Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:10 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit (Holger Stephan)
2. 02:48 AM - Re: Tyco EV200 power relay needs no diode ? (Gilles.Thesee)
3. 05:37 AM - Wiring AH & DG (William Bernard)
4. 05:47 AM - Re: Approach-Systems Avionics (Stucklen, Frederic IFC)
5. 09:09 AM - Re: 10461 Setser (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:19 AM - Re: Voltage Regulator- Use internal? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:19 AM - Re: Wiring AH & DG (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 09:28 AM - Please send in Panel Label Ideas (Julia)
10. 09:34 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 09:34 AM - Re: RGbattery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 10:44 AM - Re: RGbattery (Scot Stambaugh)
13. 12:09 PM - Re: Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 12:45 PM - FADEC BRownout (TimRhod@aol.com)
15. 01:51 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit (Tom Brusehaver)
16. 02:52 PM - Re: RGbattery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 03:19 PM - Re: Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? (Paul Messinger)
18. 03:49 PM - Re: FADEC BRownout (John)
19. 04:38 PM - Re: RGbattery (Scot Stambaugh)
20. 04:48 PM - Re: FADEC BRownout (TimRhod@aol.com)
21. 04:58 PM - Re: RGbattery/ Froogle (Sam Hoskins)
22. 05:14 PM - Re: RGbattery (Neil Clayton)
23. 05:32 PM - Power Sources -- clarify please... (Geoff Evans)
24. 05:35 PM - Re: FADEC BRownout (John)
25. 05:54 PM - Re: RGbattery (William Mills)
26. 07:38 PM - Re: FADEC BRownout (Charlie & Tupper England)
27. 09:10 PM - Re: FADEC BRownout (TimRhod@aol.com)
28. 09:21 PM - Re: Power Sources -- clarify please... (TimRhod@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Holger Stephan <holger@selover.net>
Hi David,
I haven't even heard about the Mux Bus before (but this is also not my
professional field). Hey, they sent you in retirement and then just
changed all the acronyms without telling you!
The CAN bus (Controller Area Network) is used in noisy electrical
environment (i.e. vehicles) to connect several self-identifying nodes
with their attached sensors to a bus. There can be one or more data
processors (computers) getting the data from the bus.
I think it will make our solution more flexible as you can connect any
data collecting device to the computer, as long as it speaks CAN. In
addition it allows for a simpler redundancy and a more robust and fast
signal transfer.
You'll find more information if you google for "CAN bus", or here:
http://canopen.org/.
Holger
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 19:08, David Carter wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
I used to be an A-7 pilot and Avionics Officer, and also attended quarterly
F-16 software meetings in the 1980s.
Are you planning to use a "Mux Bus" (multiplexor bus) (like F-16) or hard
wire each sensor to the computer (like A-7)?
I've almost forgotten the two different types of Mux buses: Original F-16
mux bus had dedicated data lines from each sensor, hard wired into the mux
bus harness - hard to modify because it took a hardware mod/expansion for
each thing you later wanted to add.
The later, better, preferred, at that time, was called something else
(star? ring?) - you could add a new sensor which had its own mux interface
device without any other physical wiring harness mods - the new device
contained the "new" bus interface stuff. Essentially, it was a "software
bus" instead of a "hard wired bus".
What is a CAN bus?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Holger Stephan" <holger@selover.net>
To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Holger Stephan
<holger@selover.net>
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are currently developing a non-commercial glass cockpit, based on an
> embedded real-time OS (currently real-time Linux) computer. The software
> is under way, but we're struggling with the sensors. We would like to
> use a CAN bus. While we found enough high priced solutions, we didn't
> find enough information to build it with lower priced components that
> are also readily available.
>
> Another area where we could use some references is air data computers.
> Not long ago someone here in this group said he was working on a
> solution. We would like to learn more about this project. Maybe we can
> throw something together.
>
> Thanks
>
> Holger
>
>
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: Tyco EV200 power relay needs no diode ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Swartzendruber"
<dswartzendruber@earthlink.net>
>
> That's right. The two wires that you hook up to are not the two ends of
the
> coil. There is a small printed circuit board on the side of the relay
doing
> some magic between the control wires, and the actual relay coil.
>
> Dave in Wichita
Dave,
Thanks
Gilles
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
I'm in the process of pulling wires for 'stuff' and want to inlcude wiring for
eventual installation of electric AH and DG. I understand that these devices
use a 4 pin plug. One wire is obviously for power and another is a connection
to ground, but what are the other two for?
Also, does anyone have an estimate of how long the AH and DG are, including the
connectors?
Thanks in advance.
Bill
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: Approach-Systems Avionics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com>
Vince,
I too have been doing this for years. The way I've gotten around the
warranty issue is to work under the supervision of an avionics shop. I draw
up all the schematics, and wire the stack. My avionics guy has the option of
checking my work out, but usually doesn't as he knows what I'm capable of
doing. He signs off all the warrantee cards, and I send them in......
This is why it's important to utilize your contacts in the avionics
areas. What other can do is go directly to an avionics shop and work out a
deal with them. The builder does all the documentation, wires the stack,
and, for a nominal fee, they check it out and send in the warranty cards. If
the builder can't perform the wiring choir, then contract the avionics shop
to just wire up the stack and send in the warranty cards. This usually meets
the radio manufactures mandate for an avionics shop made harness....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV Reserved
RV-6A N925RV 2008 Hrs of flying
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
Fred,
I agree with everything you have said in your posts on this subject.
But,
how do you handle the warranty issues? Garmin and others seem to
indicate
that the warranty is void if the harness is not made by an avionics
shop.
I have been designing and wiring process control instrumentation for
the
last twenty years and have no doubt that I can produce my own
harness, but
the warranty is a real concern.
Vince
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: 10461 Setser |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:31 PM 4/9/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by
>Dave Setser (setser@attbi.com) on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 at 05:31:52
>
>Wednesday, April 9, 2003
>
>Dave Setser
>
>,
>Email: setser@attbi.com
>Comments/Questions: Hi Bob,
>
>I've been following the AeroElectric thread for information on EMI/EMC and
>noise, specifically in relation to the noise-infested Strikefinder in my
>Piper. I was looking through the topics in your book, and noticed you
>have a section on EMC and noise.
>
>Might I find some information in your book on troubleshooting noise
>sources that could be affecting my Strikefinder? If so, I'll order a copy
>ASAP.
Hmmm . . . sorta. What kinds of problems are you having and
have you identified that antagonists?
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:12 AM 4/9/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
><paulm@tenforward.com>
>
>Agreed. But that does not alter my reply to his question as there is sort of
>an avionics master switch for the radios etc. After all, Ford etc does not
>want to get the rep of causing aftermarket electronics to fail simply
>because that equipment is "poorly designed".
Ford wouldn't put up with it. I've often suggested to
my compatriots at RAC that automotive stuff is better
designed and better tested than the things we put on
airplanes. After all, we do a recall on a starter generator
for a years production on a bizjet and we're dealing with
perhaps 20-30 customers and maybe 60 generators. A paltry
$million$ with mechanic's hours thrown in. If an alternator
manufacturer stubs their toe on an automotive product,
their exposure for the year can be say, $200/car for
a million cars . . .
> And who knows, perhaps today's
>aftermarket radios may be internally protected and there is no need for the
>aux buss in autos.
I bet that if we investigated the real reason for killing
the accessory bus on cars during cranking, we'll find that
it's to remove extra loads from the battery during cranking,
not to protect things tied to the accessory bus . . . Even
today, my accessory bus unhooks both a/c blowers . . . those
things draw 25-30A total when on hi . . a significant percentage
to total load when you need 150-200A for cranking.
>However, they ALL also have transient protection either built in or on the
>supply lines for designed in electronics that must be on all the time (as
>far as I have been able to tell). At least every electronic part since (or
>perhaps even before) the GM HEI Ign system was used has had effective
>transient protection.
>
>The real issue is what does one do on an aircraft with electrical equipment
>that is not designed to meet the latest requirements.
But EI claims their product exceeds all requirements
but is still vulnerable to undocumented but vicious
stresses from ordinary airplanes.
>I have avionics etc that were designed before the latest requirements and to
>suggest I not use them because the mfgr may have failed to follow the latest
>rules seems foolish to me. I feel one must recognize the real world of those
>who cannot afford the very latest and/or boycott those with less than
>perfect designs.
Latest? The meat of DO-160 testing has been in place for
over 20 years. Major changes incorporated in last revisions
deal more aggressively with RFI/EMI and lightning issues.
The basic "spike" resistance has been in place for two decades
or more.
I did a pitch trim controller for the Lears about 1979 that
got retrofitted to the fleet . . . lots of c-mos and discrete
devices in the 60v class. Rudimentary attention DO-160 produced
black boxes that run from the main bus and look right down
the "gun barrel" of starters with 1000+ amp inrush currents
and (if one is truly fearful of starters) are still drawing
something on the order of 600A when the contactors open.
Most of those systems are coming back for environmental
issues . . . corrosion. They reside inside the vertical fin.
All these systems got was whatever DO-160 asked us to
do back then. They've lived quite happily tied right
to the main bus for thousands of hours.
>Thus if E.I. suggests some "pampering" the decision to me is go along and
>"pamper it" or go elsewhere.
Why should we NOT make our displeasure known to the
supplier of any product wherein the application
or design is founded on bad physics or ignorance of
simple fixes recognized and enjoyed by the rest of
the industry? If you went to Burger King and the
sandwich came out something other than "your way",
would you not take it back to the counter for
remedial action?
>As long as I know what the mfgr requirements are and how to design to meet
>then I am happy. By adding a few transorbs to my design I have taken care of
>any potential damage from transients that may or may not exist that may or
>may not cause damage to equipment that may or may not meet the latest
>requirements.
>
>I simply add a transorb on the output of my CB to ground and forget it. That
>way downstream any equipment changes are protected and its very inexpensive.
The comfort factor cannot be discounted but it's
still not good engineering or good consumerism. One
of the reasons that certified aviation has lagged so
far behind ordinary consumer products sold by
Walmart and BestBuy is our blind faith and timid
acceptance of things "certified" . . . once blessed
they are assumed to be the best that can be done.
We're reluctant to stand up amid all that pomp
and circumstance and say, "I don't think so!" We
can buy very cheap insurance against pink elephants
too but the fact that the insurance is cheap doesn't
make it a good value.
A meeting in which I participated for the past four
days ended today . . . the supplier is facing about
$500,000 in lost revenue. We're trying to field an incoming
barrage of cabbages from irate customers and still
work out a best possible scenario for getting
good product to the field while keeping their airplanes
functioning. All this is happening for the very
silliest of reasons . . . failure to observe basic
engineering science not being familiar with the
environment in which the device had to work.
Will try to put the 'scope on that '65 pickup
this weekend . . . still stalking the elusive
starter induced spike. I feel like the first time
I did this I was standing out in the woods at night in my
Cub Scout uniform with a sack and a flashlight doing
my best to mimic the sounds of a lovesick snipe.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Voltage Regulator- Use internal? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:53 AM 4/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
>
>Searching for a "generic" voltage regulator- is this thing equivalent to
>the "mythical" VR166?
>Search for VR301 at:
>http://www.partsamerica.com/default.asp?BypassRedirect=True
Hmmmm . . . got a bin full of "mythical" voltage regulators
in there. Here's a link that cross references a varity of
voltage regulators against the STANDARD VR166
http://www.globemotorists.com/TVI%20Products/tvi_voltage_regulators.htm
I note that the VR301 by GP is on that same line of
equivalent regulators.
>Then I ran across this from one of Bobs' replies:
>http://www.globemotorists.com/TVI%20Products/tvi_voltage_regulators.htm
Oh, yeah, you found that page . . . Keep in mind that this
page speaks to ALL of the voltage regulators offered
by Globemotorists. Just 'cause they SHOW an internal
regulator at the top of the page means that every regulator
on the page is internal.
Go out along the row that starts with VR166 and you will
have cross references for a number of parts that replace
the VR166 and ALL are external regulators like the VR301
cited above.
>The listing there shows a bunch of the internal/replaceable regs
>installed inside the alternator- Has anyone used one of these
>successfully, and if so, how do you determine which terminal is sense &
>which is field? Any problems using them? They seem to offer a huge
>advantage is weight/space saving, and cost half or less than the bigger
>"boxes".
$3.80 for the VR166 seems pretty reasonable . . .
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: Wiring AH & DG |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:38 AM 4/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
><billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
>I'm in the process of pulling wires for 'stuff' and want to inlcude wiring
>for eventual installation of electric AH and DG. I understand that these
>devices use a 4 pin plug. One wire is obviously for power and another is a
>connection to ground, but what are the other two for?
>
>Also, does anyone have an estimate of how long the AH and DG are,
>including the connectors?
>
>Thanks in advance.
If it's a DC powered gyro, only 2 pins are needed. If an AC
version, it probably needs 3. It's not uncommon for
a product to have more pins in the connector than are
needed. Extra pins are simply left unattached.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Please send in Panel Label Ideas |
RV7 Matronics List <rv7-list@matronics.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
As previously mentioned, Aircraft Spruce will modernize there label sheet - if
we send in all the ideas we want for labels for our homebuilt instrument panels.
"low voltage", Low oil, Low fuel pressue - for example - i have yet to see
them on any sheets?? thanks
---------------------------------
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: Glass Cockpit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:22 PM 4/10/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Holger Stephan <holger@selover.net>
>
>Hi all,
>
>We are currently developing a non-commercial glass cockpit, based on an
>embedded real-time OS (currently real-time Linux) computer. The software
>is under way, but we're struggling with the sensors. We would like to
>use a CAN bus. While we found enough high priced solutions, we didn't
>find enough information to build it with lower priced components that
>are also readily available.
There are a number of microcontrollers that included the
CAN-bus interface. We're using some TI parts and considered some
PIC and Motorola parts because of the CAN interface. I haven't
seen any board-level solutions for CAN. You'll probably have to
develop your own CAN interface using a microcontroller.
Take a look at the MC68HC11 and 16 parts from mot.
>Another area where we could use some references is air data computers.
>Not long ago someone here in this group said he was working on a
>solution. We would like to learn more about this project. Maybe we can
>throw something together.
I wrote the spec for and ADC that's currently used in the
AQM-37D rocket powered targets by Raytheon. The technique
used to achieve accuracy over the necessary range was to
bias up jelly-bean, silicon strain gage sensors with a
precision constant current source. Use a 16 bit a/d
in the differential mode to measure voltage across the
bridge (signal) and across the excitation points.
The temperature of the transducer can be deduced from
the excitation voltage measurement, perceived pressure
from the signal measurement. New assemblies were all
temperature cycle screened as a normal QA activity
for delivery. During screening, temperature dependency
of the individual sensor was characterized so that after
screening, a lookup table can be programmed into both
channels of the ADC to wash out effects of temperature.
This permitted very inexpensive transducers to perform
spectacularly. Bill of materials was about $100.
Bob . . .
>Thanks
>
>Holger
>
>
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:13 PM 4/7/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: thomas pekar <niagaratom@yahoo.com>
>
>I have found a source for the computer rg batteries, can someone give me
>a part or model #, many thanks tom pekar
>
Tom,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. Haven't
be able to spend as much time at the computer as I would
have liked for the past week.
Download http://216.55.140.222/temp/lc-rd1217p.pdf
This is the Panasonic version of my favorite battery.
Battery shops should be able to cross reference this
device into whatever brand they carry with the same
specifications.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh@qualcomm.com>
This battery was my first choice as well except that Digikey is currently
quoting a August delivery. I couldn't find another source. Any ideas?
scot
At 08:34 AM 4/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 01:13 PM 4/7/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: thomas pekar <niagaratom@yahoo.com>
> >
> >I have found a source for the computer rg batteries, can someone give me
> >a part or model #, many thanks tom pekar
> >
>
> Tom,
>
> Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. Haven't
> be able to spend as much time at the computer as I would
> have liked for the past week.
>
> Download http://216.55.140.222/temp/lc-rd1217p.pdf
>
> This is the Panasonic version of my favorite battery.
> Battery shops should be able to cross reference this
> device into whatever brand they carry with the same
> specifications.
>
> 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: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:01 PM 4/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 07:12 AM 4/9/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> ><paulm@tenforward.com>
> >
> >Agreed. But that does not alter my reply to his question as there is sort of
> >an avionics master switch for the radios etc. After all, Ford etc does not
> >want to get the rep of causing aftermarket electronics to fail simply
> >because that equipment is "poorly designed".
missed an important word in your response . . . "aftermarket"
Do you REALLY believe Ford or any other manufacturer
of high volume hard goods gives a rat's patootie about
aftermarket clones to their OEM efforts? I sure wouldn't
and I only ship a few hundred products a year. I figure
if someone wants to go toe-to-toe with me in my sandbox,
knowledge, skills and a willingness to play there are
irrevocable prerequisites.
The JC Whitney catalog is full of stuff that falls far
short of OEM specifications whether mechanical or electrical.
Some may be equal to or better. However, I can't see any manager
at GM thumbing through the catalog with concerns for tailoring
his product to accommodate what's offered . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
Bob: I emailed Steve Smith at Aerosance and ask him about this brownout
situation. This is what he suggested. In a velocity Duel 17AH batteries in
the nose connected to seperate battery busses in the nose. From the battery
busses run two #10 wires one from each buss to the firewall buss which then
connects to the FADEC wire harness.(ignitions) My question to you is when
you start cranking the engine the voltage at the starter is less that at the
battery because of the loss acrosss the long starter wire but is the voltage
low at the battery buss too in the nose where the # 10 wire is conected that
goes to the ignitions. In other words when starting the engine is the voltage
down on the entire system or just at the starter. If it was over the entire
system I fail to see how Steves sugesstion helps?
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: Glass Cockpit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tom Brusehaver <cozytom@mn.rr.com>
It was probably me on the avionics list trying to build
a air data computer. I got a little way, I was using one
wire stuff (A/D, temprature) on a Tini computer. I wanted
+/- 1 ft accuracy, until I realized that I didn't need that
much, and settled for +/-10ft and then started messing with
display stuff. Oh boy :-).
I seriously wasted lots of time trying to get +/-1 ft
accuracy. I am thinking using the motorola pressure transducers
I can get 1ft resolution, using a 16bit A/D, but not accuracy.
The Tini is supposed to have a LCD library built in, but not
the hardware for it. I cobbled something together, and I
could blink some LEDs, but when I put a 6in cable to a 14
pin 2x20 LCD the silly processor locked up. I switched to
a serial 2x20 display, and that worked pretty well, but I
still needed something for input.
I bought a Zaurus, since it seems easy to write code for,
and was on sale for $200. Now I have wasted a bit of time
playing with that thing :-). I love it, don't know how I
got along without it. It is really easy to develop code
for. I havn't tried the serial IO yet, but if it is easy
as the graphics, I got a winner.
Those weasles that put up with the iPaq lockups ought to
dump that WinCE and get a real OS. The Zaurus only locked
up on me when I loaded a broken bit of code. There is even
an emulator I can run on my PC so I can find out if I have
a mess before I load the Zaurus with code.
Holger Stephan wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Holger Stephan <holger@selover.net>
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are currently developing a non-commercial glass cockpit, based on an
> embedded real-time OS (currently real-time Linux) computer. The software
> is under way, but we're struggling with the sensors. We would like to
> use a CAN bus. While we found enough high priced solutions, we didn't
> find enough information to build it with lower priced components that
> are also readily available.
>
> Another area where we could use some references is air data computers.
> Not long ago someone here in this group said he was working on a
> solution. We would like to learn more about this project. Maybe we can
> throw something together.
>
> Thanks
>
> Holger
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:43 AM 4/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scot Stambaugh
><sstambaugh@qualcomm.com>
>
>This battery was my first choice as well except that Digikey is currently
>quoting a August delivery. I couldn't find another source. Any ideas?
>
>scot
did a google search on RD1217P and got 125 hits . . .
Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@tenforward.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:12 AM 4/9/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> ><paulm@tenforward.com>
> >
> >
> >I simply add a transorb on the output of my CB to ground and forget it.
That
> >way downstream any equipment changes are protected and its very
inexpensive.
>
> The comfort factor cannot be discounted but it's
> still not good engineering or good consumerism. One
> of the reasons that certified aviation has lagged so
> far behind ordinary consumer products sold by
> Walmart and BestBuy is our blind faith and timid
> acceptance of things "certified" . . . once blessed
> they are assumed to be the best that can be done.
I think you misunderstand my position.
I add a transorb because I feel its GOOD engineering to protect against
potentially BAD engineering by some avionics out there. There is not always
an affordable GOOD product available and as many on this list have found
what was thought to be good may not be so good.
Perhaps E.I or RMI or ?? fails to meet the design requirements of GOOD
design in one or more ways, the best we all can do is know about it and
decide for ourselves if there is an better alternative.
There is more to my life than finding and "bitching" about poor designs. I
applaud your approach but by adding a $.50 part I can stop worrying about
the manufacturers ability to design to spec and risk a large repair bill.
We will never agree about the presence of absence of transients.
I have seen some transients first hand and let my personal experience drive
my conservative design. Perhaps its somewhat driven by the spacecraft
applications design experience where the designs stopped the noise at the
source and also stopped external noise from getting in. Redundent perhaps.
As for meeting -160 perhaps the intent was being tested for 20 years but I
have the maint manuals for some I have here that was designed less than 10
years ago that are very suspect as to transient protection (not to mention
with the "famous" warning not to have ON during starting).
I also have instrumentation that will NOT always work thru the lower voltage
during starting and have decided to use it as it has the unique features
that I want at a price I can afford. But so what, as I do not need it to be
on during starting and its not damaged by long term low V.
>A meeting in which I participated for the past four
> days ended today . . . the supplier is facing about
> $500,000 in lost revenue. We're trying to field an incoming
> barrage of cabbages from irate customers and still
> work out a best possible scenario for getting
> good product to the field while keeping their airplanes
> functioning. All this is happening for the very
> silliest of reasons . . . failure to observe basic
> engineering science not being familiar with the
> environment in which the device had to work.
Been there done that. Real sad but all too common.
Paul
Paul
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: FADEC BRownout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
You've kind of answered your own question, I think...
You said:
"when you start cranking the engine the voltage at the starter is less
that at the battery because of the loss acrosss the long starter wire"
Well, the naswer to your question is in there -
If the #10 wire connects at the battery end, it will be at the same
voltage as the battery (typically 11-12 volts)
If the #10 wire connects at the starter end, it will be at the same
voltage as the starter (typically 9-11 volts)
But, are you really wiring it that way? Is the #10 always hot? On my
Velocity I am putting my battery bus up front next to the battery, and
then running each item off the battery bus through a switch and circuit
protector, back to the item in question. Why do you have a firewall
battery bus? If the only thing you have on the battery bus in the engine
compartment are the two electronic ignitions, why not just run them
forward to their switches and circuit protection, and then to the
battery busses in the nose?
Or am I misinterpreting your layout?
-John R.
(P.S.: I've heard of a dual-battery setup where one battery is in the
nose, the other is on the firewall... that way you can have a firewall
battery bus next to that battery, get max voltage isolated from the
starter, and don't need a fusible link on it either. That may be what I
do when I go all-electric eventually... Except I'll probably hook up the
starter only to the battery on the firewall (for max volts to the
starter), and still keep the battery bus in the nose - the light current
requirement of even two electronic ignitions shouldn't be a problem, as
long as the nose battery is isolated from the starter battery)
TimRhod@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
>
>Bob: I emailed Steve Smith at Aerosance and ask him about this brownout
>situation. This is what he suggested. In a velocity Duel 17AH batteries in
>the nose connected to seperate battery busses in the nose. From the battery
>busses run two #10 wires one from each buss to the firewall buss which then
>connects to the FADEC wire harness.(ignitions) My question to you is when
>you start cranking the engine the voltage at the starter is less that at the
>battery because of the loss acrosss the long starter wire but is the voltage
>low at the battery buss too in the nose where the # 10 wire is conected that
>goes to the ignitions. In other words when starting the engine is the voltage
>down on the entire system or just at the starter. If it was over the entire
>system I fail to see how Steves sugesstion helps?
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh@qualcomm.com>
Thanks Bob. google is usually one of my first choices for such
searches. Just slipped my mind this time.
thanks again,
scot
At 01:59 PM 4/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 10:43 AM 4/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scot Stambaugh
> ><sstambaugh@qualcomm.com>
> >
> >This battery was my first choice as well except that Digikey is currently
> >quoting a August delivery. I couldn't find another source. Any ideas?
> >
> >scot
>
> did a google search on RD1217P and got 125 hits . . .
>
> 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: FADEC BRownout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
John:
My battery busses are in the nose along with circuit protection and switches
I mentioned a firewall bus just for connecting the #10 wires to the FADEC
harness that comes with the engine. Ok thanks for the answer on voltage
drop. Am I understanding you right that the voltage drop is only a function
of the starting wire and that the actual cranking of the engine doesnt pull
down the voltage of the battery at the battery buss end? Tim
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: | RGbattery/ Froogle |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@globaleyes.net>
Have you tried Froogle? It's very cool, go to www.froogle.com put in the
item or part number of what ever it is you are looking for, and get the
competitive prices listed on on page!
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scot
Stambaugh
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RGbattery
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scot Stambaugh
<sstambaugh@qualcomm.com>
Thanks Bob. google is usually one of my first choices for such
searches. Just slipped my mind this time.
thanks again,
scot
At 01:59 PM 4/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 10:43 AM 4/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scot Stambaugh
> ><sstambaugh@qualcomm.com>
> >
> >This battery was my first choice as well except that Digikey is currently
> >quoting a August delivery. I couldn't find another source. Any ideas?
> >
> >scot
>
> did a google search on RD1217P and got 125 hits . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil Clayton <harvey4@earthlink.net>
This looks like a lead-acid battery, Bob. I thought you favoured RG batteries.
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_VRLA_LC-RD1217P_AP.pdf
Neil
At 09:34 AM 4/11/03, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 01:13 PM 4/7/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: thomas pekar <niagaratom@yahoo.com>
> >
> >I have found a source for the computer rg batteries, can someone give me
> >a part or model #, many thanks tom pekar
> >
>
> Tom,
>
> Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. Haven't
> be able to spend as much time at the computer as I would
> have liked for the past week.
>
> Download http://216.55.140.222/temp/lc-rd1217p.pdf
>
> This is the Panasonic version of my favorite battery.
> Battery shops should be able to cross reference this
> device into whatever brand they carry with the same
> specifications.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Power Sources -- clarify please... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage@yahoo.com>
I have spent many hours searching the archives for a simple answer to my
seemingly simple question, but the plethora of conflicting information seems
to suggest that neither the question nor the answer is very simple.
In planning a system with dual electronic ignitions, which is the better
option from among these choices: two alternators with one battery, or one
alternator with two batteries?
Bob has suggested in some messages that modern RG batteries do not fail and
that a system with one battery and two alternators (similar to figure Z-13)
is perfectly acceptable for dual electronic ignitions.
However, in other messages, he goes further to say something like, "You might
want to consider adding a second battery to support the second electronic
ignition." This leads me to believe that a Z-13 system isn't adequate for
dual electronic ignitions.
Furthermore, in the Aeroelectric Connetion book, the following statements
appear to conflict with each other:
Page 17-11: "The only reason to install two batteries is for the purpose of
supplying independent power sources to each half of a dual ignition
system..."
Page 17-11: "Last, antiquated concerns for a battery 'failure' dragging down
the rest of the system are simply not founded in the physics of modern
battery construction....drives the probability of gross battery failure to
zero."
Page 17-13: "The compelling reason for upgrading to dual batteries is when
both magnetos have been replaced with electronic ignition systems. If you
don't plan to have a vacuum system and want dual electronic ignition, then
putting an auxiliary alternator on the vacuum pad makes the most sense and
you can stay with a single battery."
On the other hand, every schematic in Appendix Z that illustrates dual
electronic ignitions has dual batteries.
Most of the people who post to this list seem to be going the dual-battery
route with dual electronic ignitions, and I've read all their reasons why.
For a day/night VFR (with the possibility for occasional light IFR in the
future) airplane, it really seems like overkill to me, though.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but what's the real deal? Reading the
archives just leaves me with more questions.
-Geoff
http://tax.yahoo.com
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FADEC BRownout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Tim,
There is a certain amount of resistance internal to the battery; any
voltage drop across that internal resistance will show up everywhere
outside the battery (typically 5 milliohms or so); as an example, 200
amps through 5 milliohms will give a 1-volt drop, resulting in 11.6
volts at the battery terminal. That part is simply unavoidable. At the
master contactor, it will go through another lug connection, and so you
could lose a few more tenths of a volt there; The starter current has to
go through that contactor and then the starter contactor and about 15 ft
of cable (and a couple more lug connections), so iit will see even more
of a drop, but hopefully not more than another volt or two.
But, you'll never see that at the battery end, because your battery bus
does not go through any contactor or the long fat wire... if possible,
it would be best to run the battery bus source wire to the battery
terminal itself, although a lot of people tack it on to the batt
terminal of the master contactor - it's one extra lug contact to go
through (Bob mentioned what the average reisstance might be of a lug
connection, but I don't recall the number) which might drop a few more
tenths of a volt and is one more thing to fail; but not an unreasonable
point to attach the battery bus if it's not practical to go to the
battery terminal itself, on the battery.
-John
TimRhod@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
>
>John:
>My battery busses are in the nose along with circuit protection and switches
>I mentioned a firewall bus just for connecting the #10 wires to the FADEC
>harness that comes with the engine. Ok thanks for the answer on voltage
>drop. Am I understanding you right that the voltage drop is only a function
>of the starting wire and that the actual cranking of the engine doesnt pull
>down the voltage of the battery at the battery buss end? Tim
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: William Mills <courierboy@earthlink.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil Clayton <harvey4@earthlink.net>
>
>This looks like a lead-acid battery, Bob. I thought you favoured RG batteries.
>http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_VRLA_LC-RD1217P_AP.pdf
>
>Neil
Neil -
It is a lead-acid battery.
It is also an RG battery.
Same chemistry as of old but newer technology. The RG (recombinant
gas)means the oxy and hydrogen recombine so you don't have to add
water and therefore no filler caps(I believe that's correct). If you
enlarge the photo in the pdf file you won't see any filler caps.
Bill
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: FADEC BRownout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
TimRhod@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
>
>John:
>My battery busses are in the nose along with circuit protection and switches
>I mentioned a firewall bus just for connecting the #10 wires to the FADEC
>harness that comes with the engine. Ok thanks for the answer on voltage
>drop. Am I understanding you right that the voltage drop is only a function
>of the starting wire and that the actual cranking of the engine doesnt pull
>down the voltage of the battery at the battery buss end? Tim
>
I haven't followed this thread closely, but to answer your last
question, *no*.
You can demonstrate this for yourself with a voltmeter. Simply apply the
voltmeter leads directly to the + & - terminals of the battery itself &
crank the engine with the starter. The battery voltage will sag to
somewhere between 7 & 10 volts depending on the type & condition of the
battery.
If your starter wires are undersized or you have high-resistance
connections in the system then you can see this as well by leaving the -
lead on the battery's - terminal (not the terminal connected to it, but
the post itself) and apply the + lead to various points in the starting
circuit & cranking the engine. You will see lower voltages as you move
the + lead further away from the battery's + terminal, until you get to
the 'load', or the starter itself. If you have high resistances in the
return path from the starter to the - terminal on the battery, you can
see this as you move the meter's + lead to various points on the
'ground' side of the starter. These will show themselves as non-zero
voltage measurements.
This is a very effective way to troubleshoot starting problems. If the
voltage measured across the battery terminals remains at or very near 12
volts when engine start is attempted, there are cable or connection
problems in the system.
All this doesn't help you keep your FADEC power supply voltage from
sagging during start, does it? ;-) Connecting the FADEC wires directly
to the battery terminals will avoid the voltage drop through poor
starter circuit connections, but won't cure the sag in battery voltage
during start.
Charlie
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: FADEC BRownout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
Charlie: thanks for the info I thought it was as you described but was
confused by another email. Tim Velocity XLRG cont FADEC engine
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: Power Sources -- clarify please... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
Geoff: I have read Bobs aero conection several times and also attended his
course. The way I see it is there are a number of great choices all of which
are far superior to any spam can electrical system out there. I dont think
you can go wrong with any of the systems you mentioned. For me Im using duel
alt, duel batteries 17AH RG these are small enough to take the place of one
large battery. For me the cost isnt that much more than other systems and it
gives the greatest redundancy. Since Im flying with duel electronic ign and
all electric panel there is never too much redundancy.
Tim
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! --
|