Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:30 AM - Re: Limit Switch Schematic (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com)
2. 03:30 AM - (Steve Sampson)
3. 04:47 AM - Re: Apollo avionics (Gordon and Marge)
4. 05:58 AM - Re: (Gilles.Thesee)
5. 06:19 AM - Re: Audio Lo wire (William Bernard)
6. 06:26 AM - Re: Limit Switch Schematic (Dave Morris)
7. 07:14 AM - Re: Audio Lo wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:18 AM - Re: (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:05 AM - Basics (Eric M. Jones)
10. 09:40 AM - Eyeball cockpit lights (Geoff Evans)
11. 10:06 AM - Re: (Steve Sampson)
12. 10:07 AM - Loadmeter (rmickey@ix.netcom.com)
13. 10:23 AM - Re: Limit Switch Schematic (Jon Finley)
14. 10:53 AM - Re: Eyeball cockpit lights (WHigg1170@aol.com)
15. 11:14 AM - Re:Eyeball cockpit lights (James Foerster)
16. 11:19 AM - Re: Eyeball cockpit lights (John R)
17. 11:22 AM - Re: Eyeball cockpit lights (Paul Messinger)
18. 11:24 AM - Westach engine gauges (geoffkim@pdq.net)
19. 11:31 AM - Re: RemovingDsubPins (DAVID REEL)
20. 01:32 PM - Re: Westach engine gauges (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 04:34 PM - Re: Limit Switch Schematic (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 05:04 PM - Re: Basics (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 05:35 PM - Re: Need (wierd) Illuminated Push on-off (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 05:45 PM - Re: Rocker Switches (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 06:24 PM - Re: Personal adaptation of Z-13 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 06:35 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 06:56 PM - Re: Future replacement for Rotax (klehman@albedo.net)
28. 07:50 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Dj Merrill)
29. 08:42 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Jim Sower)
30. 08:53 PM - Re: Basics (Dave Morris)
31. 09:22 PM - RG Battery source (Dave Morris)
32. 09:24 PM - Re: Need (wierd) Illuminated Push on-off switch... (BTomm)
33. 09:25 PM - Re: Future replacement for Rotax (David Carter)
34. 10:09 PM - Re: RG Battery source (James Redmon)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Limit Switch Schematic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
In a message dated 11/21/2003 2:00:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jon@finleyweb.net writes:
> I am installing limit switches on a device driven by a MAC servo. Does
> anyone have a simple wiring schematic that I could take a peek at to be
> sure that what I think I'm doing is really what I'm doing??
Just curious -- there is something missing from the above picture. The MAC
servo has built-in travel limits, so why would one want to mess with electronic
limits? These usually are used to actuate a lever, the travel of which is
determined by the length of the lever.
Doug
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Bob, sometime ago you wrote:
I use .8" spacing for the switches we sell. I've published
some exemplar layouts for switch panels at
http://216.55.140.222/temp//Switches.pdf
If the switches go in a single row, I try to organize
switches used pre/post-flight separate from those used
in flight. Two row switch panels might put the engine
and DC power switches above those used for lighting
and other functions likely to be used en route.
Bob . . .
I cant get to the referenced page. Is it still around?
Thanks, Steve.
---
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gordon and Marge" <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard@riley.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Apollo avionics
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard@Riley.net
Due to the sale of UPSAT to Garmin, I'm loosing my OEM account in a
couple
of weeks. If anyone wants any of their products, my normal deal stands
till then, my cost plus 5%, about 25% off list price.
Do you have or can you get the GPS plug in replacement for the Apollo
loran? I believe it is the GX55. If so, how much?
Please reply off line.
Gordon Comfort
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
<SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
> Bob, sometime ago you wrote:
>
> I use .8" spacing for the switches we sell. I've published
> some exemplar layouts for switch panels at
>
> http://216.55.140.222/temp//Switches.pdf
>
>
> I cant get to the referenced page. Is it still around?
>
> Thanks, Steve.
>
Steve,
Any time you find an IP address like 216.55.140.222, try replacing the
number by the server name : www.aeroelectric.com, like this
www.aeroelectric.com/temp//Switches.pdf
It should work.
Regards,
Gilles
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: Audio Lo wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Thanks for the response, Bob.
I guess the best thing for me to do under the circumstances is to insulate
the phone jacks ( mic jacks are already insulated) and to take the audio low
wire to aircraft ground. This may prove to have some noise in the system but
since there is no audio low wire in the intercom, I see no alternative.
Thanks again for the help.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Audio Lo wire
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:19 AM 11/21/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> ><billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >I'm getting ready to install a KX125 and connect it to a Sigtronics
> >SPA-400 intercom. I have a question relating what to connect the audio
out
> >lo wire on the KX125 tray to.
> >
> >The Sigtronics intercom wiring diagram shows only a single wire to the
> >phone jacks. The jack presumably picks up ground from the airframe.
>
> Bad practice. All avionics grounds should come as close together
> as possible at the "stack" and then fined airframe ground at the
> single point ground on the firewall.
>
>
> >As presently wired, the barrell of the phone jacks is wired to the
> >aircraft ground buss and the jacks themselves are attached into the panel
> >without any insulating grommets.
>
> Use twisted pair or shielded wire to wire the phone and mic
> jacks. An illustration of the technique is shown in document
> at:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700D.pdf
>
> in particular page 1.11
>
>
> >I suspect that this arrangement will give a ground loop and should be
> >changed. The question is: Changed to what?
> >
> >Install insulating grommets around the phone jacks and connect the audio
> >lo wire to aircraft ground?
> >
> >Connect the barrel of each phone jack to the audio lo wire and leave the
> >phone jacks uninsulated?
> >
> >Connect the barrel of each phone jack to the audio lo wire and insulate
> >the phone jacks?
> >
> >Or is this not worth worrying about. Just connect the audio lo wire to
> >aircraft ground and go on to other tasks in the project?
>
> This is discussed at length in the 'Connection chapter
> on noise. Fiber washers to insulate the jacks are offered by B&C at:
>
> http://bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?24X358218#s892
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Limit Switch Schematic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
The reasons is that you might want to limit the travel to a smaller region
than the built-in limit switches.
Jon and Doug, another way of doing this is to use the built-in
potentiometer and use an external comparator, such as an LM339, to detect
when you have reached the limit you want. In that circuit, you will have a
trim pot to adjust the exact set point, and there will be no need to figure
out how to mount an external limit switch.
For my aileron reflexer, I am considering several different set points, for
pilot-only takeoff, pilot+passenger takeoff, pilot-only cruise,
pilot+passenger cruise, pilot-only landing, pilot+passenger landing,
etc. That would not be feasible with limit switches, but would be easily
done by using the internal potentiometer and an external window comparator
and a rotary switch that inserts the correct value of resistance to compare
against. I'm designing the circuit right now, if you think you might be
interested.
Dave Morris
At 03:29 AM 11/22/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 11/21/2003 2:00:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>jon@finleyweb.net writes:
>
> > I am installing limit switches on a device driven by a MAC servo. Does
> > anyone have a simple wiring schematic that I could take a peek at to be
> > sure that what I think I'm doing is really what I'm doing??
>
>Just curious -- there is something missing from the above picture. The MAC
>servo has built-in travel limits, so why would one want to mess with
>electronic
>limits? These usually are used to actuate a lever, the travel of which is
>determined by the length of the lever.
>
>Doug
>
>
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: Audio Lo wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:20 AM 11/22/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
><billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Thanks for the response, Bob.
>
>I guess the best thing for me to do under the circumstances is to insulate
>the phone jacks ( mic jacks are already insulated) and to take the audio low
>wire to aircraft ground. This may prove to have some noise in the system but
>since there is no audio low wire in the intercom, I see no alternative.\
Audio lo on virtually every piece of avionics is the same as power ground
for that piece of avionics. The pins may be labled gnd, common, signal
ground,
audio ground, audio lo, etc, etc. but if you take an ohmmeter and ring then
out you'll find that they all come together. In the absence of anything
labeled specifically for audio grounding purposes, use power ground AT
the CONNECTOR for that accesssory.
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:58 PM 11/22/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee"
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
> >
> > Bob, sometime ago you wrote:
> >
> > I use .8" spacing for the switches we sell. I've published
> > some exemplar layouts for switch panels at
> >
> > http://216.55.140.222/temp//Switches.pdf
> >
> >
> > I cant get to the referenced page. Is it still around?
> >
> > Thanks, Steve.
> >
>
>Steve,
>Any time you find an IP address like 216.55.140.222, try replacing the
>number by the server name : www.aeroelectric.com, like this
>www.aeroelectric.com/temp//Switches.pdf
The 216 address was our old I.P. address before we moved the
server to friendlier quarters. Gilles is correct in that
replacing any quad IP address in published links with the
domain name will probably work as well. Our byte-
thrashing-wienie fixed something in the server's setup
so that my browser will report a domain name instead
of i.p. address when I capture a document location so
only old instances like the one cited will present
any problems.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>From: Dave Morris
>What if we did away with the concept of a "Master" switch and just allowed
>each device to have its own switch, as it probably already does
>anyway?
Bob publishes a "Paradigm" that describes an excellent fault-tolerant,
inexpensive system but it probably will not describe the best aeroelectrics
that will be common in some future brilliant airplane.
Of course, we all calculate some balance between wanting the "coolest thing"
and the "most practical" thing. I want to make the "coolest thing" so much
that I have delayed my airplane for several years. Some people just want to
get up into the air.
A precursor of what will come is the published 42 volt automobile electrical
systems. Lots on the web about this. In a few years, homebuilders will go to
42 volts without even pausing at 28 volts. because of the great
advantages----integrated starter-generators, one-wire with a CANbus powers
the whole vehicle. Remote controller modules, Li-Ion batteries. 3-phase
motors. Wow....
Also check the F22 Raptor site (Google Search "Raptor F22 AND F-22 -games").
Huge advances in how to build airplanes.
In the shorter term, LEDs are popping up everywhere, microprocessors, new
materials, relay-less airplanes.....it's a wonderful life!
I encourage you to seriously re-examine Bob's schematic and revise anything
or everything!
Go Dave Go! Let us in on it too--publish a Z-100 schematic for us!
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes less and less
obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no
solids in
the universe. There's not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no
absolute
continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
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: | Eyeball cockpit lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage@yahoo.com>
I recently bought a couple of those eyeball cockpit lights from Vans. They're
advertised as LED lights. They are manufactured by David Hoffman Products,
http://www.cockpitlights.com.
The minimal instructions that came with the lights say, "12-14 volt systems
use direct or with 200 ohm, 4 watt potentiometer (for dimming)."
I'm confused by the "use direct" part, as not using a current-limiting
resistor is sure to smoke the LED. On the other hand, perhaps these lights
aren't LEDs at all. The manufacturer's website doesn't specifically state
that the lights are LEDs, but Vans catalog does.
I sent an email to the manufacturer, but I never received a response.
Has anyone else used these lights? If so, how did you wire them up?
Thanks.
-Geoff
RV-8
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Bob/ Gilles - Thanks, Steve.
Do not archive
-----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:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:58 PM 11/22/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee"
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
> >
> > Bob, sometime ago you wrote:
> >
> > I use .8" spacing for the switches we sell. I've published
> > some exemplar layouts for switch panels at
> >
> > http://216.55.140.222/temp//Switches.pdf
> >
> >
---
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rmickey@ix.netcom.com
Bob,
Did you get my loadmeter?
Ross Mickey
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: | Limit Switch Schematic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
Yes, exactly right Dave.
My "use" of the MAC servo (http://www.finleyweb.net/default.asp?id=162)
requires no more than about .5" of travel. There is no lever in my
configuration so the only thing to adjust is how far the servo
pushes/pulls.
I would love to see your circuit. The ability to tailor based on load
sounds super cool!
For those that don't know. A reflexor (raise/lower ailerons together) is
used on tandem wing airplanes for a variety of purposes. Basically, it
is a trim device that raises/lowers the tail in regards to flight
attitude. Some use this for pitch trim, some use it to "position" the
airplane in a "proper" three-point attitude for landing, etc...
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 461 Hrs. TT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/Q2Subaru
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris
> --> <dave@davemorris.com>
>
> The reasons is that you might want to limit the travel to a
> smaller region
> than the built-in limit switches.
>
> Jon and Doug, another way of doing this is to use the built-in
> potentiometer and use an external comparator, such as an
> LM339, to detect
> when you have reached the limit you want. In that circuit,
> you will have a
> trim pot to adjust the exact set point, and there will be no
> need to figure
> out how to mount an external limit switch.
>
> For my aileron reflexer, I am considering several different
> set points, for
> pilot-only takeoff, pilot+passenger takeoff, pilot-only cruise,
> pilot+passenger cruise, pilot-only landing, pilot+passenger landing,
> etc. That would not be feasible with limit switches, but
> would be easily
> done by using the internal potentiometer and an external
> window comparator
> and a rotary switch that inserts the correct value of
> resistance to compare
> against. I'm designing the circuit right now, if you think
> you might be
> interested.
>
> Dave Morris
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: | Re: Eyeball cockpit lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: WHigg1170@aol.com
Hello Geoff I just installed the eyeball lights from vans and just hooked
them up to a 1.5 Amp 14 volt dimmer assembly from B&C ($42). My six gauges From
Vans (Volts, Amps, Tach, Oil, Etc.) Are also hooked up to this dimmer and they
all dim together pretty nicely. Unlike the directions I mounted the eyeball
assembly behind the metal so all you see is the eyeball and not the plastic
housing around it. I also had no problems with grinding and drilling new holes
to
fit my application hope this helps good luck.
Bill Higgins
RV6
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:Eyeball cockpit lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Foerster" <jmfpublic@comcast.net>
Geoff,
These are incandescent lights. They have a lifespan of 1500 hours, and get
more red if they are dimmed.
Jim Foerster
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: | Re: Eyeball cockpit lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John R <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Well first, if they truly are the same as what you linked to, they are
very likely advertised incorrectly, as LED lights should only consume
0.3-0.5 watts (including resistor) instead of the 1.12watts described,
and should last 10s of thousands of hours, not 1500...
Having said that, there are LEDs with integrated resistor that, if the
size is right, could be swapped in for the "grain-of-wheat" (or whatever
incandescent was in there originally) so that they could actually be
used "direct"... do you think it's possible that Van's has a slightly
different model from what you linked to?
-John R.
Geoff Evans wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage@yahoo.com>
>
>I recently bought a couple of those eyeball cockpit lights from Vans. They're
>advertised as LED lights. They are manufactured by David Hoffman Products,
>http://www.cockpitlights.com.
>
>The minimal instructions that came with the lights say, "12-14 volt systems
>use direct or with 200 ohm, 4 watt potentiometer (for dimming)."
>
>I'm confused by the "use direct" part, as not using a current-limiting
>resistor is sure to smoke the LED. On the other hand, perhaps these lights
>aren't LEDs at all. The manufacturer's website doesn't specifically state
>that the lights are LEDs, but Vans catalog does.
>
>I sent an email to the manufacturer, but I never received a response.
>
>Has anyone else used these lights? If so, how did you wire them up?
>
>Thanks.
>-Geoff
>RV-8
>
>__________________________________
>Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eyeball cockpit lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
They are NOT LED's.
However you can punch out the small glass bulb and replace it with an LED. I
did and am very pleased with the result. An external series resistor is
needed for 12V ops as well. Some experimenting can result in a resistor size
that closely matches dimming of the other lights on a common dimmer.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Evans" <hellothaimassage@yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Eyeball cockpit lights
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Geoff Evans
<hellothaimassage@yahoo.com>
>
> I recently bought a couple of those eyeball cockpit lights from Vans.
They're
> advertised as LED lights. They are manufactured by David Hoffman Products,
> http://www.cockpitlights.com.
>
> The minimal instructions that came with the lights say, "12-14 volt
systems
> use direct or with 200 ohm, 4 watt potentiometer (for dimming)."
>
> I'm confused by the "use direct" part, as not using a current-limiting
> resistor is sure to smoke the LED. On the other hand, perhaps these lights
> aren't LEDs at all. The manufacturer's website doesn't specifically state
> that the lights are LEDs, but Vans catalog does.
>
> I sent an email to the manufacturer, but I never received a response.
>
> Has anyone else used these lights? If so, how did you wire them up?
>
> Thanks.
> -Geoff
> RV-8
>
> __________________________________
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
>
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: | Westach engine gauges |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: geoffkim@pdq.net
Bob,
In your seminar at Watsonville you recommend against certain instruments
(brands). I don't remember if Westach was one of them. I'm considering
using Westach gauges with switches for CHT and EGT reading from all
clyinders through one gauge (separately) to save panel space. What do you
think?
Regards,
Geoff Kimbrough
RV-8
Katy, Texas
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: RemovingDsubPins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
Thanks Dave, Pat, & Ralph. I expanded the white end of the tool with a tapered
rod and a #44 drill bit and needle nose pliers til it fit around the pin body
and inserted from the wire side. Then pushing from the other side with a #60
drill, out it came. Magic! Little did I know I had to remanufacture the insert/extract
tool!
Examining the pin, I had crimped it but apparently not deeply enough. I put the
wire back in the pin by hand, recrimped, being careful to bottom the crimper
out, & the wire seems firmly embedded now. There seems to be a small range between
the last click of my crimper, which will allow the tool to release, and
the fully bottomed out position, which provides a crimp which is deep enough
to capture #24 wire. Doubling the wire sounds like a good precaution to me.
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: Westach engine gauges |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:24 PM 11/22/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: geoffkim@pdq.net
>
>Bob,
>
>In your seminar at Watsonville you recommend against certain instruments
>(brands). I don't remember if Westach was one of them. I'm considering
>using Westach gauges with switches for CHT and EGT reading from all
>clyinders through one gauge (separately) to save panel space. What do you
>think?
>
>Regards,
My warranty return rate for 30 instruments was about 12%. Admittedly,
this was a small sample and perhaps I was victim of a batch
based phenomenon but this was too high a rate for me to consider
extending my relationship with Westach.
Others on the list may have more encouraging experiences to
offer.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Limit Switch Schematic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:26 AM 11/22/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
>
>The reasons is that you might want to limit the travel to a smaller region
>than the built-in limit switches.
>
>Jon and Doug, another way of doing this is to use the built-in
>potentiometer and use an external comparator, such as an LM339, to detect
>when you have reached the limit you want. In that circuit, you will have a
>trim pot to adjust the exact set point, and there will be no need to figure
>out how to mount an external limit switch.
>
>For my aileron reflexer, I am considering several different set points, for
>pilot-only takeoff, pilot+passenger takeoff, pilot-only cruise,
>pilot+passenger cruise, pilot-only landing, pilot+passenger landing,
>etc. That would not be feasible with limit switches, but would be easily
>done by using the internal potentiometer and an external window comparator
>and a rotary switch that inserts the correct value of resistance to compare
>against. I'm designing the circuit right now, if you think you might be
>interested.
Be cautious with aerodynamic surfaces that can be moved
electrically. I'm working an issue right now on a certified
ship wherein a trim tab will run to a limit any time one of
five different wires in system gets faulted to ground or
three of the five open up. This was a design hurried into
production weeks before certification and not well thought
out with respect to failure mode effects. The wires in question
pass through lots of connectors which increase probability of
malfunction. Fortunately, it doesn't generate a hazardous
condition . . . but I've never met a pilot who enjoyed flying
airplanes with a mind of their own.
Automation of any surface raises issues of comfort and
safety. In the same airplane cited above, an automatic
lift dump system to raise spoilers on landing was
abandoned in favor of a simple handle on the pedestal
that says "PULL FOR LIFT DUMP".
Not trying discourage innovative thinking in
new design . . . that's the stock and trade of every
competent designer. Just make sure that those slick
swim fins don't morph to lead boots just as you're
hitting the water.
Either by analysis or demonstration on the ground, figure
out what will happen when ANY system component becomes open,
shorted or otherwise inoperative. Then deduce how this
event will influence probable outcome of the flight.
Redesign is in order when any deduced behavior promises
more excitement than you would enjoy.
Bob . . .
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:36 AM 11/22/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm reading and reading and studying and trying to absorb everything.
>
>I keep coming back to the very basic concepts you described in chapter
>17. It seems like Mr. Gomez' problems were
>a) the fact that he did not diagnose the failure of the alternator and pull
>it off the bus, and
>b) by switching off the Master, he was forced to kill essential things such
>as lighting
>
>What if we did away with the concept of a "Master" switch and just allowed
>each device to have its own switch, as it probably already does
>anyway?
The concept of master power switches are driven more by crash safety
issues than for operational reasons. FAR23 speaks to this issue thusly:
------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 23.1361 Master switch arrangement.
(a) There must be a master switch arrangement to allow ready disconnection
of each electric power source from power distribution systems, except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The point of disconnection
must be
adjacent to the sources controlled by the switch arrangement. If separate
switches are incorporated into the master switch arrangement, a means
must be
provided for the switch arrangement to be operated by one hand with a single
movement.
(b) Load circuits may be connected so that they remain energized when the
master switch is open, if the circuits are isolated, or physically shielded,
to prevent their igniting flammable fluids or vapors that might be liberated
by the leakage or rupture of any flammable fluid system; and
(1) The circuits are required for continued operation of the engine; or
(2) The circuits are protected by circuit protective devices with a rating
of five amperes or less adjacent to the electric power source.
(3) In addition, two or more circuits installed in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section must not be used
to supply a
load of more than five amperes.
(c) The master switch or its controls must be so installed that the switch
is easily discernible and accessible to a crewmember.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Starting with Figure 17-2, we could eliminate the battery
>contactor altogether, hook the starter contactor to the battery, have a
>single bus with everything on it, and be able to disconnect the alternator
>in the event of an overvoltage condition.
Opening the DC master should take as much of the system
down as possible/practical and especially "fat" wires that
can fault hundreds of amps during a supreme crunch.
Operationally, the master switch provides a back up for
shutting down the system in the event that a starter
contactor welds. I know of two welding events in Glasairs
wherein the builder wired the starter upstream of
the master contactor. Damage to the batteries was spectacular.
In both cases, the B&C starter survived the event . . .
but it's an situation that should not have happend.
>Then, with an ammeter to monitor total current consumption, in the event of
>an alternator failure, we pull it offline, then start shutting down
>anything not needed at the time, take a look at the total current being
>consumed, divide it into the amp-hour rating of the battery, and know how
>long we can keep flying.
>
>One reason I don't like the idea of an essential bus (or endurance bus) is
>that I keep finding myself determining that virtually everything in my
>small airplane is "essential", or may be so at some point.
"Some point" is where you're stuck. The issue is not
criticality but endurance by maximizing utilization of
your scarce resource - energy stored in the battery.
The amount of hardware needed to continue comfortable
flight at altitude cruise can be VERY low in power
consumption. If you have a system used in a manner
that makes battery only back up of an alternator
problematical, then a second alternator is in order.
The goal is to deign a system that contains NO critical
components . . . i.e. every thing you need can be
done with two systems therefore no single system is
critical.
> If I have a
>pitch trim using a servo, and I keep trying to adjust trim and nothing
>happens because I forgot that it's not on the e-bus and I've gotta flip the
>E-feed switch before I can operate the trim, then that's just another thing
>to have to remember.
If you've lost engine driven power generation then the goal
is to get to a point of having a clearance to land. Then
you can re-close the battery master and run any accessory
that makes your arrival more comfortable knowing that if
the battery gives up before the wheels touch, it doesn't
matter.
>In a car, you have a key switch that turns everything on. But you also
>have a separate light switch, radio switch, window switches, lock switches,
>heater switch, etc. etc., so what does that key switch really do except act
>as another single point of failure and also control the ignition? Isn't
>the small experimental aircraft in much the same situation? Couldn't we
>make the whole thing even simpler and thus even more fault-tolerant?
Think ENDURANCE with only those things operating that
let you use fuel aboard as a limit for time aloft.
If I have an alternator failure on a rental airplane,
I'd shut down everything. My hand-helds are already primary
navigation and can easily provide back up communications.
Soooo . . . when I'm on short final, I've got 100% of
whatever the battery had left when the failure happened.
I can reasonably expect flaps, gear and landing lights
to be no big deal. I have to treat a rental this way
because (1) there is no provision for maximizing
electrical endurance and (2) I have no first hand
knowledge of the airplane's battery capacity. You guys
flying OBAM machines got it Soooooooo much better.
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: Need (wierd) Illuminated Push on-off |
switch...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
switch...
At 06:45 PM 11/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N27160@aol.com
>
>I need a source for an industrial application, switch....
>
>Push On=Push-Off....
>
>BUT.... It illuminates when in the OFF position and non illuminated when in
>the ON position...
My first suggestion would be Microswitch AML series pushbuttons
that are illuminated. Since the lamps and switches are independently
wired, you can make the light do whatever you want in response to
operation of the switch.
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Microswitch_AML.pdf
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rocker Switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:33 PM 11/21/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tom Caruthers
><tomcaruthers@yahoo.com>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Do you know where a person can get 2 and 3 position
>rocker switches? I was looking for the kind with an
>LED built in to use as a fuse blown indicator.
>
>Thanks, Tom
Few manufacturers supply the full range of switching
functions in rockers. Microswitch is one. Here's
an exemplar switch with functions like our 2-10 toggle
switch:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/2tp12-10.pdf
You can get clear and translucent operators that
can be engraved and illuminated from the rear. These
are popular with Lancair and Glasair builders.
Expect to pay quite a bit for these and to have to
special order some functions.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Personal adaptation of Z-13 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:14 PM 11/21/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Diffenbaugh"
><diff@foothill.net>
>
>After a couple months of reading Bob's book, researching the archives, and
>posting lots of questions, I would like to believe I finally have a pretty
>good understanding of how Z-13 works. (I am a slow learner & may be proven
>wrong shortly, but I am willing to take a chance). In addition, I am
>convinced Z-13 is a tried and proven system that would indeed meet my needs.
>Before I finalize things and start ordering parts, I would like to bounce a
>personal adaptation of Z-13 off of Bob and fellow system designers. I am
>not suggesting Z-13 be changed! Please look at my idea with an open mind
>then let me know why it is a bad idea. Thank you!
>
> My setup: RV7A, with firewall mounted 16AH battery, battery
> contactor, &
>starter contactor; Dual LASAR w/dual mag backup; All electric 6-pack;
>Full IFR stack ACS 2002 engine monitor; Trutrak autopilot;
>Total load with everything on would be around 50A. Endurance items would be
>limited to 8A. (Handheld GPS & transceiver.)
>
>MY ADAPTATION
>1) Eliminate the main bus & E bus, & tie everything into the battery bus.
>
>2) Relocate the main alt B lead to the battery side of the contactor.
>
>3) Switch those items that do not come with built in switches or are not
>normally switched. In my case this would include: ILS indicator; encoder;
>LASAR; artificial horizon; DG; & turn coordinator.
>
>4) Layout the switches in color coded groups all in one row in a subpanel
>below the main panel. Highest priority (endurance) switches would start at
>the left end & would be red. The next group could be green for normally on
>but non-essential, followed by white for normally off, such as lights. Etc,
>etc.
>
>ADVANTAGES
> Fewer busses (fuse panels) to deal with
> Avoids loss of partial panel due to battery contactor failure
> --battery
>contactor would serve only during starting & would be shut off after start
>in case of a stuck starter contactor, and to reduce system draw by about 1A.
> Provides greater flexibility in backup alternator mode by being
> able to
>swap an endurance item for a main bus item or use a main bus item
>intermittently without losing 1A to the contactor. For example, upon main
>alt failure, I could off everything but the endurance items, switch on the
>SD-8 & monitor the ACS 2002 amp & volt meters to confirm all is well. I
>could then trade off devices if desired, like turn off the transponder and
>turn on the autopilot, etc., while monitoring voltage.
>
>
>DISADVANTAGES
> More time to off non-essentials than with one master switch.
> Battery could be drained if a single device is left on by mistake
> after
>shutdown. This would force me to always turn off each device at shutdown as
>recommended, instead of relying on the master switch. (Would have the side
>benefit of making sure avionics switch contacts get wiped clean by use)
>
>Ok, that's it in a nutshell. Let er rip! Thank you.
The DC power master switch isn't a convenience issue but one
of crash safety. I quoted a piece of FAR23 dealing with DC
power master switches in another reply earlier this evening.
If you don't find this feature to be a driving issue with
your project, then you're certainly free to wire it as you
see fit.
It's useful to consider both questions about inclusion
of a component (1) what purpose does it serve when included
and (2) what are the consequences/hazards induced if we eliminate
it with some new system architecture?
Most OBAM aircraft builders tend to concentrate on convenience
and what-if scenarios that arise from multiple failures. This
is a very common "trap" that catches experienced designers too.
Had a very expensive situation arise on a program earlier this
year where a presumed capability big-name US company was hired
to clone a hydraulic part of foreign manufacturer.
The original part worked well but given that the end use was
US military, we were obligated to make sure that all critical
components could be supplied by US manufacturers. The engineers
deleted certain features of the part because they did not
take time to fully deduce the reason they were included in
the original design.
The result was a string of expensive and embarrassing
failures to a part that should have been a no-brainer. Again,
please don't take this as any discouragement of innovation.
But please keep in mind that the most successful systems
evolved from incremental changes to a system with
much field history and understanding.
I get a lot of requests (several every week) to evaluate
a proposed system where the egg-beater has been liberally
applied to some existing system. Doing a well considered
FMEA and operational evaluation is sorta like a game
of chess. It takes some time to deduce all the new
combinations of situations. A few weeks ago, someone
published a power distribution diagram for the Cirrus.
I've not responded to it yet but I plan to. I have to
sift through it, think about it for awhile and then
come back later and see if I agree with the previous
thinking. The Z-figures have evolved in fits and starts
over 16 years of publishing the 'Connection.
So please don't feel snubbed if I don't jump up and
cheer to the first playing of new music . . . the
thought processes needed to sort out all the pieces
are not something that can quickly produce good data and
considered advice. Any lack of response is not
an sign of disapproval so much as a reluctance
to comment before I believe I understand the basis
upon which my encouragement/discouragement must stand.
Given the time I have to spend on these activities
the vast majority of egg-beater whipped systems
are simply not commented upon.
Bob . . .
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: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:04 PM 11/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com
>
>11/21/2003
>
>Hello Jim Sower, I am sorry that I cannot cut and paste your posting to the
>list regarding alternative replacements for magnetos. It would make for a
>more
>effective response, but somebody turned a significant portion of the Digest
>blue making it impossible to cut and paste.
>
>I agree that magneto ignition comes from farm tractors back in the 1930's and
>earlier and that better stuff should be available. And it almost is. But not
>to the point that it makes sense yet to order your engine without magnetos in
>order to put in two of the none certified versions that you mentioned.
>Probably makes more sense to do what Bob Nuckolls suggests, which is to
>order your
>engine with magnetos, replace one of the magnetos with some form of
>electronic
>ignition, and when the magneto in use wears out, use the one set aside
>until it
>wears out. Then go full dual electronic ignition.
>
>But electronic ignition is a long ways from being just "pull out the magneto,
>stick in the electronic unit (for a mere $800) and fly on your merry way".
<snip>
>I guess if I had to characterize electronic ignition right now I'd have to
>say "We ain't quite there yet."
I'm not sure I share the pessimism I sense here. Both Lightspeed
and ElectroAir have long and successful field histories in OBAM
aircraft. Both systems have evolved as the designers have seen
fit in response to perceptions of need for increasing the value
of a product. Contrast this with a certified LASAR system that
will be updated only when the need justifies re-certification
to the tune of $100,000-and-up stacks of paper thrashing.
I perceive no risks (greater than staying with mags) for going
total electronic ignition from either of the popular suppliers
cited. The only reason I suggest using up one's magnetos
is because you generally cannot get $1500 credit for leaving
the mags off a new engine. Further, 90% of engine performance
improvement comes with installation of the first electronic
ignition. Using up the resources you've already paid for seems
to make economic sense.
Bob . . .
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman@albedo.net
I don't think the 20 amp PM alternator is 3 phase as there are only two
wires coming out of it and there are no diodes in the alternator.
Ken
>Was gone most of day. Had msg on ans mach when returned 8:30pm tonight.
?Here's the info my local John Deere dealer's Service Manager passed on
to me
>as what the factory expert told him in response to his request that they
>tell how the regulators work for the 20, 35, 55, & 85 PM Alternators -(he
>took a copy of the pdg doc/table I sent to you and used that in his
query to
>Deere):
> "The alternators are 3 phase and use diodes mounted on a plate.
> "The regulator(s) [are/use?] "pass transisor[s?]. For every 10
degree C
>rise in temp, [they?] lose 10% efficiency until reach 120 deg C - which
destroys alternator. (?)"
> "The regulators are neither "shunt" type nor "bridge rectifier" type."
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: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> I perceive no risks (greater than staying with mags) for going
> total electronic ignition from either of the popular suppliers
> cited. The only reason I suggest using up one's magnetos
Hi Bob,
I've heard that some props are not okay to use
with electronic ignition due to the harmonic vibrations
being different than with mags. Know anything about this?
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering
ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous
Message 29
| 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: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
<... Which of the electronic ignition systems did you choose, and what was your
total cost
for implementation ...>
I got Electroair in summer of '99. Jeff Rose is great to work with. I put it
on my O-235
Long Ez. Paid something over $600 (memory vague on that) and put it on myself.
Took a
couple of hours to mount the coils, etc. Unit popped right in the hole the mag
occupied.
that was it. Worked GREAT right from the git-go. Broke the airplane later (nothing
to do
with engine/ignition) and haven't fixed it yet, so I only got about 100 hrs on
it, but I
loved it. I used to have to idle engine at around 800-900 rpm to have any assurance
it
would not quit. EI made it idle smooth as silk at 500 rpm. Ignition was so good
that on
mag check, there was no drop at all if I turned off mag, but big drop (maybe 100
rpm) when
EI turned off. Over 100 rpm increase in static rpm (for takeoff). Several others
have
reported improved fuel consumption on the order of 10%. I couldn't validate since
I had no
fuel flow instrumentation, but ALL those who did reported improvements of at least
5% and
one very knowledgeable Cozy builder reported 10% lower fuel burn. Plugs cost two
bucks.
Combustion very significantly improved (for other reasons besides proper timing).
<... I've read that some props aren't a good match for an EI due to the different
harmonic
vibrations with the EI versus the mag ignition ...>
News to me. I've never heard anything like that at all. Can't imagine how improved
combustion would cause vibration. Of course Lycs by their nature shake and rattle
so hell
wouldn't have it - but to lay that problem at the door of the only technological
improvement those engines have seen since 1933 is a bit of a stretch IMO. No offense,
but
I'll need some documentation on that one.
One could argue that I'm a true believer :o) ... Jim S.
Dj Merrill wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Jim Sower wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
> >
> > <... order your engine with magnetos, replace one of the magnetos with some
form of
> > electronic
> > ignition, and when the magneto in use wears out, use the one set aside ...>
> > That's exactly what I did. My engine came at me with mags, I replaced one,
the other
> > as a spare.
>
> Hi Jim,
> I probably missed it in an earlier post.
> Which of the electronic ignition systems did you choose, and
> what was your total cost for implementation?
> How many hours do you have on the EI?
> I have a Lycoming O320 in a Glasair 1FT, and am thinking of doing the
> same thing (one mag, one EI).
>
> I've read that some props aren't a good match
> for an EI due to the different harmonic vibrations
> with the EI versus the mag ignition. Do you have
> any insight on this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
Message 30
| 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: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
Bob,
I know it's gotta be painful to have to keep re-hashing concepts over and
over with us newbies. Thanks so much for the time you spend teaching us!
Dave
At 07:03 PM 11/22/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 12:36 AM 11/22/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I'm reading and reading and studying and trying to absorb everything.
> >
> >I keep coming back to the very basic concepts you described in chapter
> >17. It seems like Mr. Gomez' problems were
> >a) the fact that he did not diagnose the failure of the alternator and pull
> >it off the bus, and
> >b) by switching off the Master, he was forced to kill essential things such
> >as lighting
> >
> >What if we did away with the concept of a "Master" switch and just allowed
> >each device to have its own switch, as it probably already does
> >anyway?
>
> The concept of master power switches are driven more by crash safety
> issues than for operational reasons. FAR23 speaks to this issue thusly:
>------------------------------------------------------
> Sec. 23.1361 Master switch arrangement.
>
>(a) There must be a master switch arrangement to allow ready disconnection
> of each electric power source from power distribution systems, except as
> provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The point of disconnection
>must be
> adjacent to the sources controlled by the switch arrangement. If separate
> switches are incorporated into the master switch arrangement, a means
>must be
> provided for the switch arrangement to be operated by one hand with a
> single
> movement.
>(b) Load circuits may be connected so that they remain energized when the
> master switch is open, if the circuits are isolated, or physically
> shielded,
> to prevent their igniting flammable fluids or vapors that might be
> liberated
> by the leakage or rupture of any flammable fluid system; and
> (1) The circuits are required for continued operation of the engine; or
> (2) The circuits are protected by circuit protective devices with a
> rating
> of five amperes or less adjacent to the electric power source.
> (3) In addition, two or more circuits installed in accordance with the
> requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section must not be used
>to supply a
> load of more than five amperes.
>(c) The master switch or its controls must be so installed that the switch
> is easily discernible and accessible to a crewmember.
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Starting with Figure 17-2, we could eliminate the battery
> >contactor altogether, hook the starter contactor to the battery, have a
> >single bus with everything on it, and be able to disconnect the alternator
> >in the event of an overvoltage condition.
>
> Opening the DC master should take as much of the system
> down as possible/practical and especially "fat" wires that
> can fault hundreds of amps during a supreme crunch.
>
> Operationally, the master switch provides a back up for
> shutting down the system in the event that a starter
> contactor welds. I know of two welding events in Glasairs
> wherein the builder wired the starter upstream of
> the master contactor. Damage to the batteries was spectacular.
> In both cases, the B&C starter survived the event . . .
> but it's an situation that should not have happend.
>
>
> >Then, with an ammeter to monitor total current consumption, in the event of
> >an alternator failure, we pull it offline, then start shutting down
> >anything not needed at the time, take a look at the total current being
> >consumed, divide it into the amp-hour rating of the battery, and know how
> >long we can keep flying.
> >
> >One reason I don't like the idea of an essential bus (or endurance bus) is
> >that I keep finding myself determining that virtually everything in my
> >small airplane is "essential", or may be so at some point.
>
> "Some point" is where you're stuck. The issue is not
> criticality but endurance by maximizing utilization of
> your scarce resource - energy stored in the battery.
> The amount of hardware needed to continue comfortable
> flight at altitude cruise can be VERY low in power
> consumption. If you have a system used in a manner
> that makes battery only back up of an alternator
> problematical, then a second alternator is in order.
> The goal is to deign a system that contains NO critical
> components . . . i.e. every thing you need can be
> done with two systems therefore no single system is
> critical.
>
> > If I have a
> >pitch trim using a servo, and I keep trying to adjust trim and nothing
> >happens because I forgot that it's not on the e-bus and I've gotta flip the
> >E-feed switch before I can operate the trim, then that's just another thing
> >to have to remember.
>
> If you've lost engine driven power generation then the goal
> is to get to a point of having a clearance to land. Then
> you can re-close the battery master and run any accessory
> that makes your arrival more comfortable knowing that if
> the battery gives up before the wheels touch, it doesn't
> matter.
>
>
> >In a car, you have a key switch that turns everything on. But you also
> >have a separate light switch, radio switch, window switches, lock switches,
> >heater switch, etc. etc., so what does that key switch really do except act
> >as another single point of failure and also control the ignition? Isn't
> >the small experimental aircraft in much the same situation? Couldn't we
> >make the whole thing even simpler and thus even more fault-tolerant?
>
> Think ENDURANCE with only those things operating that
> let you use fuel aboard as a limit for time aloft.
> If I have an alternator failure on a rental airplane,
> I'd shut down everything. My hand-helds are already primary
> navigation and can easily provide back up communications.
> Soooo . . . when I'm on short final, I've got 100% of
> whatever the battery had left when the failure happened.
> I can reasonably expect flaps, gear and landing lights
> to be no big deal. I have to treat a rental this way
> because (1) there is no provision for maximizing
> electrical endurance and (2) I have no first hand
> knowledge of the airplane's battery capacity. You guys
> flying OBAM machines got it Soooooooo much better.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 31
| 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: | RG Battery source |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
At 02:04 PM 11/16/2003 -0600, Bob wrote:
> levels. You can buy 17 a.h. RG batteries for as low as $45 over
> the counter. In spite of weight penalty (15# battery versus 4#
Where?
Thanks,
Dave
Message 32
| 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: | Need (wierd) Illuminated Push on-off switch... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
NKK LB series are SPDT and DPDT snap acting, momentary or alternating
action and are illuminated with LED's for long life. I see them at
www.digikey.com
Bevan
RV7A slowbuild
On Friday, November 21, 2003 3:46 PM, N27160@aol.com [SMTP:N27160@aol.com]
wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N27160@aol.com
>
> I need a source for an industrial application, switch....
>
> Push On=Push-Off....
>
> BUT.... It illuminates when in the OFF position and non illuminated when
in
> the ON position...
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 33
| 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: Future replacement for Rotax |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Tomorrow I'll personally review what Deere sent the dealer and see if I can
clarify the situation.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Future replacement for Rotax
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman@albedo.net
>
> I don't think the 20 amp PM alternator is 3 phase as there are only two
> wires coming out of it and there are no diodes in the alternator.
> Ken
> >Was gone most of day. Had msg on ans mach when returned 8:30pm tonight.
> ?Here's the info my local John Deere dealer's Service Manager passed on
> to me
> >as what the factory expert told him in response to his request that they
> >tell how the regulators work for the 20, 35, 55, & 85 PM
Alternators -(he
> >took a copy of the pdg doc/table I sent to you and used that in his
> query to Deere):
> > "The alternators are 3 phase and use diodes mounted on a plate.
> > "The regulator(s) [are/use?] "pass transisor[s?]. For every 10
> > degree C rise in temp, [they?] lose 10% efficiency until reach 120 deg
C - which
> > destroys alternator. (?)"
> > "The regulators are neither "shunt" type nor "bridge rectifier"
type."
>
Message 34
| 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: RG Battery source |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
I get my batteries from www.batteryweb.com Good customer service, good
prices, good selection and prompt shipment.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Morris" <dave@davemorris.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG Battery source
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
>
> At 02:04 PM 11/16/2003 -0600, Bob wrote:
>
> > levels. You can buy 17 a.h. RG batteries for as low as $45 over
> > the counter. In spite of weight penalty (15# battery versus 4#
>
> Where?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
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! --
|