---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 05/19/03: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:28 AM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (Tony Babb) 2. 05:47 AM - Fuel level indicators (Gary Casey) 3. 06:21 AM - Re: Fuel level indicators (BobsV35B@aol.com) 4. 06:25 AM - Re: Fuel level indicators (BobsV35B@aol.com) 5. 07:13 AM - Re: Fuel level indicators (Dennis O'Connor) 6. 09:47 AM - Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (brucem@olypen.com) 7. 09:56 AM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (Rick Caldwell) 8. 10:16 AM - Re: Fuel level indicators (John Schroeder) 9. 11:19 AM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (SportAV8R@aol.com) 10. 01:34 PM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (nhulin) 11. 03:20 PM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (Tom Schiff) 12. 04:19 PM - FAR 19 Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (Ed Anderson) 13. 06:53 PM - Re: Source for Pins & Extraction tools (Richard V. Reynolds) 14. 09:15 PM - Alternator fields (John Herminghaus) 15. 09:53 PM - Z-13 mod'd by David Carter (David Carter) 16. 09:56 PM - test - do not archive (David Carter) 17. 10:03 PM - Re: Z-13 mod'd by David Carter (David Carter) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:28:26 AM PST US From: "Tony Babb" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Babb" I like the idea of the totalizer and agree the only unknowns are - what happens if a fuel cap comes loose and what does the FAA need. I was planning on going with fuel gauges and Vance Atkinson sight gauges, now I'm thinking a totalizer and sight gauges would do the job. In the event that there is a leak I could see what's happening and in any case would get a warning when the low-fuel light in the sump tank (or whatever it's called) comes on. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob W M Shipley" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > > Neil Hulin's comment about using a fuel totalizer instead of a fuel gauge linearizer > has been burning a hole in my brain. I believe he is right.... > > Here's the deal-- > > You only need one fuel totalizer meter if you take fuel from only one tank at a > time. The fuel quantity meter (and memory) for that tank is simply updated as > required. I trust in this system, totalizers really work well. > Consider too, that you wouldn't need fuel-level senders or gauges at all. Always > problematic devices. You also would not need anti-slosh electronic filters > either. My airplane just got a whole lot lighter! > > There are a few practical concerns--how do we know the tank is at the level the > "gauge" says it is? Well, I always checked it visually with a wooden stick anyway. > So when tanks are refilled they must be filled to the top (ideally) and > visually checked. You really wanted the fuel flow rate anyway. Not a bad tradeoff. > > This is a nice idea but what happens if fuel is lost from the system anywhere on the tank side of totalizer sender? e.g. loose fuel cap, cracked pipe etc. Now your totalizer is telling you that full fuel, less that burned in the engine, remains. Not! > Also I may be wrong but I have this hazy memory of the Feds, (always here to help), requiring gauges ...... > Don't get me wrong. I think totalizers are a terrific idea but a pair of steam fuel gauges a watch and knowledge of approximate fuel burn make a terrific cross check with each other to confirm what you actually have to get you home. Bit like doing a mental approximation of a problem to check you hit the right buttons on the calculator or in this case that your totalizer figures are valid. > Fly safe > Rob > Rob W M Shipley > RV9A N919RV Fuselage - now a canoe!!! > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:47:50 AM PST US From: "Gary Casey" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fuel level indicators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" I'll have to weigh in in favor of retaining a fuel level indicator, regardless of whether a fuel flow meter (totalizer) is installed. The reason is simple - the totalizer REQUIRES active intervention of the pilot to work. He has to set in the quantity of fuel added EACH time or the system won't work. While designing our planes I think it is most important to design in protection against ourselves - accident studies have shown that it is ourselves that are the weak link. It scares me to hear things like "I dipstick the tanks every time." Every time? Every time in the future? I do a lot of audits of manufacturing systems and it's easy - just listen for the words "every," "always" and "never." That will usually be the problem, or at least a problem waiting to happen. A fuel level gauge works regardless of any action by the pilot. And that is its advantage. Gary Casey ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:21:34 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel level indicators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 5/19/03 7:48:26 AM Central Daylight Time, glcasey@adelphia.net writes: > While designing our planes I think it is most important > to design in protection against ourselves - accident studies have shown > that > it is ourselves that are the weak link. It scares me to hear things like > "I > dipstick the tanks every time." Every time? Every time in the future? I > do a lot of audits of manufacturing systems and it's easy - just listen for > the words "every," "always" and "never." That will usually be the problem, > or at least a problem waiting to happen. A fuel level gauge works > regardless of any action by the pilot. And that is its advantage. > > Gary Casey > > Good Morning Gary, Nicely said, thanks. Your statement says more about air safety than almost any other similar length statement I have ever read Air safety is the realization that we all make mistakes. As long as we can avoid that trap of saying; "That could never happen to me, because I always----------------" We have a reasonable chance of living to a Ripe Old Age. Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:43 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel level indicators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 5/19/03 7:48:26 AM Central Daylight Time, glcasey@adelphia.net writes: > I'll have to weigh in in favor of retaining a fuel level indicator, > regardless of whether a fuel flow meter (totalizer) is installed. Good Morning Once Again, I should have commented here as well. I'm with you! I particularly like the idea of sight gauges on tanks where that will work. I have them on my tip tanks, wish they could be used on my very unreliably gauged main tanks. Happy Skies. Old Bob ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:13:36 AM PST US From: "Dennis O'Connor" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel level indicators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" Unfortunately, the pilot of the Lancair 4P this weekend didn't believe the old story about avoiding thunderstorms... Denny ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel level indicators > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > In a message dated 5/19/03 7:48:26 AM Central Daylight Time, > glcasey@adelphia.net writes: > > > While designing our planes I think it is most important > > to design in protection against ourselves - accident studies have shown > > that > > it is ourselves that are the weak link. It scares me to hear things like > > "I > > dipstick the tanks every time." Every time? Every time in the future? I > > do a lot of audits of manufacturing systems and it's easy - just listen for > > the words "every," "always" and "never." That will usually be the problem, > > or at least a problem waiting to happen. A fuel level gauge works > > regardless of any action by the pilot. And that is its advantage. > > > > Gary Casey > > > > > > Good Morning Gary, > > Nicely said, thanks. > > Your statement says more about air safety than almost any other similar > length statement I have ever read > > Air safety is the realization that we all make mistakes. As long as we can > avoid that trap of saying; "That could never happen to me, because I > always----------------" We have a reasonable chance of living to a Ripe Old > Age. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:47:24 AM PST US From: brucem@olypen.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@olypen.com Sorry, but FAR 91.205(b)(9) requires a fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank. Bruce McGregor (GlaStar) --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail. http://www.olypen.com ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:56:06 AM PST US From: "Rick Caldwell" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Caldwell" >Don't get me wrong. I think totalizers are a terrific idea but a pair of >steam fuel gauges a watch and knowledge of approximate fuel burn make a >terrific cross check with each other to confirm what you actually have to >get you home. Bit like doing a mental approximation of a problem to check >you hit the right buttons on the calculator or in this case that your >totalizer figures are valid. >Fly safe >Rob >Rob W M Shipley >RV9A N919RV Fuselage - now a canoe!!! Rob, The fuel guages in my RV-6 are basically worthless. The wing tanks are at the wing dihedral angle. The flop tube in the left wing tank necessitates the sender be mounted further toward tank center. The right tank sender is not completely at the low point in the tank. Far from it actually. Therefore, when both guages read empty, I have about 5 gal. in the left tank and 2 gal. in the right. That is 1 hr of flight at 65% power. Of course I normally do not fly around with 7 gal. remaining but I am legally allowed to fly with about 4 gal. I use my fuel totalizer. On a recent X-C, I had to revise flight plans due to lowering ceilings ahead. I returned back to the sunny blue skies of FL. I had fuel to make it to a fuel stop with 5 gal on board after landing or stop sooner and pay $1/gal. more. I chose to save the money. However, try telling your nonflying wife why you are flying with both fuel guages on empty. The digital fuel remaining readout did nothing for calming her fears. I did not know this until after landing. Otherwise, I would have paid the $3.25/gal. The fuel guages did me no favors that day. Wish I didn't have them. Rick Caldwell RV-6 One Design ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:16:18 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel level indicators From: John Schroeder --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder Dennis - I believe it is a tad early to make this conclusion. John > Unfortunately, the pilot of the Lancair 4P this weekend didn't believe > the old story about avoiding thunderstorms... > > Denny ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:19:48 AM PST US From: SportAV8R@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com In a message dated 05/19/2003 12:48:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, brucem@olypen.com writes: > Sorry, but FAR 91.205(b)(9) requires a fuel gauge indicating the quantity of > > fuel in each tank. > > Bruce McGregor > (GlaStar) > Part 91 applies to homebuilts? I must be missing something somewhere (many would agree :-) do not archive ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 01:34:08 PM PST US From: "nhulin" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "nhulin" Listers, I hadn't looked at the digests for a couple of days. Looks like this one has generated some interest. I'd like to clarify the comment in my post. I wasn't advocating doing away with the gauges, whether steam or processor, float or capacitive. I was simply stating that there are mechanical limitations in that some of the information required to be displayed might not be available due to the configuration of the senders or the tanks. If I was going to spend money to solve this problem then I'd prefer to spend it on a totalizer rather than fixing the gauges I already have. One complements the other as others have pointed out. Sort of like how the flight planning fuel consumption calculation complements watching the gauges while in flight - everyone still does that don't they? Rick Caldwell correctly points out that in some configurations you can have fuel remaining above unusable fuel when the gauge reads zero. This is what I expect in my Zodiac. There would be hundreds of other aircraft out there in the same situation. I don't see that there is anything that can be done about that except review the entire fuel system and engineer a suitable solution which may or may not include some sort of linearizer. It is also true that Rick's gauges still read zero when there is only unusable quantity of fuel. Hmmm. On a technical point we've satisfied 23.959(a) except that it might not be considered "calibrated" if it reads zero for many quantities including unusable fuel. Simply because we consider a statement to be true doesn't mean that it is of benefit to anyone. I agree with Rick that flying for an hour or more with gauges on zero might be a bit disconcerting. For my Zodiac, I'll be happy with a full reading being clearly marked as ">10.5 gallons". I still need to dip the tanks during preflight if I am getting close to max gross and am concerned about having too much fuel. At the bottom end of the scale I'll know that I need to land and refuel when the gauges get down towards zero. I didn't spend all this time building a powered aircraft just to turn it into a glider. ...neil 601XL Cincinnati ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 03:20:40 PM PST US From: "Tom Schiff" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Schiff" No you don't have to follow FAR 91. But. 1. FAR 91 has some very good ideas to use as a reference. In my opinion their requirement of a fuel quantity indicator for each tank is a good one. So I will choose to include that in my home built. 2. Although not required you still have to get someone to sign off on your completed bird. If I was the inspector I would "invite you to find another inspector" if you didn't have fuel gages. 3. If you had an accident you (or your estate) may still have to convince the insurance company that flying without some form of fuel quantity indicator was not gross negligence. I wouldn't like to be put into that position. Ditto for the FAA who may want to remove your license. Note most ultralights have a semi transparent fuel tank that the pilot can see. There is a few felt tip pen markings on most of them (1/4,1/2,3/4). That is a fuel quantity indicator. I have had the engine stumble twice for me in cruse, at altitude. My suspicions in both cases (confirmed in one) that it was carburetor ice. Does my C 150 now have a carb temp gage? Yes. If my next airplane has a carburetor what modification will I make as soon as title passes to me? Check that I have a carb temp gage and that it is working. I don't know if you have ever had an engine misbehave in flight. For me it was a life altering experience. I don't want to be caught without the information that I need to diagnose a problem. Fuel gages may inherently inaccurate but I will have something that shows fuel level in any aircraft that my body is transported above the ground. Side note to those who are attempting to adjust their float fuel gages. One of the problems with them is that the float must never touch either the upper or lower surface of the tank. If I does then vibration will either cause the float to wear and be damaged and or the even worse scenario where a hole is worn in the top or bottom of the tank. This is one of the root causes for gages showing empty when there is still unusable reserve and for showing full when the tanks are less than full. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of SportAV8R@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com In a message dated 05/19/2003 12:48:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, brucem@olypen.com writes: > Sorry, but FAR 91.205(b)(9) requires a fuel gauge indicating the quantity of > > fuel in each tank. > > Bruce McGregor > (GlaStar) > Part 91 applies to homebuilts? I must be missing something somewhere (many would agree :-) do not archive ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 04:19:00 PM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: FAR 19 Re: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" I think you will find that what ever the FSDO approving your Operating limitations puts into that document is what you are obligated to follow. Mine has a number of references to paragraphs of FAR 91 that I must comply with, your milage may vary.. Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:11 PM PST US From: "Richard V. Reynolds" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source for Pins & Extraction tools --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard V. Reynolds" Paul, Call UPS/Apollo Tech support and ask them to send the pins. They will want to know they manufacture of the socket and the "color". Two different sockets have been used. If you have the ACU also with the 78 pin connector, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT to use the correct pins and the correct AMP crimping tool. It only cost $150, but if you don't use the correct tool, the pins will not fit the connector correctly and YOU WILL NOT be able to EXTRACT them!!!! Richard Reynolds, A happy did it myself wiring UPS/Apollo. Paul McAllister wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" > > Hi Bob, > > I purchased 50 sockets, but to no avail, well almost. They fitted the 37 > pin D Style connector on the SL70 transponder, but not the 37 pin connector > for the GX60. > > The sockets wouldn't slide all the way in and when I examined them closely > the sockets that did fit had a split on the front and the barrel was about > 10 thou smaller. I found that the 15 pin connector on the GX60 and the 37 > pin on the Narco Nav 122 had the same problem. > > Any idea on where to get this style of pin? I can send you an example if it > would help. > > Thanks, Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > To: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source for Pins & Extraction tools > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > At 01:33 PM 5/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" > > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >I am approaching the stage where I will be wiring up my UPS GX60 Nav/Com > & > > >SL 70 transponder. The units come supplied with 37 pin D style > connectors > > >and I am seeking some advice. > > > > > >Where can I purchase a suitable crimping tool, insertion/extraction tool > > >and some pins & sockets. > > > > > > See: > > > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-3 > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#dse-1 > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/connect/connect.html#S604 > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html > > > > > > > I would be interested to know what size wire do people typically use > in > > > these pins to ensure a good crimp > > > > 24-20 AWG wire works well in these pins. 20AWG for > > power/ground and 22AWG for everything else is > > good . . . > > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) > > ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) > > ( and still understand nothing. ) > > ( C.F. Kettering ) > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:15:07 PM PST US From: John Herminghaus Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator fields --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Herminghaus Bob, The alternator on my TSIO 550 has three small studs marked F1, F2 and Aux. How should it be connected to an LR3c? Regards, John Herminghaus ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:53:09 PM PST US From: "David Carter" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-13 mod'd by David Carter --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" Request "peer review"/comments/questions on the attached Autocad/Intellicad drawing (.dwg file) At the lower center part of drawing, there are 4 changes that I've made which I'd like comments on. I'm designing a "single PM alternator with 2 17ah batteries" system to power an electrically dependent Mazda rotary engine (electronic fuel inj & ignition). I've yet to add "battery busses" and details of what instruments, etc will feed off the main and endurance and battery 1 & 2 busses. I'm seeking "validation" of my basic concept, before I go into those details. I don't know how to make this drawing viewable by those without a cad program. When I convert to .bmp and to .jpg format, I only get the part of the drawing that shows on the screen. So, . . . if anyone wants it in .jpg, I'll get the upper left and right and lower left and right quarters of the dwg zoomed in enough so all details are readable, and make 4 images (.bmp to .jpg conversion) and attach all 4 to an e-mail so anyone can see open and see each quarter of the drawing. David Carter RV-6 Nederland, Texas ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:56:31 PM PST US From: "David Carter" Subject: AeroElectric-List: test - do not archive --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" Test do not archive david carter ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 10:03:21 PM PST US From: "David Carter" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-13 mod'd by David Carter --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" What have I missed on use of the list? The file I attached was stripped in process of being posted to the AeroElectric List. I re-checked my "Sent" file and the dwg was attached when I clicked "Send". What do I need to do? Put it on my web site and provide a link? Can do that. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Carter" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-13 mod'd by David Carter > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" > > Request "peer review"/comments/questions on the attached Autocad/Intellicad drawing (.dwg file) > At the lower center part of drawing, there are 4 changes that I've made which I'd like comments on. > > I'm designing a "single PM alternator with 2 17ah batteries" system to power an electrically dependent Mazda rotary engine (electronic fuel inj & ignition). > > I've yet to add "battery busses" and details of what instruments, etc will feed off the main and endurance and battery 1 & 2 busses. I'm seeking "validation" of my basic concept, before I go into those details. > > I don't know how to make this drawing viewable by those without a cad program. When I convert to .bmp and to .jpg format, I only get the part of the drawing that shows on the screen. So, . . . > if anyone wants it in .jpg, I'll get the upper left and right and lower left and right quarters of the dwg zoomed in enough so all details are readable, and make 4 images (.bmp to .jpg conversion) and attach all 4 to an e-mail so anyone can see open and see each quarter of the drawing. > > David Carter > RV-6 > Nederland, Texas > >