Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:04 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 06/20/03 (Mike Mladejovsky)
2. 09:11 AM - Re: Lighting (Eric M. Jones)
3. 11:30 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest - Ground structures (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 11:32 AM - Re: Radio Noise (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 12:45 PM - (Tinne maha)
6. 02:54 PM - Re: Radio Noise - Update ()
7. 07:03 PM - Re: 10611 Krueger (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:12 PM - Re: 10613 Graham (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:16 PM - Re: Z-11? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:37 PM - Re: 10610 Krueger (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 06/20/03 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mike Mladejovsky <mladejov@ced.utah.edu>
> From: "rwilliams" <rwilliams@C1ama.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Noise
> >From what you wrote, I surmise that when wiring a composite aircraft, it
> would be better to have two big ground leads coming off the battery, one to
> electronics and the other to mechanicals (incl. lights?)-correct?
Actually, I would have three: the engine group (starter motor,
alternator, and engine controls, fuel pump, etc; the "noisy" group,
which would have fuel guages, other engine instruments, strobes,
gyros, trim servos, landing gear/flap motors, etc; and finally the
"quiet" group, which is all the avionics, intercom, entertainment,
audio panel...
> Would it
> also be a good idea to run these through a diode so that they could not
> backfeed?
No, you want the lowest possible ground drops in the respective
ground; You just dont want the noisy currents flowing along along the
same ground wiring as used by the audio devices...
And to the person who suggested that current flows from the negative
pole of a battery to the positive pole I was talking about current,
not electrons...
Mike M
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
McMasterCarr.com on catalog page 595 has some great halogen lamps. Allelectronics.com
also has lamps and sockets for cheap.
A few things regarding lighting--
I doubt that the LoPresti light color had as much to do with its visibility as
its reflector design. Aviation Consumer said it had a "hot spot" which would indicate
a narrow angle. I've seen pictures of this and it looks like a spotlight,
so off-angle it would be hard to see. (If I had one I might take a ball-peen
hammer to the reflector.) True, a bluer beam would make the light less visible
against a blue sky, but visibility is usually not a blue-sky issue anyway.
The maximum sensitivity to light is yellow-green (~555 nanometers...the light
under the jungle canopy), but the best seeing is with all frequencies present
in the ratios of noon sunlight (noon on the African Savannah)--more like HID
than tungsten or halogens.
Any filament landing light will eventually fatigue its filament and fail. The advantage
of halogens is their comparatively rugged filament. HID lamps have no
filament so they have enormous lifetimes. Likewise LEDs*
Any kind or color of lighting will encounter some condition where it makes the
aircraft less visible rather than more. Wig-Wag lighting makes a whole lot of
sense because when the sun blinks like that we will have much bigger problems.
The glass cover on the halogen lamps is well worth a small 5% reduction in light
output, since it keeps the lamp reflector clean and prevents over-cooling of
the halogen bulb that would shorten its life.
I still remember the look of despair on my Flying School owner's face when told
one of her Cessna 150's had a blown landing or taxi light. Her profits for the
day had just evaporated.
*LED landing lights sooner than you think! We can calculate when using Moore's
Law. Since halogens and LED have similar (Lumen/Watt) efficiencies, we only need
to look at total LED watts/buck and look at its Moore's Law growth curve. Right
now a white 30 degree LED, 5 VDC, 20 mA, 5 cp goes for about a buck. So that's
1 buck per 0.1 watt. Or $10/Watt. So a 100W LED landing light would cost
you $1000 today; $500 in 18 months; $250 in 36 months; $125 in 54 months; $62.50
(early adopter prices) in 72 months; $31.25 (a really saleable price) in
90 months. So for Christmas 2010 or before, your LED landing light will be ready
to attach to your airplane.
Fly safely, buy my Wig-Wag (D) 'Witch
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest - Ground structures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:04 AM 6/22/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mike Mladejovsky
><mladejov@ced.utah.edu>
>
> > From: "rwilliams" <rwilliams@C1ama.net>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Noise
>
> > >From what you wrote, I surmise that when wiring a composite aircraft, it
> > would be better to have two big ground leads coming off the battery, one to
> > electronics and the other to mechanicals (incl. lights?)-correct?
>
>Actually, I would have three: the engine group (starter motor,
>alternator, and engine controls, fuel pump, etc; the "noisy" group,
>which would have fuel guages, other engine instruments, strobes,
>gyros, trim servos, landing gear/flap motors, etc; and finally the
>"quiet" group, which is all the avionics, intercom, entertainment,
>audio panel...
>
> > Would it
> > also be a good idea to run these through a diode so that they could not
> > backfeed?
>
>No, you want the lowest possible ground drops in the respective
>ground; You just dont want the noisy currents flowing along along the
>same ground wiring as used by the audio devices...
>
>And to the person who suggested that current flows from the negative
>pole of a battery to the positive pole I was talking about current,
>not electrons...
May I suggest that pictures will convey meaning with greater
clarity than words when describing system architectures? Would
you care to review the grounding structures depicted in figure
Z-15 of http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
and explain how these might be improved and/or where they
are in error?
I've published a correction drawing to the first sheet
of Z-15 at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z15ak.pdf
Bob . . .
>Mike M
>
>
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:42 PM 6/20/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rwilliams" <rwilliams@C1ama.net>
>
>Mike:
>
>I learned a great deal from your post. But usually when I learn something,
>it raises more questions.
>
> From what you wrote, I surmise that when wiring a composite aircraft, it
>would be better to have two big ground leads coming off the battery, one to
>electronics and the other to mechanicals (incl. lights?)-correct? Would it
>also be a good idea to run these through a diode so that they could not
>backfeed?
Have you reviewed the power distribution diagrams offered
in Appendix Z of the 'Connection?
They can be downloaded from
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html
I might make special note of a correction to the ground
structures published as a separate .pdf at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z15ak.pdf
What kind of airplane are you putting together and
what kind of electrical system are you considering?
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Hello Bob,
The failure tolerant philosophy of your designs make fantastic sense to me.
Your publications have been a huge help - Thanks for all of your help! I intend
to purchaseseveral supplies from your web site. I have a few specific questions
at the moment.
I am building a Kitfox with a Lycoming 0-235 at least single electronic
ignition. Iplan to use miniature toggle
swithches throughout my panel - utilizing a relay wherever thecurrent exceeds 4
amps.
Question #1) Do you have a strong recommendation one way or the other for using
dual electronic ignition? Cost is an issue, but I don't mind spending if I will
get good value.
Question #2) I am still in the process of adopting fully understanding your
Z-11 wiring diagram. The relatively heavy engine requires the battery be in the
tail of the aircraft for balance. I am assuming the main battery bus must mount
somewhere near the panel. This prevents the 16 AWG wire from the battery
contactor to the Main Battery Bus from being the recommended 6" maximum length.
I don't understand the reason for the 6" maximum length. Could you please
explain and/or list alternate solutions?
Thanks for any insight,
Grant Krueger
SLO, CA
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: Radio Noise - Update |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <racker@rmci.net>
As promised, an update on the Wultrad turn coordinator noise problem.
Again owe a big thanks to Mr. Nuckolls, his RS radio filter design worked
perfectly (tested today flight of two air-to-air and also ATC
communications).
Rob Acker (RV-6 flying)
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 10611 Krueger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:08 PM 6/21/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by
>Grant Krueger (Tinnemaha@hotmail.com) on Saturday, June 21, 2003 at 12:08:42
>
>Saturday, June 21, 2003
>
>Grant Krueger
>
>,
>Email: Tinnemaha@hotmail.com
>Comments/Questions: Hello Bob,
>
>The failure tolerant philosophy of your designs make fantastic sense to
>me. Your publications have been a huge help - Thanks for all of your
>help! I intend to several supplies from your web site. I will soon be
>trying to communicate via the aero electric list that Matt Dralle
>maintains but wanted to give this a try too. I have a few specific
>questions at the moment.
Okay
>I am building a Kitfox with a Lycoming 0-235 & at least single electronic
>ignition. Primarily for Aesthetic reasons I want to use miniature toggle
>swithches throughout my panel.
Saw a Q200 at a flyin last fall using CK miniature toggle
switches for everything including his 55W landing light.
The owner reported good service from these switches having
put over 100 hours on the airplane with no problems.
>Question #1) Do you have a strong recommendation one way or the other for
>using dual electronic ignition? Cost is an issue, but I don't mind
>spending if I will get good value.
95% of your performance improvement will come with putting on
the first electronic ignition. If your engine comes with two
mags, I'd replace one mag with electronic. When first mag
craps, put the second mag back on the engine. When you've
run all your money's worth from both mags, put the second
electronic ignition on.
>Question #2) I am still in the process of adopting & fully understanding
>your Z-11 wiring diagram. The relatively heavy engine requires the
>battery be in the tail of the aircraft for balance. I am assuming the
>main battery bus must mount somewhere near the panel. This prevents the
>16 AWG wire from the battery contactor to the Main Battery Bus from being
>the recommended 6" maximum length. I don't understand the reason for the
>6" maximum length. Could you please explain and/or list alternate solutions?
The general rule of thumb for smaller gage (10 AWG and smaller)
feeders that are sourced by the battery should either get
some form of protection (breaker, fuse, etc) unless they
can be kept short. FAA used to allow small electro-whizies
to be attached to the bus without separate protection if the
at risk wire was kept short . . . 6" or less. Battery
busses go next to battery that feeds them. If your battery
is in tail, battery bus for that battery is there right
beside it.
Bob. . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 10613 Graham |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> Bob,
>
> I broke one of the ears of the mounting flange of the 15 pin molex?
> edge connector on the back of one of my mounting trays for a Michel MX-11
> radio. The radio is supposedly a direct replacement for one of the Narco
> radios.
>
> Can you get the connector, crimp pins, extraction tools etc. for this
> connector? I would like to replace it with a new one and new pins at the
> same time. Thanks.
I presume you're talking about the Molex connectors shown on
http://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=350.pdf
If so, you can order connectors, pins and tools
from the number at the bottom of the page. If a
different style of connector, I'll have to see
a picture of it to try and indentify it.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:15 PM 6/22/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>I am working with your wiring diagram Z-11.
>I have a Nissan D internally regulated alt. I'm in the midst of building
>the various circuits
>I Have just begun the master switch circuit and I'm installing the OV
>module with yellow and black wires as per the drawing included with the OVM.
>
>On Z-11 in the middle of the page there is a small drawing of the rear
>view of switch. It is titled "Terminal locations for S700-2-XX series
>switches". under this it says (note 15)
>
>It seems that all the switch wire locations on all the diagrams then use a
>different numbering pattern?
>Obviously I am missing something.
>
>stumped,
Jim, the drawings in the book and on the website were
crafted at various times over the years and terminal
numbering generally followed the conventions set forth
in the Microswitch catalog until we began to offer
Carling switches from our website catalog. Seems they
have an alternative numbering scheme as described in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
Some day we'll probably get all the drawings updated
to the Carling convention but in the mean time, be
aware that there are two schemes depending on where
you get your switches.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 10610 Krueger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> Bob,
>
>I would just like to get your opinion of split alt/bat master
>switches. Split switches have always been the norm, but I don't see why
>you couldn't use a DPDT switch to engage the master relay and send power
>to the alt field. Kill two birds with one stone, right? In the event you
>needed to reset the alt, could you not pull and then reset the alt field
>circuit breaker? That would be like reseting a split switch. A little
>more effort, I agree, but how often would you even need to do that? Would
>you maybe use this setup on any electrical system? Only dual alt/bat
>setups? Panel space is becoming more and more difficult to come by these
>days. On more modern panels with lit rocker switches, this idea would
>sure be nice to keep all of the switches the same. Thanks for your input,
There is no compelling reason or advantage for having independent
control of alternator and battery for normal operations. Indeed,
until a few years ago, our power distribution diagrams showed
a two pole, OFF-ON switch for both battery and alternator. Our
designs assume you'll have crowbar ov protection that needs
a breaker. Make it a pullable breaker and you have a means
by which a misbehaving alternator can be shut down in flight
or disabled for extend ground operations battery-only.
In recent years, we located and now offer progressive
transfer switches that permit a single switch to mimic
split-rocker operations. Our power distribution diagrams
illustrate this feature and call out the 2-10 series
switch. However, if it were my airplane, I'd use a
2-3 switch and mount the alternator field
breaker right next to it.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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! --
|