Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:43 AM - Re: OV Module question for Bob (Trampas)
2. 05:28 AM - Re: Six years experience with Sky Tec Starter. (Dennis O'Connor)
3. 05:36 AM - Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? (Dennis O'Connor)
4. 06:11 AM - Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 06:20 AM - Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? (Garrison Sem)
6. 06:43 AM - Part 91 (Fergus Kyle)
7. 07:02 AM - Re: RG58 Coax article I promised (Tinne maha)
8. 07:22 AM - Re: Six years experience with Sky Tec (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:06 AM - Re: Part 91 (James E. Clark)
10. 08:58 AM - Re: Track labels up north? (BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN)
11. 09:00 AM - Re: RG58 Coax article I promised (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 09:05 AM - Re: Ground Loops (MikeM)
13. 09:37 AM - Re: Part 91 and "quality" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 09:45 AM - (Bruce Uvanni)
15. 09:59 AM - Re: Re: Ground Loops (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 10:05 AM - Alternator (Ron Raby)
17. 11:16 AM - Switches vs relays for lights, strobes (James Foerster)
18. 01:27 PM - Shielding EI Wires (Charles Brame)
19. 01:31 PM - Re: Alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 01:34 PM - Re: RG58 Coax article I promised (Tinne maha)
21. 01:38 PM - Re: (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 01:49 PM - Re: Switches vs relays for lights, strobes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 03:34 PM - Re: Shielding EI Wires (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 06:37 PM - Re: Part 91 (Ernest Kells)
25. 07:11 PM - Re: Part 91 (Kevin Horton)
26. 08:12 PM - Re: Re: Switches vs relays for lights, strobes ()
27. 09:02 PM - Re: Part 91 (LRE2@aol.com)
28. 10:03 PM - Re: Re: Switches vs relays for lights, (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: | OV Module question for Bob |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
Sounds like the inductive kick back, or noise, from the starter is
creating a voltage spike that is causing some problems.
One fix would be to place an inductor before the contactor. That is get
a torrid from radio shack and then wrap about 10 turns of primary wire
around the torrid this combined with the capacitor after the inductor
should filter out these voltage spikes.
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Grosvenor
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OV Module question for Bob
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Grosvenor"
<dwg@iafrica.com>
Yes Bob, I do. The battery master contacter I purchased from you with
the
diode fitted. The starter contacter came with my Rotax 912 engine an
initially I thought it had an internal diode. On first test of the
electrical system I soon found it didn't as it was causing my fuel flow
meter to reset. I then fitted a diode. The odd thing it the OV breaker
is
tripping when I push the starter, not when I release it. Before fitting
the
10uF cap, it was tripping as I switched the master on.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OV Module question for Bob
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:46 PM 8/9/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Grosvenor"
<dwg@iafrica.com>
>
>I have put together an OV module and set it up and tested it as per
>instructions. On the bench it works fine. When installed in the
aircraft,
>it was tripping the OV breaker when I switched on the master switch. I
>remember someone else with this problem and the fix was to put a 10uF
Tant
>cap across the power leads going into the module. This I did and it
stopped
>the breaker tripping when the master went on. However, as soon as I
hit
the
>start button, it trips again. It can then immediately be reset. Do I
put
>in a bigger cap to sort this out or is there possibly another solution.
Do you have diodes on your battery master and starter contactor
coils?
Bob . . .
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: Six years experience with Sky Tec Starter. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Denis, since it is obviously your fault for not having your engine balanced
until a quarter will balance on the cowling at cruise RPM, I have to say
that I am totally puzzled as to why you haven't admitted that your
alternator has fallen apart, and your mags, and the carburetor, and the
engine mount, and surely the instrument panel has vibrated loose and fallen
into your lap... There is a lot you are not telling SkyTec here, obviously!
Denny
<for the cognitively impaired, the above is sarcasm )
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: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Actually, the regs require very little... Much of the blather on the topic
is emotion mixed with 'assume'... Simply hang a magnetic compass in the
cockpit even if you never look at it again - the FAA guy will be happy... He
has a minimum equipment list that has to be satisified, period... After that
he couldn't care less what else is there, if he tried..
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie & Tupper England" <cengland@netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England
<cengland@netdoor.com>
>
> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor"
<doconnor@chartermi.net>
> >
> >A GPS is not a true north magnetic indicator, but it IS a true north
TRACK
> >indicator - which could be a whole lot of help when the brown stuff hits
the
> >fan...
> >
> >
> >Denny
> >PS: your heading may vary
> >
> I think that's what I said. It's not the usefulness of the device vs the
> wet compass; it's what the FAA bureacracy will let you get away with
> when you ask them to sign off the plane. See below.
>
> Charlie
>
> >----- Original Message ----- > On a slightly (only slightly) more
serious
> >note, a gps isn't a
> >
> >
> >>'*magnetic* direction indicator'. Doesn't that mean it can only
> >>indicate north in a no-wind environment? Not intended to be a
> >>comment on the usefulness, just the regs.
> >>
> >>Charlie
> >>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/11/03 7:36:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
doconnor@chartermi.net writes:
> Actually, the regs require very little... Much of the blather on the topic
> is emotion mixed with 'assume'... Simply hang a magnetic compass in the
> cockpit even if you never look at it again - the FAA guy will be happy... He
> has a minimum equipment list that has to be satisified, period... After that
> he couldn't care less what else is there, if he tried..
>
Good Morning Denny,
Great comment!
Do Not Archive my statement, but please do so with Denny's.
Happy Skies,
Old 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Garrison Sem" <chasm711@msn.com>
VORs and ADFs in very high lattitudes are oriented to true north in the
Canadian northern control areas. I dont know about the rest of the world.
Paul
>From: BobsV35B@aol.com
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements?
>Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:10:08 EDT
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 8/10/03 7:05:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
>glastar@3rivers.net writes:
>
> > ...........that since all Victor and Jet airways and
> > runways and for that matter almost everything in aviation is oriented to
> > magnetic that GPS's would be also. Does anyone orient them to true?????
>
>Good Evening Buck,
>
>Not sure, but it seems to me that I recall that everything north of some
>very
>high latitude is based on true. Since I have never flown a transpolar
>route,
>it is a bit fuzzy in my memory. Some of our respondents whose day job
>entails flying over the North pole should have the answer.
>
>Maybe it was just the US Air Force who did something like that. In any
>case,
>it is distant memory!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old (and forgetful) Bob
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Cheers,
I am interested in the regulations in USA as expect to visit
and tour with my OBAM as a Canadian. I have also tried to build to US and UK
requirements for safety. My understanding was that OBAM aircraft do not have
the standard 'certified' quality, thus permitting experimentation and
variation.
It would appear that Dan Checkoway (at dan@rvproject.com) refers
to the following:
"Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificates...."
Is that us?
Ferg
Europa A064
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: RG58 Coax article I promised |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Bob,
Once again I feel eternally grateful for this educaitonal service you provide!
Not only have you cleared up my suspicions answered my questions but given me
better options too. Knowing it is core to homebuilding (and I feel it should
becore to living)I take full responsibility for any all of my actions whether
they be from knowledge gained here or elsewhere.
I doubt that I alone am enough interest for you but I would love to purchase an
'LSE re-hab' kit consisting of the twisted pair shielded wires with BNC connectors
installed on one end and a separate15 pin D-sub connector (it is female)
for the controller input. I completely understand if you would rather just sell
me the wires connectors. Please let me know the amount where to send a check.
One thing I'm still a little confused on: You mentioned twisted pairs (non-shielded
shielded implied) in your original response to my questions but I didn't
see that part in your shop notes. I believe twisting shielded pairs, while not
essential,would add to the shielding effect, but it wouldeffectively be the
shieldingin non shielded pairs. I would deduce from your shop notes that the benefit
oftwisting shielded pairs probably isn't worth the effort of twisting them.
(Am I even in the ball park?)
Thanks again,
Grant
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <BOB.NUCKOLLS@COX.NET>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG58 Coax article I promised
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <BOB.NUCKOLLS@COX.NET>
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/RG58/RG58.html
I have several thousand feet of this wire at $0.50 a foot.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: Six years experience with Sky Tec |
Starter.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:39 PM 8/10/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
>
>Dear Bob,
>
>I will ship them within the week, if you will give me the desired address.
>I think I have a couple from the last couple years, and can get the other
>two on my field which were replaced in the past three weeks.
>
>Thank you for the offer. It is no small thing. One of the problems has
>been that like most intermittent failures, these usually bench check ok!
>Also since there are two coils inside those dogs, it has been too tough for
>me to get a good check on them without teardown. Anyhow, I think that they
>(the failed ones) have good electrical continuity in the coils and the main
>contacts, but have some mechanical misalignment or blockage which keeps it
>from making the final contact consistently. Good luck.
>
>Awaiting address for shipping.
Bob Nuckolls
6936 Bainbridge Road
Wichita, KS 67226
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: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Question below ....
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
> Cheers,
> I am interested in the regulations in USA as
> expect to visit
> and tour with my OBAM as a Canadian. I have also tried to build
> to US and UK
> requirements for safety. My understanding was that OBAM aircraft
> do not have
> the standard 'certified' quality, thus permitting experimentation and
Not trying to start anything here but do you mean to imply that the planes
we build implicitly have "less" quality?
I am sure some do and I am sure some don't. Just wondering about the
statement. Yes we do have more latitude for experimentation, but that
*could* lead to higher or lower quality.
Just asking ...
James
> variation.
> It would appear that Dan Checkoway (at
> dan@rvproject.com) refers
> to the following:
>
> "Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
> certificates...."
>
> Is that us?
> Ferg
> Europa A064
>
>
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: Track labels up north? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar@3rivers.net>
HI Bob and other interested in true, mag and grid north,
Thanks for your research, it is interesting to me. I just returned from a
trip with my second son taking his 172 to Galena AK. Galena is 65N and 157
W. That is about as far north as I have flown although I was in and out of
Goose Bay Labrador in KC-135's close to 40 years ago. While I was in SAC we
used to practice flying grid. We would unslave the compass from magnetic
and orient it to grid north which was up on the map but it could be oriented
in any direction so long as the navigator kept the gyro where he wanted it
with celestial shots. We used no navigation aids during this exercise and
re-slaved the gyro before any pattern work.
Best regards, Buck
Good Evening Buck,
I just checked the route between Cambridge Bay and Resolute Bay, Canada.
Cambridge Bay is at 69 07.1 N and Resolute is at 74 43.02 N. The chart tells
us to use true while navigating that route. The first portion lists a
course
of 24 degrees True and the last half lists a course of 28 degrees True. My
GPS shows the course as being 005 degrees Magnetic so I guess I would have
to
manually select True if I were to fly that route segment.
The most northerly airport I have found in my database is CYLT, Alert,
Canada. It is N 82 31.068 and W 62 16.833. The chart notes that the Tacan
there is
oriented to Grid North. It is neither Magnetic nor True!
That's only 2488 Nautical Miles from our home here at Brookeridge (LL22). I
guess I oughta head up there one of these days.
Amazing what these little GPSs can do.
Happy Skies,
Old 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: RG58 Coax article I promised |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:01 AM 8/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>
>Once again I feel eternally grateful for this educaitonal service you
>provide! Not only have you cleared up my suspicions answered my questions
>but given me better options too. Knowing it is core to homebuilding (and I
>feel it should becore to living)I take full responsibility for any all of
>my actions whether they be from knowledge gained here or elsewhere.
>
>
>I doubt that I alone am enough interest for you but I would love to
>purchase an 'LSE re-hab' kit consisting of the twisted pair shielded wires
>with BNC connectors installed on one end and a separate15 pin D-sub
>connector (it is female) for the controller input. I completely understand
>if you would rather just sell me the wires connectors. Please let me know
>the amount where to send a check.
I can do the kit for $50. How long do you want the coil cables
to be? My mailing address is 6936 Bainbridge, Wichita, KS 67226
>One thing I'm still a little confused on: You mentioned twisted pairs
>(non-shielded shielded implied) in your original response to my questions
>but I didn't see that part in your shop notes. I believe twisting shielded
>pairs, while not essential,would add to the shielding effect, but it
>wouldeffectively be the shieldingin non shielded pairs. I would deduce
>from your shop notes that the benefit oftwisting shielded pairs probably
>isn't worth the effort of twisting them. (Am I even in the ball park?
6 of one, half dozen of the other. . . there's no
particular advantage of one over the other. If we had a very
long run (20' plus) in bundles shared by other systems, the
shielded-twisted pair would have some advantage. The single
shielded wire using shield as ground return for coil has the same
effect as the original coax cable design. Given the short, relatively
isolated runs, I'm not concerned about it.
Several readers have already shared their experiences with non-shielded,
twisted pair and have reported good results.
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: Ground Loops |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeM <mladejov@ced.utah.edu>
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Van Caulart <etivc@iaw.on.ca> wrote:
> During a recent addition of an RST audio panel, an ARC ADF, and a 2nd
> comm (UPSAT SL30) to our stock '68 C177 I have had my share of
> electronic gremlins haunting the job. One is alternator noise and the
> other is the beacon noise.
I own a '68 Skylane with an RST audio panel/intercom which had
"alternator whine" and "beacon thump" in the headphone radio and
intercom audio, squelched or not. Over the years I have
completely eliminated both. Here are the steps that I went
through:
1. Methodically "isolated" all the headphone/mic jacks in the
airplane from local airframe ground, and instead utilized the
shield on the jack wiring to carry the ground connection from
each respective jack to the ground connection right at the rear
of the RST audio panel. You have to do all mic jacks as well as
the headphone jacks. This cured about 50% of the problem.
2. The RST audio panel has a design flaw in it. Jim Weir and I
have had this out on rec.aviation.owning, so if interested you
can find the discussion on "Google Groups". Use the following as
keywords:"RST audio panel capacitor alternator whine".
Here is one link: http://makeashorterlink.com/?E19953E85
You can either modify the RST panel by clipping the big bypass
cap, or by installing an external filter in the audio panel
power line. I clipped the capacitor, and got rid of another 40%
of the noise.
3. I have a Cessna ARC marker beacon receiver mounted on the
equipment shelf aft of the baggage compartment right next to the
rear mounted battery. The MB rx has an audio output transformer
whose secondary was grounded to its case, meaning that if a
shielded or twisted pair is used to carry the audio from the
rear of the aircraft to the audio panel, the audio panel ground
is comprised by common-mode ground currents flowing along the
airframe between the front mounted alternator and the
rear-mounted battery. I modified the MB by disconnecting the
internal ground so as to isolate the audio output winding. I
used an unused pin on the MB connector to send out a true
"floating" AUDIO-HI/AUDIO-LO twisted-pair connection from the MB
to the audio panel, without the spurious alternator currents
flowing through the MB audio ground wire. This got rid of the
last of it.
> The alternator was changed 4 years ago and the noise was not as
> pronounced in the comm 1 radio (KX170B) before the installation as it is
> now. I added a 25yr old Radio Shack 5mfd, 60amp, 50Vdc line filter in
> series with the alternator A+ but no change. I'm wondering if I
> installed the device correctly. It is a 3" steel tube about the diameter
> of a quarter. On each end there is an insulated threaded terminal. The
> printing on the filter includes a RS stock number an arrow and the
> electrical values. The mounting lug is the local ground for the device.
> I first connected the device with the arrow pointing away from the
> alternator and the alt noise was unchanged. So I reversed the connection
> (arrow pointing to the alt) and the noise is the same. I'm wondering
> which direction is correct and if the filter is in fact functioning.
Along the way, I tried an A+ filter in the alternator output; It
made not a whit of difference. I got rid of it because of its
failure mode potential.
> I have done the obvious things such as fat wire separation and shields
> connected only at the source of the noise but now I'm lost.
>
> Regarding the beacon noise, is there a filter which I can use (make) to
> tame this annoyance. Because it pulses, it really is an antagonistic
> little devil after several hours flying.
If you do all of the above, you wont need to worry about the
beacon.
Mike Mladejovsky
Skylane '1MM (HiFi entertainment stereo quality music with no
alternator/strobe/beacon noises...)
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: | Part 91 and "quality" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
May I suggest that the word "quality" has no useful meaning?
The definition is so broadly based in the minds of folks who
would use the word that unless used in a narrow context, it's
more likely to reduce rather than enhance understanding.
Had a friend years ago who was very enamored of the "quality"
in European cars. His cars spent more time in shop with
higher repair bills than my cars. He was focusing on
ride, handling preferences, wood finished panels and
upholstery. I was focusing on cost of ownership and
likelihood of getting from point A to point B every time
I set foot in the car.
If one assumes that the charter of regulators is to
truly improve the safety of airplanes, then anything
which increases probability of failures that cause pilots
to tense up could be dubbed an reduction in "quality".
To regulators, this generally translates to EVERYTHING
bolted to an airplane needs to be the best we know
how to do? Geesh, even a NASA budget won't get you
failure proof components and systems.
The biggest difference between the OBAM and certified
aviation communities is the fact that no two airplanes
are built the same in the OBAM community. Our airplanes
are allowed to evolve on an airplane-to-airplane basis.
If some new useful component or technique is identified,
it can be implemented tomorrow on every new airplane and
retrofitted to existing airplanes the day after. Most
of these same neat, new ideas will NEVER find their way
onto a certifies ship.
So, in the narrow context of defining "quality" as
evolving toward the lowest cost aircraft free
of mechanically-induced accidents, I'll suggest that
the finest (highest quality?) aircraft to have
ever flown are being built in basements and garages.
The only thing certified aviation has over us is
the communications system presently mandated by the
certification procedures. I'd bet that fewer than
10% of all OBAM aircraft builders fully utilize
the Internet for idea sharing. Sadly, this means
that most builders will not experience the advantages
you all enjoy here and on other list-servers.
It also means that some are likely to experience sweat-
generating events. The bright side is that there are
plenty of FARs and dark-n-stormy-night stories to
tap for information. At least their airplanes will
be no worst than a C-172, which really isn't all
that bad . . . I've got a lot of hours in C-172s
and I don't walk up to one of them with any sense
of trepidation . . .
For those OBAM aircraft builders who chose to go
the extra mile in discovering, trying, filtering
and sharing ideas . . . I'll avoid the the word
"quality" but enthusiastically argue that your
airplanes are better than certified.
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
JBON5L8FGD|June 13, 2003) at 08/11/2003 12:44:37
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bruce Uvanni <buvanni@us.ibm.com>
I have an SD8 backup alternator wired up as shown in Bob's
all electric on a budget. I'm flying now but don't know how to
test the SD8 to see if it is working. I also have an E.I. AMP/Volt
meter installed with both alternators wired thourgh a switch to the
amp meter.
Thanks..............
BRUCE UVANNI
BUVANNI@US.IBM.COM
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground Loops |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:20 PM 8/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Van Caulart <etivc@iaw.on.ca>
>
>Bob & List:
>
>During a recent addition of an RST audio panel, an ARC ADF, and a 2nd
>comm (UPSAT SL30) to our stock '68 C177 I have had my share of
>electronic gremlins haunting the job. One is alternator noise and the
>other is the beacon noise.
>
>The alternator was changed 4 years ago and the noise was not as
>pronounced in the comm 1 radio (KX170B) before the installation as it is
>now. I added a 25yr old Radio Shack 5mfd, 60amp, 50Vdc line filter in
>series with the alternator A+ but no change. I'm wondering if I
>installed the device correctly. It is a 3" steel tube about the diameter
>of a quarter. On each end there is an insulated threaded terminal. The
>printing on the filter includes a RS stock number an arrow and the
>electrical values. The mounting lug is the local ground for the device.
>I first connected the device with the arrow pointing away from the
>alternator and the alt noise was unchanged. So I reversed the connection
>(arrow pointing to the alt) and the noise is the same. I'm wondering
>which direction is correct and if the filter is in fact functioning.
Any filter you put on the back of the alternator will
have a beneficial effect ONLY on ADF and/or LORAN reception.
These are effective in the low frequency radio ranges and have
no benefits for AUDIO rate noises (ripple voltage) that is
built in to every alternator.
>I have done the obvious things such as fat wire separation and shields
>connected only at the source of the noise but now I'm lost.
I get a lot of requests like this. It's got to be frustrating
to the well intentioned owner/builder who is trying to understand
and fix the problem himself . . . it's frustrating for me to
figure out a way to describe the full range of troubleshooting
techniques and tools in a few paragraphs of a list-server
inquiry. Tell you what, order my book. If the chapter on
noise mitigation doesn't help you identify and break
the chain of victim-propagation-source links, I'll refund
your money.
>Regarding the beacon noise, is there a filter which I can use (make) to
>tame this annoyance. Because it pulses, it really is an antagonistic
>little devil after several hours flying.
Try running the strobe from a pair of 6v lantern batteries
located right at the power supply and see if you still
hear the noise. If so, then a filter installed right at the
power supply will help.
I'd try a S251D479 capacitor from B&C which you can buy
at http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?26X358218
A local parts store might be able to supply you with
a computer grade, electrolytic with 10,000 uf or more,
16v or more. Wire it right across the power input
leads to the strobe power supply. This will probably
reduce the noise and maybe eliminate it. At worst,
we may have to consider adding some filter inductance
in series with the strobe supply too.
If the lantern battery experiment doesn't show that
noise is getting onto the system via the 14v supply,
it's a whole new ball game . . . but one step at a time.
Bob . . .
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
Bob
I have a kelly aerospace 70 amp alternator with two field connections F1 and
F2. I also have the B&C alternator controllers. My question is what do I do
with the second field connection? Do I run them both to terminal # 4 on the
B&C?
Thanks
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
======================================================================
>
>
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: | Switches vs relays for lights, strobes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Foerster" <jmfpublic@comcast.net>
Bob,
I'm designing details of my panel. I have chosen to use switches for the 8 amp
landing lights-two 50 watt auto units,for the taxi lights which draw 8 amps,
and for the navigation lights which draw less. I could use small relays, but
then the parts count goes up. For the strobe, mounted behind the rear seat, I'm
not so sure. A relay would keep some of the noise from the power leads out
of the panel, but I doubt that the power lead is the source of much noise anyway.
I can size the wire for allowable voltage loss. What do you think? Switches
for everything?
Jim Foerster J400, panel on the mockup on the bench.
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: | Shielding EI Wires |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame <charleyb@earthlink.net>
My Jeff Rose EI system came with an installed shielded wire to connect
to the battery bus via an ignition switch. The shielded wire is grounded
at the ignition module side and the center wire will obviously connect
to the ignition switch. My question is: should the wire from the switch
to the battery bus also be shielded? If so, where should it be grounded?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:00 PM 8/11/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>
>
>Bob
>
>I have a kelly aerospace 70 amp alternator with two field connections F1 and
>F2. I also have the B&C alternator controllers. My question is what do I do
>with the second field connection? Do I run them both to terminal # 4 on the
>B&C?
These are terminals for both brushes. You can ground one locally to
the case of the alternator . . . or take it back to pin 7 (ground)
on the regulator. If you can't find a screw handy on back of alternator
for grounding extra field connection, perhaps the least problematical
approach is to run the extra wire back to regulator.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RG58 Coax article I promised |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
<BOB.NUCKOLLS@COX.NET>
Bob,
Once again I feel eternally grateful for this educaitonal service you
provide! Not only have you cleared up my suspicions answered my questions
but given me better options too. Knowing it is core to homebuilding (and I
feel it should becore to living)I take full responsibility for any all of
my actions whether they be from knowledge gained here or elsewhere.
I doubt that I alone am enough interest for you but I would love to
purchase an 'LSE re-hab' kit consisting of the twisted pair shielded wires
with BNC connectors installed on one end and a separate15 pin D-sub
connector (it is female) for the controller input. I completely understand
if you would rather just sell me the wires connectors. Please let me know
the amount where to send a check.
I can do the kit for $50. How long do you want the coil cables
to be? My mailing address is 6936 Bainbridge, Wichita, KS 67226
Bob,
I just dropped the check in the mail (really)along with a note specifying address
phone number. 38" length please. Thank you tons for that!
Would you mind clearing up another cloud in my mind? Per my kit manufacturer's
instructions I connectedmy bonding strap toan engine mount bolt (tube fabric
fuselage) but then I saw BC's instructions/advice not to include the engine mount
in the ground cirquit. Why not?
BC recommends mounting the bonding strap to the ground bus brass bolt that goes
through an all metal firewall. That firewall is also connected to the engine
mount, so doesn't that include it in the ground cirquit?
Not sure yet if it applies here or not, but, by far, the most frustrating part
of building my aircraft is getting contrary opinions from sources I assume to
be much more qualified than I. The good side, ofcourse, is that it forces me to
search for a deeper understanding but that process is very time consuming frustrating.
With Bob as the backbone, this list makes the electrical part of that
process much easier to deal with.
Grant
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:44 PM 8/11/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bruce Uvanni <buvanni@us.ibm.com>
>
>
>I have an SD8 backup alternator wired up as shown in Bob's
>all electric on a budget. I'm flying now but don't know how to
>test the SD8 to see if it is working. I also have an E.I. AMP/Volt
>meter installed with both alternators wired thourgh a switch to the
>amp meter.
Turn main alternator off, turn aux alternator on. Reduce
operating loads to a minimum. Run engine up to at least
2000 rpm. Bus voltage should be something above 13.8 volts
and switching your amp meter to the Aux Alternator readout
should show some amount of output current.
You won't be able to fully load this alternator until
you can operate at cruise RPMs. In this configuration,
you should be able to increase system loads until
alternator output is on the order of 10A without
having the bus votlage drop below 13.0 volts.
Bob . . .
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switches vs relays for lights, strobes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:15 AM 8/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Foerster"
><jmfpublic@comcast.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm designing details of my panel. I have chosen to use switches for the
>8 amp landing lights-two 50 watt auto units,for the taxi lights which draw
>8 amps, and for the navigation lights which draw less. I could use small
>relays, but then the parts count goes up. For the strobe, mounted behind
>the rear seat, I'm not so sure. A relay would keep some of the noise from
>the power leads out of the panel, but I doubt that the power lead is the
>source of much noise anyway. I can size the wire for allowable voltage
>loss. What do you think? Switches for everything?
I don't understand your question. Are the switches of choice
so small that there is a question as to suitability for these
higher loads?
I don't see a need for adding relay-buffering to a switched
circuit unless your switches are way undersized. For what
it's worth, saw a tandem-wing airplane last year at the
Field of Dreams Fly-in, Coffey Co. Airport with miniature
toggle switches for everything . . . including 55W landing
light, nav lights and magnetos. He reported good service from
these switches for over 3 years.
What kind of switches are you contemplating?
Bob . . .
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shielding EI Wires |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:22 PM 8/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame
><charleyb@earthlink.net>
>
>My Jeff Rose EI system came with an installed shielded wire to connect
>to the battery bus via an ignition switch. The shielded wire is grounded
>at the ignition module side and the center wire will obviously connect
>to the ignition switch. My question is: should the wire from the switch
>to the battery bus also be shielded? If so, where should it be grounded?
I wouldn't worry about it. Ordinary wire should be just
fine for the power path. If it DOES have noise on it, it will
be CURRENT noise that radiates out of a shield as if it wasn't
even there.
Bob . . .
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells@sympatico.ca>
Jim and Others:
In the following interchange there is an issue associated with different
countries. This is "not necessarily" a question of Quality - - but
STANDARDS. I am a Canadian like the first poster, with a 90+% complete
RV-9A. I have built to CDN standards, not US standards - - I plan to fly a
LOT in the US. I will not have a problem. I followed the Vans Aircraft
instructions - except where they conflict with CDN standards. For example,
the US will say that a rod end bearing is fastened with an AN3-5A nut (which
must be torqued to standard).
Canada says that a bearing in the rod end fastened with the AN3-5A nut will
be held in compression (subject to seizing up north) and must be replaced
with a AN3-3 (drilled bolt and castled nut). It's probably superior - but
I'll bet that a coin got flipped in the decision. After all, most standards
were developed during the war where everybody (especially Canada and the
Commonwealth, US and Britain) totally shared in the design and manufacturing
of aircraft.
Although each country requires compliance to its standards for registration,
each will respect the other's aircraft in each other's airspace. That's the
only significant fact. A change in registration is slightly more
complicated.
Ernest Kells - RV-9A O235-N2C, Wood Prop
90% Complete - Fairings and Intersections 95% complete
> > Cheers, I am interested in the regulations in USA as I expect to visit
and tour with my OBAM as a Canadian. I have also tried to build to US and UK
requirements for safety. My understanding was that OBAM aircraft do not have
the standard 'certified' quality, thus permitting experimentation
and.............
> Not trying to start anything here but do you mean to imply that the planes
> we build implicitly have "less" quality?
>
> I am sure some do and I am sure some don't. Just wondering about the
> statement. Yes we do have more latitude for experimentation, but that
> *could* lead to higher or lower quality. Just asking ... James
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorto1537@rogers.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
>Cheers,
> I am interested in the regulations in USA as expect to visit
>and tour with my OBAM as a Canadian. I have also tried to build to US and UK
>requirements for safety. My understanding was that OBAM aircraft do not have
>the standard 'certified' quality, thus permitting experimentation and
>variation.
> It would appear that Dan Checkoway (at dan@rvproject.com) refers
>to the following:
>
>"Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
>certificates...."
>
> Is that us?
>Ferg
>Europa A064
>
Ferg - you shouldn't have any issues with respect to the aircraft
when flying in the US. You just need to get a Special Flight
Authorization from the FAA. There is a "blanket" Special Flight
Authorization that you can download and carry with you:
http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/formtext.htm
The bigger issue is understanding the subtle differences between the
ops rules in FAR 91 and our CARs.
As far as Dan's site, http://www.rvproject.com/ , I'm not sure which
part of the site you are referring to. But homebuilts do not receive
a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate. FAR 21.175 says:
21.175 Airworthiness certificates: classification.
(a) Standard airworthiness certificates are airworthiness
certificates issued for aircraft type certificated in the normal,
utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category, and for manned
free balloons, and for aircraft designated by the Administrator as
special classes of aircraft.
(b) Special airworthiness certificates are primary, restricted,
limited, and provisional airworthiness certificates, special flight
permits, and experimental certificates.
FAR 21.191(g) says:
21.191: Experimental certificates.
Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
(a) thru (f) cut to save space.
(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major
portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
undertook the construction project solely for their own education or
recreation.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switches vs relays for lights, strobes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <mjheinen@adelphia.net>
I was considering using a pc flight simulator joystick with its associated microswithches
to control a mac servo for trim, push to talk, autopilot engage/disengage....
I assume the switches are 50 mA with ?about 24 guage pvc coating. I was cosidering
using these with relays???...or are these toys just not substantial enough
for the cyles and currents?
>
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> Date: 2003/08/11 Mon PM 04:45:21 EDT
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switches vs relays for lights, strobes
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: LRE2@aol.com
I cannot help but respond to the sanctimony of "building to regulations."
By definition, regulations are the lowest acceptable standard. I am
building, not to US, Canadian or UK standards, but to my own, which meet and whenever
possible exceed any regs, standards or advisories that I can find or learn
about. After all, after the final inspection and certification, I'm going to
fly this airplane. I may be a bit heavier that the prototype, but when flying
over the Rockies, in turbulent air, I need to know that regardless of what
government officials have written to satisfy their job description,
this plane has been built to the highest standard that I can attain.
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switches vs relays for lights, |
strobes
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:08 PM 8/11/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <mjheinen@adelphia.net>
>
>I was considering using a pc flight simulator joystick with its associated
>microswithches to control a mac servo for trim, push to talk, autopilot
>engage/disengage....
>I assume the switches are 50 mA with ?about 24 guage pvc coating. I was
>cosidering using these with relays???...or are these toys just not
>substantial enough for the cyles and currents?
There's been a lot of discussion about building multitudinous
switching features into stick grips. Given the total number
of times per flight cycle that one operates things like flaps,
landing lights, etc. it seems most practical to limit stick
switches to those found on majority of bizjets . . . PTT,
trim, and wheel master disconnect that interrupts power to
any system that drives a flight surface like trims,
a/p and except flaps.
I don't know what construction was used in the switches
you propose nor am I aware of a service history of these
switches used as you propose.
Yours is an experimental aircraft and if you're
interested in taking your design through a proof
of concept activity, it can certainly be done.
If they are wired with 24AWG wire, then it is a
certainty that you'll need relays. The S704-1
or similar relays offered by B&C are easy to use
and would be suitable to this task. Be sure and
include spike catcher diodes across the relay coils
so that they don't eat the contacts of your small
switches.
Bob . . .
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! --
|