---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 03/31/03: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:08 AM - Trim Wiring () 2. 06:24 AM - Re: Trim Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 3. 06:28 AM - Re: Trim Wiring (Randy Pflanzer) 4. 06:30 AM - Re: 10446 Prichard (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 06:53 AM - Re: E-mail Contact Request (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 09:22 AM - Re: Trim Wiring (Michel Therrien) 7. 09:59 AM - Re: Trim Wiring (MikeEasley@aol.com) 8. 12:06 PM - Re: Trim Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 12:28 PM - Landing Light - on e-buss or main buss??? (Julia) 10. 01:04 PM - Irrecom question. (Ian Scott) 11. 01:30 PM - Re: Landing Light - on e-buss or main (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 01:46 PM - Re: Landing Light - on e-buss or main buss??? (Matt Prather) 13. 01:54 PM - Re: Irrecom question. (Rob Housman) 14. 01:59 PM - Limited Power Circuits/Fault Detection-Interruption (KITFOXZ@aol.com) 15. 02:45 PM - Off Topic - Mayor Daley kills Meigs Field in night time raid. (Sam Hoskins) 16. 04:55 PM - Re: Electrical System Gremlin (Jim Stone) 17. 05:36 PM - Re: Irrecom question. (Ed Holyoke) 18. 06:44 PM - Re: Irrecom question. (Terry Watson) 19. 06:58 PM - Re: Electrical System Gremlin (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 20. 07:11 PM - Re: Limited Power Circuits/Fault (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 21. 07:54 PM - Re: Irrecom question. (Rino) 22. 11:51 PM - Re: Filter inductor question (Gilles.Thesee) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:08:04 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim Wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Question about wiring Ray Allen trim servos. I notice that diagrams at the Connection and Ray Allen call for two breakers (or fuses) for each trim system: one for the wire supplying power to the servo, and one for the wire that powers the LED indicator. That gives six breakers for a three axis trim system. Is there any reason not to run the servo and the indicator off the same breaker for each system to economize on the number of breakers? Thanks, Dan ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:24:23 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trim Wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:05 AM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >Question about wiring Ray Allen trim servos. I notice that diagrams at >the Connection and Ray Allen call for two breakers (or fuses) for each >trim system: one for the wire supplying power to the servo, and one for >the wire that powers the LED indicator. That gives six breakers for a >three axis trim system. Is there any reason not to run the servo and the >indicator off the same breaker for each system to economize on the number >of breakers? Purists like to have separate supplies for each system such that faults which open circuit protection for one system doesn't take down other systems. To the degree that you're willing to be less than pure, wire as you see fit. If you're using fuseblocks, then having lots of protected circuits becomes less of an issue for both expense and panel space. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:28:10 AM PST US From: Randy Pflanzer Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trim Wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer I think the reason is to drive the trim motors off of the essential bus and the indicators off of the main bus, to conserve electrons in an "essentail bus" situation. It is okay to drive them all off of the same bus feed if you chose to do it that way. Randy F1 Rocket http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/ ----- Original Message ----- From: danobrien@cox.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim Wiring > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > Question about wiring Ray Allen trim servos. I notice that > diagrams at the Connection and Ray Allen call for two breakers (or > fuses) for each trim system: one for the wire supplying power to > the servo, and one for the wire that powers the LED indicator. > That gives six breakers for a three axis trim system. Is there > any reason not to run the servo and the indicator off the same > breaker for each system to economize on the number of breakers? > > Thanks, > Dan > > > _- > ======================================================================_- = - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > _- > ======================================================================_- = !! NEWish !! > _- > ======================================================================_- = List Related Information > _- > ====================================================================== > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:30:59 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 10446 Prichard --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 06:08 AM 3/31/2003 +0000, you wrote: >Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by >Devon Prichard (dsprichard@mindspring.com) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 at >22:08:43 > >Sunday, March 30, 2003 > >Devon Prichard > >, >Email: dsprichard@mindspring.com >Comments/Questions: Bob, I've skimmed thru your electrics book and enjoyed >it a lot. One puzzler for me is, do we really need a battery contactor? >The main function I can imagine it doing is preventing parasitic loads >from draining the battery during long-term disuse. But an unintended >inflight disconnect would be ugly. Seems like the long term parking >problem would be better addressed with a plain ol' knife switch. Cars >don't have battery contactors/relays. You need a battery switch located as close to the battery as possible so that in the event of an inevitable but unplanned arrival with the ground, you can get as much of ship's wiring "cold" as possible. Whether you do this with a contactor or a switch is your choice. An old Tri-Pacer I used to fly had a battery master switch for a battery mounted under the right front seat. Now, if you're considering a compromise of convenience and control due to concern about contactor reliability, keep in mind that one of two reasons for the e-bus was to assist in dealing comfortably with a contactor failure. Consider also that a simple battery master switch leaves open the possibility of leaving an alternator on line with the battery off line . . . an unpredictable and sometimes unhappy condition. Contactor failure is rare. I wouldn't do a contactor-less battery master switch in my airplane. I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to share the information with as many folks as possible. You can join at . . . http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/ Thanks! Bob . . . |---------------------------------------------------| | A lie can travel half way around the world while | | the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . | | -Mark Twain- | |---------------------------------------------------| Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:53:40 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: E-mail Contact Request --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:23 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Bob, > > Thanks for the reply. The only additional question I have is what >am I looking for, as the pilot, for failure states on the alternator. >Obviously, no output is one. Then there would be higher than normal >output. Any others? Thanks. Alternators FAIL, and they go into over voltage which is caught by an ov protection system and converted to a FAILed condition. So basically, you have either a working alternator or you don't . . . no special conditions. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:22:45 AM PST US From: Michel Therrien Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trim Wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michel Therrien They recommend a 1A fuse for the indicator and an 1A fuse for the servo. I checked how much current these devices are taking and elected to use a single 1A fuse for both of them. --- danobrien@cox.net wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > Question about wiring Ray Allen trim servos. I > notice that diagrams at the Connection and Ray Allen > call for two breakers (or fuses) for each trim > system: one for the wire supplying power to the > servo, and one for the wire that powers the LED > indicator. That gives six breakers for a three axis > trim system. Is there any reason not to run the > servo and the indicator off the same breaker for > each system to economize on the number of breakers? > > Thanks, > Dan > ===== ---------------------------- Michel Therrien CH601-HD http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601 http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby http://platinum.yahoo.com ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:59:30 AM PST US From: MikeEasley@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trim Wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com I asked Mac the same question. They recommend the indicators be on the avionics bus and the trim be on the main bus. I guess the indicators are "sensitive to electrical spikes, etc." That's why you end up with one fuse for each. I don't want to start the whole arguement over the avionics bus, so please don't go there. I don't know the answer to the question of whether the indicators can handle whatever little gremlins exist on the main bus during starting. We already know the avionics can, but only Mac could answer the question about their indicators. It could be a "just in case" deal or maybe a bunch of indicators have failed in the past. Mac also told me that there's no reason to put each trim circuit on a separate breaker/fuse since you only use one trim motor at a time and they draw such little current you wouldn't trip the circuit if you ran two motors at once anyway. Mike Easley Lancair ES ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:06:07 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trim Wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:56 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com > >I asked Mac the same question. They recommend the indicators be on the >avionics bus and the trim be on the main bus. I guess the indicators are >"sensitive to electrical spikes, etc." That's why you end up with one fuse >for each. BS . . . their indicators are not sensitive to any "spike" your airplane is going to generate. >I don't want to start the whole arguement over the avionics bus, so please >don't go there. I don't know the answer to the question of whether the >indicators can handle whatever little gremlins exist on the main bus during >starting. We already know the avionics can, but only Mac could answer the >question about their indicators. It could be a "just in case" deal or maybe >a bunch of indicators have failed in the past. I've had their indicators apart . . . any concerns they might express are figments of their imagination and/or manifestations of their lack of understanding about the machines for which they design products. >Mac also told me that there's no reason to put each trim circuit on a >separate breaker/fuse since you only use one trim motor at a time and they >draw such little current you wouldn't trip the circuit if you ran two motors >at once anyway. This totally misses the point. It's not a matter of how much current their product draws . . . it's a choice about allowing single FAILURE in any one system to take down more than the single system. Keep in mind, these guys are black box designers. They may or may not be pilots. If they are pilots, they are undoubtedly tainted by decades of dogma. YOU are the system designer and the pilot who will have to fly it. It's up to you to decide the rational for whether you provide independent power sources for each product in the airplane or choose to pile numerous devices on a single protected feed. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:28:30 PM PST US From: Julia Subject: AeroElectric-List: Landing Light - on e-buss or main buss??? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia Bob: If I remember correctly you put the landing light on the Main buss - rather than on the E-bus. Wouldn't it be good to be able to turn it on when landing at night?? If it appeared to be killing my bat. then I could flip it off again and land without it - but if I had enough juise in the bat. why not make it so I could use it?? --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 01:04:38 PM PST US From: "Ian Scott" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott" HI, I am looking to build a intercom that will do the following with a Microair 760 radio 4 place plane I have some reasonable electrical experience, I am just liiking for a design. 1 VOX as the radio is a hot mike setup and I want to save some extra noise. 2 various inputs, some are both in and out and some are only inputs Both way would be Sat phone CDMA phone Handheld com UHF radio And input only would be Tpas CD player Alt alert (from transponder) And maybe a master caution alarm Thanks Ian ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 01:30:52 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Landing Light - on e-buss or main buss??? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:27 PM 3/31/2003 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia > > >Bob: > >If I remember correctly you put the landing light on the Main buss - >rather than on the E-bus. Wouldn't it be good to be able to turn it on >when landing at night?? If it appeared to be killing my bat. then I could >flip it off again and land without it - but if I had enough juise in the >bat. why not make it so I could use it?? E stands for "endurance" . . . these are the things needed to get you to airport-in-sight, battery-only after an alternator failure. Once the airport is in sight -AND- you are cleared to land, turn the master back on and use whatever battery you have left to increase your level of comfort for approach and landing. If you don't have enough battery left, then it shouldn't matter by this time in the flight. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 01:46:47 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Landing Light - on e-buss or main buss??? From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" I would put the landing light onto the main bus because it will only be used during the final portions of the approach, by which time the main bus can be re-lit. The battery WILL have the capacity to power everything you need for the few minutes that you are on approach because you designed your airplane to have more battery than gasoline, right? The e(ndurance)-bus is designed to have only the minimum equipment required for long distance flight on your remaining power source. The landing light doesn't fit into the category of things that are needed for endurance. The goal of the e-bus is to turn off everything but the things required to keep the wings upright, stay on course, and be able to tell someone about it. Further, since the e-bus (in the architectures I have been looking at, like z-11) is fed by a diode, the more power you run through it, the more power it dissipates. This might be a minor issue, but I think its worth considering. Once you have a 8A (100W) light turned on, you are burning an additional 4.8W (8A*0.6V) just running it through the diode. I think 4W will keep the main bus contactor closed. Matt- N34RD > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia > > > Bob: > > If I remember correctly you put the landing light on the Main buss - > rather than on the E-bus. Wouldn't it be good to be able to turn it on > when landing at night?? If it appeared to be killing my bat. then I > could flip it off again and land without it - but if I had enough juise > in the bat. why not make it so I could use it?? > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:54:06 PM PST US From: "Rob Housman" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" Check out http://www.rst-engr.com/ for an audio panel kit with intercom for US$278. Best regards, Rob Housman Europa XS Tri-Gear A070 Airfarame complete Irvine, CA -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ian Scott Subject: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott" HI, I am looking to build a intercom that will do the following with a Microair 760 radio 4 place plane I have some reasonable electrical experience, I am just liiking for a design. 1 VOX as the radio is a hot mike setup and I want to save some extra noise. 2 various inputs, some are both in and out and some are only inputs Both way would be Sat phone CDMA phone Handheld com UHF radio And input only would be Tpas CD player Alt alert (from transponder) And maybe a master caution alarm Thanks Ian ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:59:05 PM PST US From: KITFOXZ@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Limited Power Circuits/Fault Detection-Interruption --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com Hello Bob, I like your comment of: "Sometimes the best way to hit a nail is with a hammer!" BUT.... Do you know of any move to design aircraft circuits to be either "power limited" or "fault detection-interruptable" instead of "Max current limited" as a protection against smoke in the cockpit? Is sizing load current/wire/fuse/breaker combinations all that should be considered? Would fault detection prior to a smoke event be practical at all to accomplish? Would you guess that such technology will turn out to be another nuisance trip merry-go-round? Swissair's 1998 flight 111 (MD-11) crash was found to be caused by "sparks" from "faulty wiring" that ignited "flammable insulation" above the cockpit. Obviously the circuit of cause was sized large enough to provide enough power to its load resistances and short or (lower resistance) circuit current limitation was inadequate to prevent a fire. I guess removing the "flammable insulation" from the design is the first and most important fix but what about a design that will not allow a "fault" to occur that will not also cause the circuit to open? Supply/return leg current transducers looking for equal readings before deciding to shut the juice off? Micro smoke detectors every few inches? Too much variation from KISS here? How is Dee healing these days? John P. Marzluf Columbus, Ohio Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage) ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 02:45:21 PM PST US From: "Sam Hoskins" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off Topic - Mayor Daley kills Meigs Field in night time raid. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sam Hoskins" MERE WORDS CANNOT EXPRESS MY DISGUST REGARDING THIS ACT OF TERRORISM. Tribune staff reports Published March 31, 2003, 1:34 PM CST Saying he acted out of concern for public safety and desire to spare citizens "months and maybe years" of contentious debate, Mayor Richard Daley today defended his decision to close Meigs Field and have its runway torn up in the dark of night. "We have done this to protect the millions of people who live, work and visit downtown Chicago in these very uncertain times," Daley said at a City Hall news conference after construction equipment early this morning put Meigs out of commission. "The safety of the entire city has to take precedence over the wishes of a handful of private pilots and business people," the mayor said. But Daley, who has long sought to close Meigs and replace it with a park and nature preserve, said the city had received no specific threat about a possible terrorist attack involving a private aircraft. About 11 p.m. Sunday, several backhoes, large trucks carrying floodlights, generators and other equipment arrived at the airport and started working on the north-to-south runway. Chicago police barred access to the field for anyone else. At dawn, the view from atop the Adler Planetarium showed a series of large, signs marked either end of the runway. The action came without public notice. Asked why the city took the action without warning, Daley said: "To do this any other way would have been needlessly contentious and jeopardized public safety and prolonged concerns and anxiety among Chicagoans for months and maybe years." The city has operated Meigs under a month-to-month lease with the Chicago Park District. The park district has terminated the lease, so the city had no choice but to close the airport, city officials said. Daley said the March 22 federal implementation of a no-fly zone over the city was "simply not enough" to ensure the safety of the public. That rule prohibited small aircraft from flying within 3,000 feet of the ground over downtown and much of the North Side, but allowed continued access to Meigs. But Daley complained that a temporary flight restriction could be rescinded at any time. "More important, it does not address the problem that occurs every day as aircraft approach Meigs Field, with a few hundred yards and only a few seconds' flight time from out tallest buildings." The mayor also expressed concern for the safety of "hundreds of thousands of people" at city festivals, museums and beaches within range of planes at Meigs. "With a sudden turn, they can cause a terrible tragedy downtown or in our crowded parks." Daley promised that, if the Federal Aviation Administration doesn't let owners of 16 planes stranded at Meigs use a still-intact taxiway for takeoff, the city will reimburse them for removal of their craft by other means. Steve Whitney, former president of Friends of Meigs Field, criticized the city's use of national security as justification for closing the airport. Whitney said medical and air-sea rescue aircraft use Meigs, which he contended could also be used by emergency aircraft following a downtown disaster. "It makes absolutely no sense from any standpoint, particularly for homeland security, to close Meigs Field," Whitney said. At a City Hall press conference after Daley spoke, Whitney described the mayor's action as "a land grab" and "an abuse of power." He said that his organization would study possible legal action. "We are absolutely shocked and dismayed," said Phil Boyer, president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, another organization that has fought Meigs' closing. "Mayor Daley has no honor and his word has no value," Boyer said. "The sneaky way he did this shows that he knows it was wrong." But Boyer and an FAA spokesman conceded that the city appeared to have the legal right to close Meigs. "The city can do this because Meigs is an unobligated airport," said the FAA's Tony Molinaro. About three years ago, Chicago repaid federal grant funds that had been used to improve Meigs, he said. The closure did not violate FAA regulations, and the city had the authority to issue a formal Notice to Airmen notifying pilots of the closed runway, Molinaro said. An official with the Chicago Department of Aviation said the notice was issued at 3:02 a.m. "We at the FAA were concerned to learn this morning of the decision to close Meigs Field, and we have heard already from members of the general aviation community, and we share their concern," Molinaro said. "We feel that removing any centrally located airport such as Meigs from the national airspace system only diminishes capacity and puts added pressure on O'Hare and Midway airports.'' Last year, Meigs handled 32,000 takeoffs and landings. Separately, a spokeswoman for Gov. Rod Blagojevich said the governor also was not told of Daley's plans, but supported the mayor's decision to close Meigs as a matter of public safety. Daley originally intended to close the airport in February 2002 and turn it into a park and nature preserve, but he held off doing so to win then-Gov. George Ryan's support for federal legislation backing the $6.6 billion expansion of O'Hare International Airport. Under terms of a deal reached with Ryan in December 2001, Daley agreed to keep the lakefront airport open until Jan. 1, 2026, although Meigs could have been closed anytime after Jan. 1, 2006, by a vote of the General Assembly. The deal was supposed to have been solidified in federal legislation endorsing the O'Hare expansion. But U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, earlier this month declared the federal bill dead because of opposition from his Republican counterpart, U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Asked about that deal at today's news conference, Daley replied, "There is no agreement whatsoever." "The agreement is not in existence. There's no federal legislation," Daley said. ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 04:55:59 PM PST US From: "Jim Stone" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electrical System Gremlin --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" Tom, Read Bob's book and then wire your airplane, not in reverse order. Jim > > Just finished up all the Electrics on my RV6-A in the Hanger (garage) out back and have a small Gremlin. Everything works including transmit and receiving on both Comm's. > Symptoms are as follows after turning on the Master: > 1) About a 15 Amp. discharge shown on the Amp. Gauge with only the Oil Pressure Light and BC Regulator Charge light activated? > 2) Everything works with no more discharge shown no matter how many things are brought online? > 3) Now it gets interesting........If I transmit on either radio the following occurs: > a) CHT & EXT Gauges dance like crazy! > b) Amp Gauge goes Nuts! > c) Flap & Trim Indicators leds dance! > d) Fuel gauges advance very slightly even though the wings and thus indicators are not hooked up? > The airport which is 3 miles away says I am transmitting crystal clear even from inside my garage with a belly antenna?!? > Any suggestions of where to start looking would be appreciated as I don't want to put the forward skin down till I get this fixed. > Tom in Ohio > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 05:36:16 PM PST US From: "Ed Holyoke" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" Check out : http://www.mcp.com.au/xcom760/comparison.html 2 1/4" radio with more power than the microair and 4 place intercom built in. Ed Holyoke > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner- > aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Housman > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:54 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" ef.com> > > Check out http://www.rst-engr.com/ for an audio panel kit with intercom > for > US$278. > > > Best regards, > > Rob Housman > Europa XS Tri-Gear A070 > Airfarame complete > Irvine, CA > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ian > Scott > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott" > > > HI, > > I am looking to build a intercom that will do the following with a > Microair 760 radio 4 place plane > > I have some reasonable electrical experience, I am just liiking for a > design. > > 1 VOX as the radio is a hot mike setup and I want to save some extra > noise. > 2 various inputs, some are both in and out and some are only inputs > Both way would be > Sat phone > CDMA phone > Handheld com > UHF radio > > And input only would be > Tpas > CD player > Alt alert (from transponder) > And maybe a master caution alarm > > Thanks > > Ian > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 06:44:05 PM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" I have been watching that website for some months. I really like the radio, but it doesn't seem to have US FCC approval yet, so I doubt if we can buy it. They also have an interesting intercom that I think is a part of the radio that can be bought as a stand-alone intercom. Terry server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" Check out : http://www.mcp.com.au/xcom760/comparison.html 2 1/4" radio with more power than the microair and 4 place intercom built in. Ed Holyoke ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 06:58:17 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electrical System Gremlin --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:09 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" > > > Just finished up all the Electrics on my RV6-A in the Hanger (garage) > out back and have a small Gremlin. Everything works including transmit > and receiving on both Comm's. > Symptoms are as follows after turning on the Master: > 1) About a 15 Amp. discharge shown on the Amp. Gauge > with only the Oil Pressure Light and BC Regulator Charge light activated? > 2) Everything works with no more discharge shown no > matter how many things are brought online? > 3) Now it gets interesting........If I transmit on > either radio the following occurs: > a) CHT & EXT Gauges dance like crazy! > b) Amp Gauge goes Nuts! > c) Flap & Trim Indicators leds dance! > d) Fuel gauges advance very slightly even > though the wings and thus indicators are not hooked up? > The airport which is 3 miles away says I am transmitting > crystal clear even from inside my garage with a belly antenna?!? > Any suggestions of where to start looking would be appreciated as I > don't want to put the forward skin down till I get this fixed. sounds like an RF interference problem . . . had another builder with similar situation just a week ago. Where are your antennas located? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 07:11:43 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Limited Power Circuits/Fault Detection-Interruption --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 04:57 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com > >Hello Bob, > >I like your comment of: "Sometimes the best way to hit a nail is with a >hammer!" > >BUT.... > >Do you know of any move to design aircraft circuits to be either "power >limited" or "fault detection-interruptable" instead of "Max current limited" >as a protection against smoke in the cockpit? Is sizing load >current/wire/fuse/breaker combinations all that should be considered? Would >fault detection prior to a smoke event be practical at all to accomplish? >Would you guess that such technology will turn out to be another nuisance >trip merry-go-round? Sure, but can't do it very often. One good example is illustrated in powering up indicator lamps. I've done some designs where the current limiting resistor for LEDs are right at the bus. A dead short to ground downstream just makes the resistor get warmer. One could do a similar thing with other lamps . . . use a lower voltage lamp and install dropping resistor right at the bus. Some gaging systems like fuel gages, oil pressure gages, etc could be configured to use this philosophy. Obviously, this technique is limited to very low power systems. >Swissair's 1998 flight 111 (MD-11) crash was found to be caused by "sparks" >from "faulty wiring" that ignited "flammable insulation" above the cockpit. >Obviously the circuit of cause was sized large enough to provide enough power >to its load resistances and short or (lower resistance) circuit current >limitation was inadequate to prevent a fire. I think that airplane used Kynar insulated wire . . . supposedly very tough, VERY thin, but prone to cracking. Stay with tefzel and don't worry about it. >I guess removing the "flammable insulation" from the design is the first and >most important fix . . . . . . you got that right. For all the hoops they jump us through for flammability issues, I'm mystified as to how the MD-80 had such materials on board . . . > . . . but what about a design that will not allow a "fault" to >occur that will not also cause the circuit to open? Supply/return leg >current transducers looking for equal readings before deciding to shut the >juice off? Micro smoke detectors every few inches? Too much variation from >KISS here? There are folks offering soft fault detection in smart circuit breakers . . . you don't want to know what these cost. >How is Dee healing these days? We been going to the gym every morning for the past two weeks. She's up to 50# on the ab-crunch machine. She's also been up to her elbows in the garden dirt the past two days. All the gardens got neglected the last two years of her graduate studies. She took her mom to their favorite greenhouse last week and came home with a van-load of new "bushes" of various kinds. I was hoping she'd stuff some boards for me today but the weather was too nice and her gardens were calling. Thanks for asking. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 07:54:39 PM PST US From: Rino Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rino I was told 6 weeks before US FCC approval. They have a booth at Sun N Fun Rino Terry Watson wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" > > I have been watching that website for some months. I really like the radio, > but it doesn't seem to have US FCC approval yet, so I doubt if we can buy > it. They also have an interesting intercom that I think is a part of the > radio that can be bought as a stand-alone intercom. > > Terry > > server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question. > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" > > Check out : > > http://www.mcp.com.au/xcom760/comparison.html > > 2 1/4" radio with more power than the microair and 4 place intercom > built in. > > Ed Holyoke > -- ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 11:51:22 PM PST US From: "Gilles.Thesee" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Filter inductor question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee" Bob, Thanks for the responding. > > I measured one on the bench and it comes out to about 1 Millihenry > and is wound with 22AWG wire which gives it a current rating on the > order of 2A or so. > Is it in the form of a strait coil, or some torroidal affair ? Another question : the filter ground is to be connected to the firewall ground bus (composite airplane), correct ? > Why not a 2A fuse on the battery bus? Makes the hand held > operable with everything else off for whatever reason. > Of course, you don't want to walk away leaving the hand > held turned on. Good idea ! Thanks again Gilles