - Auto Pressure
Switch
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
>
>
> With the electric booster pump, might it be a good idea to put a pressure
switch in the fuel line so if the fuel pressure dropped, the electric pump
would automatically come on? This way if you where landing or departing,
and forgot to turn this booster pump on and the regular mechanical pump
failed, it would kick on automatically.
>
> The problem I see might be that once the electric pump built pressure in
the line, the presssure switch would turn the pump off - once pressure
dropped it would turn on again- you might end up with a pulsating system.
What you might want is some system which would basically flip ON the manual
switch. How might this be done electrically? maybe a relay system could be
used where either an electrical pulse from the pressure switch or a pulse
from the dash switch would turn the pump on? Above this dash switch you
might have a bulb to indicate that the electric fuel pump is ON - that way
if in normal flight the mechanical pump failed, you would have some way of
knowing it. It sounds like a neat idea to me. www.periheliondesign.com
has some really neat little solid state relays which might be used in such a
design?
>
> Imagine, your engine quits on take off, you forget about the booster pump
and trash your airplane only to find that if the electrical boost pump had
just gone on automatically, you would still be flying!
>
> I'd be really interested in a slick electrical design for such a system.
>
> thanks
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:23 AM 3/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>I used winzip to look at what was there. I clicked on size and aec7_0.zip
>shows up near the end with a size of 20,663,300 with a location os
>AEROELECTRIC\seminars.
>
>when I extracted it and then tried to unzip it, it came back with an erro :
>"not a valid archive"
>
>Bob
Oh . . . THAT .zip file! I haven't the foggiest
notion of where it came from or how it got there.
It's a fragment of the earlier CD .zip file. I was
surprised at how much version 7.1 "grew" over 7.0 . . .
didn't think I'd added that much.
Anywho, thanks for the heads up on the stowaway
file. Got it cleaned out and fixed some other little
details on version 7.1 before I uploaded the smaller
version.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
David Carter wrote:
>Steve, study it before making such an inaccurate and alarming comment.
I've done that -- I refer you to one of many references:
http://www.google.com/search?q=halon%2Bsafety&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Confined spaces, such as offered by a cockpit, are not good places to
turn it loose. Words have meaning -- reread my message carefully. If
you are familiar with all the ramifications of Halon, please do as you
see fit. I offered my caution for those who may not be as familiar.
Regards,
Steve
Message 26
| 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 for wires . ] |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Fair enough, Steve. I guess my main opinion is that halon is still legal
and still used as about the acceptable agent inside airliner passenger
compartments, etc. (etc, means I don't know a lot of details).
You are right - safety of this stuff is a function of the degree of
confinement and availability or lack thereof of fresh air.
- The prinicple fact that has to be understood is that halon, in low
concentrations, (17% or 27% - whatever it says in the literature) is enough
to smother fires. It does so quickly and, at those concentrations, with no
harm to people.
- I plan to have 2 "pull lanyards" - and only pull one for cockpit
long enough to smother the fire, then let go. Its not even an issue for the
engine compartment fire, which is where this thread started - keeping the
heat FORWARD of the firewall. If a person was really worried, he could
limit his halon spray to engine compartment - none in cockpit, except a
hand-held.
- There are two principle scenarios: Airborne (lots of potential for
fresh air in from outside scoops/ducts) and on sitting on ground immediately
after an otherwise survivable crash: I don't worry about using it in the
air. On the gnd, I'd open or break the canopy - there would be zero danger
of asphixiation at that point.
-- So, summarizing my limited concept of ops, I see no significant
danger is using the stuff.
-- On the other hand, I see lots of advantages in gettin the fire
out, and then quickly venting the area and surviving the fire. I don't see
much chance of the halon being anywhere near as lethal as the postulated
fire.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Canyon" <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
>
> David Carter wrote:
> >Steve, study it before making such an inaccurate and alarming comment.
>
> I've done that -- I refer you to one of many references:
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=halon%2Bsafety&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&
oe=utf-8
>
> Confined spaces, such as offered by a cockpit, are not good places to
> turn it loose. Words have meaning -- reread my message carefully. If
> you are familiar with all the ramifications of Halon, please do as you
> see fit. I offered my caution for those who may not be as familiar.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
Message 27
| 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: RSwanson <rswan19@comcast.net>
I have a Halotron I extinguisher for my plane. Isn't that's all that's
available now? I thought they no longer sold Halon. Does anyone know if
it any safer for us or just the atmosphere?
R
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
<dcarter@datarecall.net>
----snip----
> - The prinicple fact that has to be understood is that halon, in low
> concentrations, (17% or 27% - whatever it says in the literature) is
enough
> to smother fires. It does so quickly and, at those concentrations, with
no
> harm to people.
> - I plan to have 2 "pull lanyards" - and only pull one for cockpit
> long enough to smother the fire, then let go. Its not even an issue for
the
> engine compartment fire, which is where this thread started - keeping the
> heat FORWARD of the firewall. If a person was really worried, he could
> limit his halon spray to engine compartment - none in cockpit, except a
> hand-held.
> - There are two principle scenarios: Airborne (lots of potential
for
> fresh air in from outside scoops/ducts) and on sitting on ground
immediately
> after an otherwise survivable crash: I don't worry about using it in the
> air. On the gnd, I'd open or break the canopy - there would be zero
danger
> of asphixiation at that point.
> -- So, summarizing my limited concept of ops, I see no
significant
> danger is using the stuff.
> -- On the other hand, I see lots of advantages in gettin the
fire
> out, and then quickly venting the area and surviving the fire. I don't
see
> much chance of the halon being anywhere near as lethal as the postulated
> fire.
>
> David
Message 28
| 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 |
for wires . ]
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
David Carter wrote:
> -- So, summarizing my limited concept of ops, I see no
> significant
>danger is using the stuff.
There is a link near the bottom of the links I sent that will take you
to a study of Halon substitutes for commercial aircraft conducted at
Wright-Patterson, I believe. Note that it is sponsored by the FAA
searching for suitable replacements.
As another caution, most experts agree that 7% concentration of the
best formulation of Halon (there are many, all called Halon) is
considered about max for even a large room like you might find in a
data center. Human safety concerns center on not only asphyxiation but
serious central nervous system trauma, sudden cardiac arrest, or severe
disorientation and mere unconsciousness for smaller doses.
> -- On the other hand, I see lots of advantages in gettin the
> fire
>out, and then quickly venting the area and surviving the fire. I
>don't see
>much chance of the halon being anywhere near as lethal as the postulated
>fire.
This is a tough choice, as you have conflicting needs, if you actually
have a cockpit fire, and at a time when you need your best wits about
you. On the one hand, you don't want a lot of air blasting through
there to create a blast furnace -- on the other, you must have lots of
air if you turn loose the Halon or you will suffocate anyway. Which is
why I suggested an independent source of air or oxygen (only if it can
be arranged in such a way as to not contribute to the fire) for safely
breathing only.
Frankly, I think you'll be much better off with better tradeoffs than a
Halon spray in the cockpit. But that's just my opinion. If you
thoroughly understand the complete system dynamics and all anticipated
external factors and feel you have the right answer to the dilemma
presented, far be it for me to tell you not to implement it. In the
scenario you described, there are no good choices any way you go if
things have gotten that bad in the cockpit. But I'll bet on preventing
it getting there as a better choice. My highest priority would be
placed on electrical and fuel management and proper firewall techniques.
Steve
Message 29
| 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: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:51 PM 3/5/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg@iafrica.com>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>Is there any chance of having a seperate zip file on the site with just the
>updates from the one CD version to the next, or is that a real hassel? If
>someone has downloaded 7.0, it's another big download to get 7.1.
Sorry . . . it IS a big hassle. There are small changes
all over the website weekly, to keep track of them and
try to offer an organized set up updated files would be
too much.
The CD's were offered for
sale in deference to those who had slow Internet connections.
If one has a fast connection, there's a lot of software out
there (WebZip being one) that will rip and entire site and
it's published links to a directory on your hard drive . . .
in other words, do the same thing as we're offering with
the .zip file.
Posting the .zip file just means that you don't need to
get Webzip, we've already zipped it. It's obviously
no help for slow connections. Do you know anybody
with a fast connection that can download it for you?
Bob . . .
Message 30
| 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: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
I talked to an engineer at the outfit that makes halotron, and asked him
what the scoop was between halon and halotron. He said that pound for
pound, halotron is about 80% (going on memory here, but the number is
close) as effective in fire fighting as halon. Shouldn't be any
more/less safe than halon for us, but it makes the greenies happy. Of
course, we need to burn more fuel to lift the extra pound of halotron
around, so I guess there are no free lunches. The halon that is still
available is from reclaimed sources, as it is no longer legal to
manufacture halon. Either one puts out fires by displacing oxygen and
removing enormous amounts of heat through evaporation.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 265 hours, dragging an extra pound of extinguisher with the
whole way
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
> I have a Halotron I extinguisher for my plane. Isn't that's
> all that's available now? I thought they no longer sold
> Halon. Does anyone know if it any safer for us or just the
> atmosphere? R
>
Message 31
| 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: | Z-14 considerations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
Anybody able to help on this:
=A0=A0 I plan to use your Z-14 in my velocity. A few questions have come up. I
am
planning on dividing the avionics between the main bus and aux bus. Ie=A0 main
bus will have Blue Mountain Efis/One, UPS SL-30 nav com, transponder ect. and
aux bus will have Dynon EFIS, Garmin 530 nav- comm- GPS ect=A0 This gives total
redundancy of IFR avionics on each electrical system. I would really like to
have redundancy in the event of a alt. failure and also a cross feed
contactor failure.=A0 In this scenario there are no avionics masters and I know
Bob Nuckolls said this is not needed but I am using two different EFIS
systems niether of which probably meet those standards that Bob mentioned in
his seminar. I have also copied the info below from blue mountain web sight
where Greg Richter thier main engineer talks about starter spikes frying his
product and also others. Could you comment on my plan to seperate avionics on
different busses and do I need to do something to protect these EFIS boxes
from starter problems.=A0 Thanks=A0 Tim Rhodenbaugh
By >Greg Richter on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 12:18 pm
Engine start can throw spikes big enough to barbeque radios, transponders,
and EFII (if that's the right plural). Next issue is that most start
batteries can't keep the buss voltage high enough during engine start to run
much of anything. I've seen as low as 6 volts!
All our EFII (I kinda like that) require 10.5 volts min to run. Might be
worth putting a separate battery buss as noted above to keep the electronics
running during engine start. If you do, make sure you put suppressors across
the line to keep the really big spikes out
Message 32
| 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-14 considerations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:40 PM 3/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
>
>Anybody able to help on this:
>=A0=A0 I plan to use your Z-14 in my velocity. A few questions have come
>up. I am
>planning on dividing the avionics between the main bus and aux bus. Ie=A0 main
>bus will have Blue Mountain Efis/One, UPS SL-30 nav com, transponder ect. and
>aux bus will have Dynon EFIS, Garmin 530 nav- comm- GPS ect=A0 This gives
>total
>redundancy of IFR avionics on each electrical system. I would really like to
>have redundancy in the event of a alt. failure and also a cross feed
>contactor failure.=A0
The probability of two such failures on any one tank full
of fuel is on the same order as a propeller flying off.
If you're using B&C alternators, do good preventative
maintenance on the batteries and belts, you're going
to have a failure tolerant system our spam can flying
brothers can only dream about. Why are you worrying about it?
> In this scenario there are no avionics masters and I know
>Bob Nuckolls said this is not needed but I am using two different EFIS
>systems niether of which probably meet those standards that Bob mentioned in
>his seminar.
Have you talked to Dynon?
> I have also copied the info below from blue mountain web sight
>where Greg Richter thier main engineer talks about starter spikes frying his
>product and also others.
I'm disappointed that Greg is echoing this traditional
techno-drivel . . .
> Could you comment on my plan to seperate avionics on
>different busses and do I need to do something to protect these EFIS boxes
>from starter problems.=A0 Thanks=A0 Tim Rhodenbaugh
>By >Greg Richter on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 12:18 pm
>
>Engine start can throw spikes big enough to barbeque radios, transponders,
>and EFII (if that's the right plural). Next issue is that most start
>batteries can't keep the buss voltage high enough during engine start to run
>much of anything. I've seen as low as 6 volts!
>
>All our EFII (I kinda like that) require 10.5 volts min to run. Might be
>worth putting a separate battery buss as noted above to keep the electronics
>running during engine start. If you do, make sure you put suppressors across
>the line to keep the really big spikes out
Tim. I've been getting your queries on this topic. I'm
having some conversation with Greg about the validity
and/or necessity for his advice. If he can produce numbers
on the risks to his product along with a good excuse as
to why he can't handle them, fine. But I'm going to hold
his feet to the fire. Hang tight. Will get to it as soon as I can.
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! --
|