Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:04 AM - Success Story (RVEIGHTA@aol.com)
2. 06:12 AM - Re: Tach Auto Switch... (Van Caulart)
3. 06:42 AM - Canard Pusher Ground System (Alexander Balic)
4. 06:43 AM - KX155 Pin Identification (Jon Finley)
5. 09:47 AM - Re: Crimp tools for Molex Avikrimp or PIDG terminations (Don Honabach)
6. 10:39 AM - Crimper - Saga ... (Don Honabach)
7. 11:34 AM - Re: KX155 Pin Identification (Tom Brusehaver)
8. 12:04 PM - Re: Crimper - Saga ... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 12:06 PM - Connecting Whelen Strobes (BAKEROCB@aol.com)
10. 12:35 PM - Re: KX155 Pin Identification (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 12:48 PM - Re: Canard Pusher Ground System (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 12:49 PM - Re: Success Story (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 01:46 PM - Re: Crimper - Saga ... (Don Honabach)
14. 08:46 PM - Re: A different way? (Tom Schiff)
15. 08:49 PM - Re: Crimper - Saga ... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 09:57 PM - Re: Crimper - Saga ... (Don Honabach)
17. 10:06 PM - Re: Tach Auto Switch... (Don Honabach)
18. 10:08 PM - Re: Tach Auto Switch... (Don Honabach)
19. 10:15 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 06/28/03 (Ronald Cox)
20. 10:16 PM - Fw: AeroElectric-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 06/28/03 (Ronald Cox)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: RVEIGHTA@aol.com
A while back I posted a message to the list saying that my import turn
coordinator was so noisy it made my radio transmissions unreadable. Bob referred
me
to his article on "Hammering the Radio Shack 270-030 filter into submission"
Well to make a long story short, I bought the filter kit for $4 and put it
together per Bob's instructions, installed it in my RV-8A and now my radio
works great!
Thanks, Bob......
Walt Shipley
Greeneville, TN
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: Tach Auto Switch... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Van Caulart <etivc@iaw.on.ca>
Don:
Try the MSD Tach Splitter which has two diodes installed so that you can
select either ign and see the tach indication on a single tach.
PeterVC
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: | Canard Pusher Ground System |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Alexander Balic <alex157@direcway.com>
Bob/everyone,
I have the Z-15, and it seems to show ground going from the battery to a
post on the foreword ground bus. Then a second #2 cable going from the
foreword ground bus to the rear mounted ground bus. Then a 3rd cable (or
strap) going to the engine to ground bus for the starter/alternator. I
spoke with Tim at B&C, he said that he would not want to see 3 bolt
connections between the battery and the engine case. If I have the engine
gauges (obviously in the rear), and some ground to the engine block, and
some don't - (fuel pressure comes to mind) so Tim suggested that I run the
ground to the block directly, then use the strap to go to the firewall
mounted ground buss, then run say a #6 up to the front from the rear ground
to front ground buss, so then I can ground the instruments at the front, and
even though the senders ground to the case, the instrument grounds run back
there before going to the battery. Please let me know about this, I am at
this point, and need to get some copper flying!! :)
Thanks
Alex
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: | KX155 Pin Identification |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
Hi all,
Could someone please point me to a diagram that defines the pins on a
King KX155 Nav/Com?? I have the wiring diagram but have not been able
to determine which pin on the radio represents which pin on the diagram.
I know - sounds pretty silly but I can't see any markings on the radio
other than an "S" (even took the covers off).
Thanks!
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 450 Hrs. TT - 1 Hr Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
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: Crimp tools for Molex Avikrimp or PIDG terminations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
Gaylen,
Thanks a million - this is exactly what I was looking for. The pictures
answer all my questions. I've been surprised that you can purchase a
pair of cheap crimpers and they don't even have instructions - seems a
little odd since we aren't born with the knowledge of how to do a proper
crimp or more importantly how to crimp the terminal as the engineer's
invisioned to provide a robust connection.
Thanks Again!
Don
Here is our "How To" page for mil spec termination crimping:
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Page7.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Gaylen Lerohl [mailto:lerohl@rea-alp.com]
Subject: Crimp tools for Molex Avikrimp or PIDG terminations
Don:
Check out our Eclipse 300-054 tool and the 300-058 die set or the
Sargent SC4140 tool with dieset. Both are ratcheted tools and these die
sets will do the double crimp in one operation.
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/SargentBrandCrimpers.html
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/EclipseCrimpTools.html
Here is our "How To" page for mil spec termination crimping:
http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Page7.html
Best Regards,
Gaylen Lerohl
www.terminaltown.com
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: | Crimper - Saga ... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
Hey Everyone,
I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they also
make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one crimp on the
insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then added that it's
only used for high high high end stuff like satellites, etc. In any
case, I was curious if any one had any experience with these crimpers -
where to buy, how much, overkill, etc.?
Thanks!
Don
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: KX155 Pin Identification |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tom Brusehaver <cozytom@mn.rr.com>
Jon,
I have one of those Quik Shot books
http://www.qsproducts.com/
It has the pinouts for the kx-155.
If you want to borrow it or anything.
Jon Finley wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Could someone please point me to a diagram that defines the pins on a
> King KX155 Nav/Com?? I have the wiring diagram but have not been able
> to determine which pin on the radio represents which pin on the diagram.
> I know - sounds pretty silly but I can't see any markings on the radio
> other than an "S" (even took the covers off).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jon Finley
> N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 450 Hrs. TT - 1 Hr Engine
> Apple Valley, Minnesota
> http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Crimper - Saga ... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:39 AM 6/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
>
>Hey Everyone,
>
>I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they also
>make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one crimp on the
>insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then added that it's
>only used for high high high end stuff like satellites, etc. In any
>case, I was curious if any one had any experience with these crimpers -
>where to buy, how much, overkill, etc.?
I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a
product. I cannot imagine how this makes any sense. Consider
that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small
terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and
often less. Consider further that the ultimate goal of
making a terminal and wire become a single entity is
satisfied by the "gas tight" interface achieved by pressing
the two malleable metals into such tight proximity that
gasses at the molecular level are excluded. If this can
be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp'
used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the
past 60 years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one
can even split that .125" of wire grip area into three
separate regions and (b) what might be gained by such an
effort assuming it was even possible or practical.
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: | Connecting Whelen Strobes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
<<At 01:06 PM 6/23/2003 -0700, Brett Ferrell <bferrell@123mail.net> wrote:
>Bob/Others - First - I bleieve you recommend attaching both ends of the
Whelen >strobe shielding on composites. What's the best way to attach the AL
foil,
>solder wire to it? I've installed a Molex connector for service at the
>strake-wing junction, what kind of connector would you recommend there,
>another Molex? And finally, would it be sufficient to put a ring terminal
>under the mounting screw for the ground connection at the light fixture,
>or should I solder the sheild to the housing, or what?
There is a bare, stranded wired IN ADDITION to the three insulated wires
under the shield. This forth wire is called a "drain wire" and its purpose
is to provide you with a convenient means for making electrical connection
to the shield-foil which is, as you've noted, impossible to make
connection with. You can extend the drain wire with a short piece of
wire, install a ring terminal and attach to mounting screw for fixture.
If you DON'T do this, in all probability, you won't know the difference.>>
6/29/2003
Hello Bob Nuckolls and Bret Ferrell, I'd like to flog this horse a few more
lashes.
1) Bob Nuckolls really says the drain wire should be attached at both ends on
a composite aircraft? But not on a metal aircraft? Why?
2) When one receives the strobe light installation kit from Whelen the cable
already has two AMP plastic 3 wire connectors attached, one on each end. These
connectors are the ones that plug into the mating 3 wire connectors at the
strobe light ends. After cutting the cable somewhere in the middle and snaking
those two cut ends through the airframe to the vicinity of the strobe power
supply one installs the other two (different) appropriate 3 wire connectors
provided by Whelen and plugs the cables into the power supply.
3) The installation instructions say that the drain wire should be connected
to the housing / mounting of the power supply. Easy enough to do by leaving
the drain wire longer when you cut the cable, strip it, and install the 3 wire
connectors that plug into the power supply.
4) But out at the strobe light end of the cable where the Whelen installed
connectors are, Whelen has left no access to the drain wire. I suppose one could
cut back the plastic covering, remove the aluminum shield, attach a short
wire to the now exposed drain wire, and then attach that short wire to some metal
part of the strobe light housing, but I find this action both puzzling and
unnecessary.
5) Whelen has thousands of these units in service throughout the skies
mounted on both metal surfaces and composite wing tips. I am unaware of any need
to
go through the additonal effort of connecting the drain wire to the metal
light housing out at the strobe light end. Can anyone show me different?
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
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: KX155 Pin Identification |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:43 AM 6/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
>
>Hi all,
>
>Could someone please point me to a diagram that defines the pins on a
>King KX155 Nav/Com?? I have the wiring diagram but have not been able
>to determine which pin on the radio represents which pin on the diagram.
>I know - sounds pretty silly but I can't see any markings on the radio
>other than an "S" (even took the covers off).
>
>Thanks!
See http://216.55.140.222/Installation_Data/KX155.pdf
Physical pin numbering is usually marked right on the
back of the connector. They tiny raise letters molded
on and same color as connector body. I find them useful
mostly for getting connector oriented correctly on installation.
I use a white or yellow ink pen to put a dot on every 5th
terminal location so that I can easily "count" the holes
for proper wire location when inserting a pin.
From the wiring aid I've published above, I infer that
the A1 connector is mounted upside down compared
to the A2 connector where pin designations increase in
order from left to right. I'm sure there is some reasonable
engineering explanation for this seemingly perverse
decision but be careful that you account for this as
the parts all come together.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Canard Pusher Ground System |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:30 AM 6/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Alexander Balic
><alex157@direcway.com>
>
>Bob/everyone,
>I have the Z-15, and it seems to show ground going from the battery to a
>post on the foreword ground bus. Then a second #2 cable going from the
>foreword ground bus to the rear mounted ground bus. Then a 3rd cable (or
>strap) going to the engine to ground bus for the starter/alternator. I
>spoke with Tim at B&C, he said that he would not want to see 3 bolt
>connections between the battery and the engine case. If I have the engine
>gauges (obviously in the rear), and some ground to the engine block, and
>some don't - (fuel pressure comes to mind) so Tim suggested that I run the
>ground to the block directly, then use the strap to go to the firewall
>mounted ground buss, then run say a #6 up to the front from the rear ground
>to front ground buss, so then I can ground the instruments at the front, and
>even though the senders ground to the case, the instrument grounds run back
>there before going to the battery. Please let me know about this, I am at
>this point, and need to get some copper flying!! :)
You didn't say what kind of airplane you were building and
wether or not you have an amidships battery. In any case,
you may have instruments for engine parameters that are
saddled with crankcase ground senders. This suite of instruments
works best with their own ground wire (20AWG is sufficient)
to bring crankcase ground forward to those instruments that
get signals from crankcase grounded senders.
If you don't have an amidships battery, then you don't need
a robust ground point at the firewall. The firewall ground
bus and the braid jumper can be eliminated if you wish by
taking the main ground all the way to the crankcase. Having
the "extra" set of bolted joints in the ground path is
not a great sin as long as you use robust brass hardware
(5/16 minimum, 3/8 better). I think it's cleaner to go
from aircraft structure to the crankcase with braided
strap or welding cable (much more robust with respect to
vibration/flexure stresses). If you're using welding cable
for the main ground wire, and no battery behind the seats,
then by all means take it all the way to the crankcase.
But count on a separate ground for the engine instruments
plagued with local ground senders.
If you have components on the firewall that depend on the
firwall for ground, THEN you'll need to bond the firewall
to the crankcase too. A braid strap or welding cable jumper
would be fine . . . they can be small if they don't carry
starter current.
If it were my airplane, I'd wire it per
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z15ak.pdf
and ground crankcase referenced engine instrumentation to the
firewall ground bus.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Success Story |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:03 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: RVEIGHTA@aol.com
>
>A while back I posted a message to the list saying that my import turn
>coordinator was so noisy it made my radio transmissions unreadable. Bob
>referred me
>to his article on "Hammering the Radio Shack 270-030 filter into submission"
>
>Well to make a long story short, I bought the filter kit for $4 and put it
>together per Bob's instructions, installed it in my RV-8A and now my radio
>works great!
>
>Thanks, Bob......
The laws of physics are a wonderful thing . . . especially
when understanding them can make life more pleasant.
You are most welcome my friend . . .
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: | Crimper - Saga ... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
Bob,
>> I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a product. I
cannot imagine how this makes any sense.
My engineering friend works at a defense company and designs test
equipment for the various projects, etc. Next time I'm in touch I'll try
and get further information. For what's it worth, he just uses an
inexpensive AMP non-ratchet style crimper that requires two manual
crimps and has been quite happy with it. He told me about the 3/4
crimper as an FYI type of thing.
>> Consider that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small
terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and often less.
Does that mean that the wire should be stripped to .125"? If I measure
the a RED PIDG Spade connector, it appears that there is .250" of wire
available to crimp and ~.125" for the insulation crimp. I've taken a
picture to make sure we're on the same page and put black lines to show
the two areas I'm referring to - http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-1.jpg
Also, I took another picture just to make sure I'm understanding where
the wire's insulation should stop and the wire should start. I'm
assuming and have been told that the insulation should not go into the
wire crimp area. In other words, stop right at the funnel entry point.
Here's another picture that might help -
http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-2.jpg
For what it's worth, I'm sure that I'm going overkill on this matter,
but I just want to make sure I understand the process or more
importantly the 'right process' for the task.
>> If this can be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp'
used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the past 60 years,
I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one can even split that .125" of
wire grip area into three separate regions and (b) what might be gained
by such an effort assuming it was even possible or practical.
Wow! I'm really surprised to hear the argument from you Bob. Starting to
justify something by the fact that it's been used for over 60 years.
Isn't this the same argument that goes into the Avionics Bus Switch and
so on... (sorry couldn't resist - smile).
Seriously, I'm just trying to understand and if a 3 crimp connection is
even possible, it's benefits might be none or just perceived. My hopes
though is to find out or at least better understand the thinking behind
the processes.
Thanks!
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crimper - Saga ...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:39 AM 6/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach"
>--> <don@pcperfect.com>
>
>Hey Everyone,
>
>I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they
>also make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one crimp
>on the insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then added
>that it's only used for high high high end stuff like satellites, etc.
>In any case, I was curious if any one had any experience with these
>crimpers - where to buy, how much, overkill, etc.?
I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a
product. I cannot imagine how this makes any sense. Consider
that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small
terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and
often less. Consider further that the ultimate goal of
making a terminal and wire become a single entity is
satisfied by the "gas tight" interface achieved by pressing
the two malleable metals into such tight proximity that
gasses at the molecular level are excluded. If this can
be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp'
used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the
past 60 years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one
can even split that .125" of wire grip area into three
separate regions and (b) what might be gained by such an
effort assuming it was even possible or practical.
Bob . . .
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | A different way? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Schiff" <tomschiff@attbi.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A different way?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:06 AM 6/28/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Schiff"
<tomschiff@attbi.com>
>
>I am about to close out the leading edge of the first wing of my
>Glastar. I need to string the wiring first as the area is inaccessible
>after leading edge closeout.
>
>I would like to try something different. I am thinking of running two
>heavy wires (Positive and ground out to the wing tip.) These wires
would
>be protected by a fusible link or a large breaker (one breaker for each
>wing) and would be sized to carry the current for all of the items that
>are on that wing. Near the wing tip there would be a bus that
>distributes the power via solid state relays to the power consumers
>listed below.
>
>On each wing there would be
>1. Landing light
>2. Taxi Light
>3. Navigation light
>4. Strobe
>5. Anything else.
>
>There would be a fusible link at the distribution point for each relay.
>Although if a link fused I would not have the option of resetting it I
>would have the backups of the items in the other wing.
Downstream circuit protection should have a fusing constant
a fraction that of the upstream protection. For example, a faulted
22AWG fuselink downstream of a 20A breaker will open the breaker
first. Suggest a ATC fuseblock for a remote distribution
bus.
Each Relay would have it's own fuseable link sized to the intended load.
Could also be a Fuse.
>If there were
>Landing Light flashers they would be located at the wing tip bus. I
>would not attempt to synchronize the flashing of the left and right
>wings.
>
>To control the relays I was thinking of running some Computer grade
>10BaseT cable. There is a version to that is approved to run through
>plenums in buildings and has a fire rating that I believe is similar to
>that of aviation wiring.
>
>Advantages.
>1. I would not carry power through the airframe as a return wire would
>be included.
>2. If I wanted to add something in the future the 10 base T wiring has
4
>or 5 more wires to control relays.
Break one wire and everything quits . . .
That is true but. Loosing the lights on one wing isn't tragic, it could
be monitored to give an indication of failure of either the left or
right wing bus and finally properly installed the chance of loosing a
bus wire is probably quite low.
>3. Switches should last much longer as they would be carrying only
micro
>amps.
How long will they last if you don't do this? I'm flying 40 year
old rentals with original switches still in place . . .
Just replaced all of the switches in my 31 year old Cessna 150 and they
had been replaced at least once before.
>4. Wiring is simplified. One pair for power and one cable for signal.
The "wiring" may be simple but the total parts count in the system
has multiplied by factors of 10 or more . . . all othing things
being equal, reliability is inversely proportional to parts count.
Remember I am removing the bundle of individual wires that are normally
strung out to the wing for the individual components and replacing it
with a cable. My guess is that a cable has a higher reliability than a
bunch of hand strung individual wires.
>5. As the power feed will be a heavier gage than would be normally used
>for any individual circuit the voltage drop caused by items with a
>periodic high current drain (read strobes) should be minimized. With
>less drain comes less electrical noise.
Explain the physics to support this assertion.
The power feed will be of a gage to handle all of the items for the wing
including the landing/taxi lights. Therefore it will be of a heavier
gage than would normally be used to just wire a strobe. With a thicker
wire comes lower resistance.
>6. In the course of building the Glastar there are at least 3 mountings
>and un-mountings of the wing that have to take place with only two sets
>of wires this would be simplified. I plan to remove the wings one more
>time after the time is flown off to paint them.
Don't hook things up until the wings are on to stay. I'd venture
a guess that from same fleet of airplanes I fly, wings have never
been removed from most of them.
Unfortunately I don't have that option. The Glastar is a strange beast
the wings have to come of a minimum of two times during construction. In
addition if I want to run the wires through the leading edge I need to
do it before the wings are mounted. The area isn't accessible afterward.
I may get around this by using conduit and pulling the wires later.
>7. I could also use the remaining wires of the 10BaseT for some future
>instrumentation (angle of attack, stall warning, or something that we
>haven't though of yet)
>
>I am planning on running two RG-400 wires out to the wing tip but don't
>know their exact usage right now.
>
>I would like to run the wiring through some sort of conduit my concern
>is that the cable would be floating in the conduit and not tied down as
>it is in spam cans. Would the cable chafe from being free inside of the
>conduit or is this OK?
>
>So what do you folks think? It is unconventional but is it OK?
Henry Ford and Charles Kettering didn't worry about anyone's
endorsement before launching a new idea. It either flies or flops
on it's own merit and risks are never zero. Not all of their ideas
flew but when they did, the results were gratifying if not
spectacular.
If you have a good foundation based on experience and/or considered
analysis of the fundamentals, then you can get a leg up on the
market by being there first. Your selling points have to offer
some combination of lowered installation time/cost, lower
maintenance
time/cost, and/or increased service life by some factor that makes
it a compelling design.
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Crimper - Saga ... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:45 PM 6/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
>
>Bob,
>
> >> I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a product. I
>cannot imagine how this makes any sense.
>
>My engineering friend works at a defense company and designs test
>equipment for the various projects, etc. Next time I'm in touch I'll try
>and get further information. For what's it worth, he just uses an
>inexpensive AMP non-ratchet style crimper that requires two manual
>crimps and has been quite happy with it. He told me about the 3/4
>crimper as an FYI type of thing.
>
> >> Consider that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small
>terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and often less.
>Does that mean that the wire should be stripped to .125"? If I measure
>the a RED PIDG Spade connector, it appears that there is .250" of wire
>available to crimp and ~.125" for the insulation crimp. I've taken a
>picture to make sure we're on the same page and put black lines to show
>the two areas I'm referring to - http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-1.jpg
I mis-poke there. The wire grip for an open barrel pin is typically
.125" A machined D-sub is about .180" I just pulled a red and
blue PIDG terminal apart an measured wire grips of .170" A yellow
is .250"
If in doubt, pull the insulating sleeve off a terminal in question
and see how long the wire grip is.
>Also, I took another picture just to make sure I'm understanding where
>the wire's insulation should stop and the wire should start. I'm
>assuming and have been told that the insulation should not go into the
>wire crimp area. In other words, stop right at the funnel entry point.
>Here's another picture that might help -
>http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-2.jpg
That's right . . insulation should not extend into the wire grip
area. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
>For what it's worth, I'm sure that I'm going overkill on this matter,
>but I just want to make sure I understand the process or more
>importantly the 'right process' for the task.
>
> >> If this can be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp'
>used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the past 60 years,
>I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one can even split that .125" of
>wire grip area into three separate regions and (b) what might be gained
>by such an effort assuming it was even possible or practical.
>
>Wow! I'm really surprised to hear the argument from you Bob. Starting to
>justify something by the fact that it's been used for over 60 years.
>Isn't this the same argument that goes into the Avionics Bus Switch and
>so on... (sorry couldn't resist - smile).
No, the avionics bus was never justified based on
physical fact verifiable by repeatable experiment. It was
a POLICY based on the best guess anyone had at the time.
Solderless connector technology has been spec'd and tested
out the wazoo . . . I can cite dozens of documents which
all suppliers must observe if they expect to sell to the
US military or aerospace industry.
>Seriously, I'm just trying to understand and if a 3 crimp connection is
>even possible, it's benefits might be none or just perceived. My hopes
>though is to find out or at least better understand the thinking behind
>the processes.
Understand. I just finished photographing some figures for
an article that I hope to finish tonight. It will be
an adjunct to the "anatomy" article.
Bob . . .
>Thanks!
>Don
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crimper - Saga ...
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 10:39 AM 6/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach"
> >--> <don@pcperfect.com>
> >
> >Hey Everyone,
> >
> >I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they
> >also make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one crimp
> >on the insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then added
> >that it's only used for high high high end stuff like satellites, etc.
> >In any case, I was curious if any one had any experience with these
> >crimpers - where to buy, how much, overkill, etc.?
>
> I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a
> product. I cannot imagine how this makes any sense. Consider
> that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small
> terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and
> often less. Consider further that the ultimate goal of
> making a terminal and wire become a single entity is
> satisfied by the "gas tight" interface achieved by pressing
> the two malleable metals into such tight proximity that
> gasses at the molecular level are excluded. If this can
> be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp'
> used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the
> past 60 years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one
> can even split that .125" of wire grip area into three
> separate regions and (b) what might be gained by such an
> effort assuming it was even possible or practical.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>
>
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Crimper - Saga ... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
Bob,
Thanks your follow up comments and help. I hope the new 'anatomy'
article is going well. Will it be a available as an update to the
existing AeroElectric Book or a special article published on your
website?
On a happier note - since I got side tracked on the PIDG connectors this
weekend and couldn't get any productive plane work done, I decided to
wire up the serial connectors for my EFIS and GPS units. In the process
of mounting the DB9 connectors I used a punch set I purchased a few
years back. Spent way too much money on it back then, but it's
definitely made this job incredibly easy and leaves a professional hole
for the connector.
Thanks again,
Don Honabach
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Crimper - Saga ...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:45 PM 6/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach"
>--> <don@pcperfect.com>
>
>Bob,
>
> >> I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a product. I
>cannot imagine how this makes any sense.
>
>My engineering friend works at a defense company and designs test
>equipment for the various projects, etc. Next time I'm in touch I'll
>try and get further information. For what's it worth, he just uses an
>inexpensive AMP non-ratchet style crimper that requires two manual
>crimps and has been quite happy with it. He told me about the 3/4
>crimper as an FYI type of thing.
>
> >> Consider that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small
>terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and often less.
>Does that mean that the wire should be stripped to .125"? If I measure
>the a RED PIDG Spade connector, it appears that there is .250" of wire
>available to crimp and ~.125" for the insulation crimp. I've taken a
>picture to make sure we're on the same page and put black lines to show
>the two areas I'm referring to - http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-1.jpg
I mis-poke there. The wire grip for an open barrel pin is typically
.125" A machined D-sub is about .180" I just pulled a red and
blue PIDG terminal apart an measured wire grips of .170" A yellow
is .250"
If in doubt, pull the insulating sleeve off a terminal in question
and see how long the wire grip is.
>Also, I took another picture just to make sure I'm understanding where
>the wire's insulation should stop and the wire should start. I'm
>assuming and have been told that the insulation should not go into the
>wire crimp area. In other words, stop right at the funnel entry point.
>Here's another picture that might help -
>http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-2.jpg
That's right . . insulation should not extend into the wire grip
area. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
>For what it's worth, I'm sure that I'm going overkill on this matter,
>but I just want to make sure I understand the process or more
>importantly the 'right process' for the task.
>
> >> If this can be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp'
>used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the past 60
>years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one can even split that
>.125" of wire grip area into three separate regions and (b) what might
>be gained by such an effort assuming it was even possible or practical.
>
>Wow! I'm really surprised to hear the argument from you Bob. Starting
>to justify something by the fact that it's been used for over 60 years.
>Isn't this the same argument that goes into the Avionics Bus Switch and
>so on... (sorry couldn't resist - smile).
No, the avionics bus was never justified based on
physical fact verifiable by repeatable experiment. It was
a POLICY based on the best guess anyone had at the time.
Solderless connector technology has been spec'd and tested
out the wazoo . . . I can cite dozens of documents which
all suppliers must observe if they expect to sell to the
US military or aerospace industry.
>Seriously, I'm just trying to understand and if a 3 crimp connection is
>even possible, it's benefits might be none or just perceived. My hopes
>though is to find out or at least better understand the thinking behind
>the processes.
Understand. I just finished photographing some figures for
an article that I hope to finish tonight. It will be
an adjunct to the "anatomy" article.
Bob . . .
>Thanks!
>Don
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crimper - Saga ...
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 10:39 AM 6/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach"
> >--> <don@pcperfect.com>
> >
> >Hey Everyone,
> >
> >I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they
> >also make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one
> >crimp on the insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then
> >added that it's only used for high high high end stuff like
> >satellites, etc. In any case, I was curious if any one had any
> >experience with these crimpers - where to buy, how much, overkill,
> >etc.?
>
> I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a
> product. I cannot imagine how this makes any sense. Consider
> that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small
> terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and
> often less. Consider further that the ultimate goal of
> making a terminal and wire become a single entity is
> satisfied by the "gas tight" interface achieved by pressing
> the two malleable metals into such tight proximity that
> gasses at the molecular level are excluded. If this can
> be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp'
> used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the
> past 60 years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one
> can even split that .125" of wire grip area into three
> separate regions and (b) what might be gained by such an
> effort assuming it was even possible or practical.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>
>
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: | Tach Auto Switch... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
Ben,
Thanks for the reply and information. I wish I would of known about the
switch beforehand. I don't have a lot room around the area where my
ignition switch is going and a larger switch probably wont fit.
Thanks for the offer though.
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Benford2@aol.com [mailto:Benford2@aol.com]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tach Auto Switch...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
In a message dated 6/28/2003 10:22:15 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
don@pcperfect.com writes:
> posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
>
> I'm using a Subaru EA-81 engine which currently has a primary and
> backup ignition. I'd like to setup a switch with two separate power
> feeds that allows me to toggle between the two ignitions (only one
> should run at a time). However, by having two power feeds into the
> switch I lose the ability to switch the tach lead as well without
> installing another switch which then becomes more complicated for
> basic operations. So I started thinking about setting up an auto-tach
> lead switch for my tach gauge (negative side coil based).
>
> My thoughts are that if I used a basic relay that was powered by the
> same wire that would power my ignition I could design a simple circuit
> that would switch the tach lead based on which ignition was active.
> However, since I'm switching the tach lead that is connected to the
> negative side of the coil and my deep understanding of electronics is
> limited, I was hoping to find out if my base idea was okay or if I'm
> setting myself up for some unknown issues related to the coil/tach
> operation. Also, if the relay switch of the tach lead is okay, would
> it still be standard practice to put a diode on this small type of
> relay?
>
> I hope this question isn't too basic and any input is appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
> Don Honabach
> Tempe, AZ - 601HDS
>
>
I am running duel MSD ignitions on my Ford and what i did was to use a
triple
pole double throw switch. As you cycle between both Ignition systems the
third pole switches the positive lead going to the tach. Bob gave me the
info on
sources for this switch a few months back. If ya want I will look back
at my
files to find it. My problem was the first switch I ordered was
physically too
big because I had already drilled out the holes for my Ign switch and
the body
of it hit my transponder. I bought another one from a different vendor
and
that one barely fit. If ya want I will dig out the one I didn.t use and
and give
you the part #. I do remember it was not cheap.
Ben Haas N801BH.
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: | Tach Auto Switch... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
Michel -
As always - thanks!!!!
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Therrien [mailto:mtherr@yahoo.com]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tach Auto Switch...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michel Therrien
--> <mtherr@yahoo.com>
I did exactly that, but did not fly with the plane
yet.
I used a relay whose coil is powered from the ignition
2 +12V circuit.
The default source (no power to the relay coil) is the
ign 1 negative side of coil. If the relay coil is
energized, then, I read the ign 2 negative side of
coil.
I tested this in my garage when I tried my engine and
it worked.
I did not install an additional diode, but I used an
automotive relay (those you can get as accessories for anti-theft or
remote starting systems).
See the relay mounted at the top of firewall near the
ignition system. http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601/images/DCP02042.JPG
Michel
--- Don Honabach <don@pcperfect.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don
> Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
>
> I'm using a Subaru EA-81 engine which currently has
> a primary and backup
> ignition. I'd like to setup a switch with two
> separate power feeds that
> allows me to toggle between the two ignitions (only
> one should run at a
> time). However, by having two power feeds into the
> switch I lose the
> ability to switch the tach lead as well without
> installing another
> switch which then becomes more complicated for basic operations. So I
> started thinking about setting up an auto-tach lead
> switch for my tach
> gauge (negative side coil based).
>
> My thoughts are that if I used a basic relay that
> was powered by the
> same wire that would power my ignition I could
> design a simple circuit
> that would switch the tach lead based on which
> ignition was active.
> However, since I'm switching the tach lead that is
> connected to the
> negative side of the coil and my deep understanding
> of electronics is
> limited, I was hoping to find out if my base idea
> was okay or if I'm
> setting myself up for some unknown issues related to
> the coil/tach
> operation. Also, if the relay switch of the tach
> lead is okay, would it
> still be standard practice to put a diode on this
> small type of relay?
>
> I hope this question isn't too basic and any input
> is appreciated.
>
>
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
__________________________________
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 06/28/03 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald Cox" <racox@ix.netcom.com>
Jim:
My Glasair (IO-360 Lyc.) with B&C L-60 needs the Gates 7315 (available at
reasonable price from B&C, by the way, they just need to know which of the
two alternator drive pulleys your ring gear has). It's dimensions are
9.5/10mm x 815mm.
If you have "the other one" (I forget which I have) there's another size
available. Call B&C after measuring the diameter of the pulley, and they
can fix you up either way.
Ron Cox
> Time: 06:11:25 PM PST US
> From: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Belt
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
>
> Listers,
> Does anybody know of a source for the right size alternator belt for a
> Lycoming IO360. Hopefully automotive or industrial. I hate to have to
> pay Lycoming's price.
> Local car mechanic matched the cross section but that size is not made
> in very many lenghts, just too long and too short. Cars don't use
> individual belts anymore.
> Thanks Jim Bean
> RV-8 engine room
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: | Fw: AeroElectric-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 06/28/03 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald Cox" <racox@ix.netcom.com>
Jim:
My Glasair (IO-360 Lyc.) with B&C L-60 needs the Gates 7315 (available at
reasonable price from B&C, by the way, they just need to know which of the
two alternator drive pulleys your ring gear has). It's dimensions are
9.5/10mm x 815mm.
If you have "the other one" (I forget which I have) there's another size
available. Call B&C after measuring the diameter of the pulley, and they
can fix you up either way.
Ron Cox
> > Time: 06:11:25 PM PST US
> > From: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Belt
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
> >
> > Listers,
> > Does anybody know of a source for the right size alternator belt for a
> > Lycoming IO360. Hopefully automotive or industrial. I hate to have to
> > pay Lycoming's price.
> > Local car mechanic matched the cross section but that size is not made
> > in very many lenghts, just too long and too short. Cars don't use
> > individual belts anymore.
> > Thanks Jim Bean
> > RV-8 engine room
>
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! --
|