Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:40 AM - Source for an AIM artificial horizon (Gilles.Thesee)
2. 07:11 AM - Microair 760 intercom (RVEIGHTA@aol.com)
3. 07:27 AM - Re: Manual master switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:53 AM - Re: Architecture questions for an RV7 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:31 AM - Re: Microair 760 intercom (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:37 AM - Re: SD-8 Voltage Regulator Potential (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:21 AM - Re: manual master switches, over-voltage controllers (Gary Casey)
8. 09:50 AM - Manual master switch- OV protection (klehman@albedo.net)
9. 10:33 AM - Re: No Electric Starter/System Ques (Steve Sampson)
10. 10:54 AM - Re: SD-8 Voltage Regulator Potential Overheating (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 10:58 AM - Re: Manual master switch (Chad Robinson)
12. 11:48 AM - Re: Manual master switch (David Swartzendruber)
13. 12:56 PM - Re: No Electric Starter/System Ques (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 01:24 PM - Re: Manual master switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 01:27 PM - Terminal Blocks (Darwin N. Barrie)
16. 02:44 PM - Re: Manual master switch- OV protection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 03:02 PM - Re: manual master switches, over-voltage controllers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 04:58 PM - Re: Re: manual master switches, over-voltage controllers (William)
19. 05:35 PM - Horizontal Contactor (Don Boardman)
20. 05:35 PM - Phone/Mic Jack Connector (Don Boardman)
21. 05:54 PM - Re: Phone/Mic Jack Connector (Larry Bowen)
22. 05:56 PM - OVM (Larry Bowen)
23. 06:23 PM - Re: Phone/Mic Jack Connector (Don Boardman)
24. 07:15 PM - Re: OV module on RV with 60Amp internally-regulated alternator. (Amit Dagan)
25. 08:42 PM - Twisting Fat Wires (Don Boardman)
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: | Source for an AIM artificial horizon |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi Bob and all,
Does anyone know of a reliable source for a used AIM 1100 electric
artificial horizon (14 V, tilt preferably 4.5) ?
Any info appreciated.
Thanks,
Gilles Thesee
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: | Microair 760 intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: RVEIGHTA@aol.com
Bob/all: The built-in intercom of my Microair 760 transceiver is so noisy at
normal cruise speeds that It's almost impossible to carry on a conversation
with my passenger. The radio is installed in an RV-8A which is notoriously
noisy.
I recently purchased a Softcom intercom which comes with a wiring harness.
Several wires from the intercom ( mic key, headset audio and mic audio) go to
the radio, while the other wires are to connect to the headphone & mic jacks.
Since I already have the jack wired up, using your wiring harness and wiring
diagram, will I need to rewire the jacks using the wiring provided with the
intercom? By the way, none of the IC jack wires are shielded.
Any suggestions are appreciated......
Walt Shipley
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: Manual master switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:24 AM 12/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman@albedo.net
>
>Gary you've brought some of my thoughts to the surface which is usually
>dangerous. The pros of a manual switch seem to be no holding current and
>a bit of security/theft protection if it is hidden or at least not on
>the panel.
>
>Well it turns out that the massive but low cost metal unit sold by
>Summit racing (and even cheaper at my local farm supply) is actually
>heavier than an electric contactor.
>
>Flaming River make some that look to be composite and lighter. One sells
>for around US$80. complete with an 18" remote handle extension. Another
> version has a removeble plastic key. However it is easier to provide
>security with a small switch or in other ways.
>
>If I hard wire my battery to the starter, same as when my car engine was
>in its first life, then it seems that there is no particular need for a
>large contactor anyway. A small 40 amp relay (or even two for
>redundancy) would suffice for killing power to the distribution system.
>And even they won't kill battery bus power to my two efi and ignition
>computers.
What do you do if the starter contactor sticks? How
do you drive all the fat wires to "max cold" in anticipation
of an unplanned arrival with the earth?
>Anyway I'm having trouble justifying the need for a battery contactor or
>manual switch. Seems it wouldn't really kill power to very much of my
>aircraft for crash protection etc. and I'd need one for each of two
>batteries. Then there is the starter contactor which doesn't seem to add
>much protection either. There are a lot of car fires but the heavy
>battery to starter wire doesn't seem to be a problem in those, near as I
>can figure. Please correct me if someone believes otherwise. Bob has
>mentioned in the archives that he prefers to use a starter contactor
>even with automotive starters like mine. Fewer connectors and lower
>resistance between the alternator, battery, and starter is attractive
>though.
How much is "fewer" and "lower" in comparison with
the total and how would you perceive the difference
if you had no prior knowledge of what "more" and
"higher" was?
>Ok this is already long (which I hate to do as it tends to discourage
>comments) but I might as well mention my 40 amp ND internal voltage
>regulator alternator and my 20 amp John Deere PM alternator. Both have
>been fitted with large pulleys to slow them and help limit max current
>output. Do I add two more contactors for over voltage protection?
Why did you cripple some perfectly good alternators? What is
the advantage of slowing down an alternator that runs most
happily at high rpm? The BIG downside for generators was low
output at idle and taxi RPMs but if you put a smaller pulley
on them, the brushes would wear faster. When alternators
came along, all the downsides went away but you have brought
them back . . .
>Well I'll load the PM alternator with always on lights/strobes and
>perhaps a fuel pump. Do I really care if it runs away and stuffs a few
>extra amps into the battery till I can get on the ground?
Are you planning to call the runaway condition an "emergency"
or a "maintenance event"? An airplane fitted with sufficient
controls, notification of failure and options for alternative
operating modes means that which drive the pucker factor up
in spam-can pilots is no big deal for an OBAM aircraft pilot.
> An old flooded
>battery would warm up and vent some electrolyte and shrug it off. Not
>sure about a small RG battery. I need to be informed about the regulator
>failure but I'm not as convinced that I need an active OV protection
>contactor here. It could be done with a small 40 amp relay or the one
>B&C sells though.
>
>The 40 amp ND alternator was chosen for both weight and so that a
>regulator failure would not result in a hundred amps being available as
>in the car.
Don't understand. A runaway alternator is never capable of
delivering lots of amps over and above the nameplate rating.
They are ALL capable of delivering lots of volts . . . 100
or more in cruise rpm with the small pulley of choice. This
is what ov protection is about.
> Of course any voltage spikes have to be lower too with a
>small unit.
Define "spike", where it's generated. How long does it
last and how much energy does it contain? This term is stirred
into every worried discussion about electrical systems with
complete lack of understanding about what it is, where it
comes from and how a system may be configured so that for
the most part it will not exist. In the world of
cookie-cutter certified ships and FAA approved flight
schools, pilots have neither the knowledge or the options
of using their knowledge to improve the machines they
fly. None the less, many of our brethren in the OBAM aircraft
community carry this baggage with them into the world
where the finest aircraft to have ever existed are built.
>OV protection is probably a good idea here though since I am
>planning to use small batteries and the efi will only stand so much ov.
>Since we are thinking out of the box a bit, what about a normally open
>relay that adds say 30 amps of load to that alternator in the event of
>an ov.
How about shutting off the offending alternator in case
of an ov condition?
> Switch in an electric windshield defroster or car heater perhaps?
>That would control the ov situation but still leave enough power
>available to run my engine for an unlimited time without even bothering
>to switch to my redundant efi system powered from the PM alternator. And
>a relay failure would only disable the ov protection whereas an ov
>contactor failure or activation would kill the alternator output. Such
>an approach also avoids extra connectors in the wire between the
>alternator and battery.
What is the service history of "extra connectors" between
the alternator and battery. How many connections have you had
to repair on your automobile or any other vehicle? Suppose
a lead between the alternator becomes disconnected, how is
this any more likely or how is the result any different
than a wire coming unhooked in the regulator or somewhere
else in the system so as to make the alternator unusable?
Would it not be better to design your system for "failure
tolerance" . . . a system that offers a plan-b alternative
to failure of ANY component?
>Seems I might still want one heavy duty crossfeed contactor for engine
>starting if I use two small batteries but those batteries actually cost
>more than one large and one small battery... Cost is secondary here
>though. Or it looks like my PM alternator will probably run fine with a
>large capacitor and ov protection instead of a small battery...
Instead of taking an egg beater to the experience base
of that which has gone before us, may I suggest that
you consider the suite of z-drawings and find one that
most closely matches your perceived needs. Let then
consider together how that system falls short. It may
be that some modification of the architecture described
is in order . . . or perhaps even a new architecture
is called for. Let's discuss your perceptions of worrisome
events and sort them into two piles: (1) ol' mechanic's
tales/hangar legends and (2) real threats which we'll
address by considered design and mitigating operating
techniques.
The goal is to configure a system about which you have
NO worries and an operating philosophy that virtually
guarantees that you complete a leg of a mission all
the way to airport of intended destination without
breaking a sweat.
I'm confident that you'll find that many of your concerns
are not founded upon good science and once you understand
how your system of choice works, your confidence level
will raise markedly. More important, your system reliability
(of which the pilot is a critical component) will stand
head-and-shoulders above that of certified aviation.
Bob . . .
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: Architecture questions for an RV7 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:47 PM 12/29/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I am building an RV 7 using all B&C electrical products, including
>the 60A alternator and 20A vacuum pad mounted alternator and
>SB1-14 and LR3C-14 voltage regulators. The architecture includes
>a separate battery master switch and individual alternator field
>switches. (I am using one of your main bus/essential bus architectures
>with dual alternators, diode feed to the essential bus and alternate
>switched path to the essential bus. This arrangement is as shown in
>skeleton figure 17-2 of your Aero Electric Connection manual
>rev 10 dated Nov 2001).
First, why are you installing two big alternators?
How do you plan to use this airplane and how is it
going to be equipped? For this combination of alternators,
Figure Z-14 is the system of choice for folks who
NEED this much engine generated power.
>I have what seems like a trivial question: If I have a main bus
>fault for example, is there any importance as to the order of
>opening/closing the battery master and essential bus switches.
>If not why can't the essential bus alternative feed switch be
>replaced by a direct connection? If I close the essential bus feed
>switch by accident whilst the battery master switch is still closed
>are there any implications?
"Faults" to the bus are so rare as to be unworthy
of procedural consideration. The philosophy of the
architecture in Figure 17-2 (and Z-11) is to provide
(1) an alternative feed path for power to electrically
powered items that will essentially insure comfortable
arrival at airport of intended destination and (2) provide
a way to reduce en route loads during battery only operation
to a value that compliments goal (1) cited above.
If you have two engine driven power sources in the
form of 40+ and 20A machines, en route energy conservation
is not an issue. Therefore, it seems more practical to
consider figures 17-5 and Z-14. But first things
first, why have you selected this particular pair
of alternators?
>Apologies if the following questions should be addressed to B&C I am not
>sure of their e-mail address?
>
>
>If I open the battery master switch without opening the alternator field
>switches first, will this have any detrimental effect on the alternators?
If wired per any of the Z-figures with a 2-10 master switch,
this issues is mute. The switch is configured to bring
the alternator on last and off first. Unless you've specifically
designed and tested your proposed system for alternator
only performance, operation without a battery is
an iffy proposition and not recommended.
>Are there any other circumstances when using your voltage regulators and
>alternators that can damage either of them by incorrect operation of the
>battery master switch and/or the individual field switches. For example,
>by opening a field switch with the engine running and the battery master
>switch closed ? I should perhaps mention that I am asking this question
>because there are dire warnings in some Automobile maintenance manuals,
>and indeed on an American Web site dealing with some marine installations,
>that an engine must on no account be run without the battery being
>connected else alternator damage may ensue as a result of a rise of output
>voltage to 100V or so. But this advice may not apply to your arrangements ?
It sure does . . . that's what drove the configurations
described in Appendix Z.
>I plan to use the battery temp sensors on both regulators. This option is
>not shown on the SB1-14 regulator. Is this available and if so are the
>connections to pins 1&6 as per the LR3C-14
No, the temperature sensor is useful in very few
situations and not recommended unless you plan to
spend long legs of a trip at 25,000 feet on oxygen
where you might cold-soak a battery.
>I want to keep my instrument panel as neat as possible! I have
>standardised all my warning and indicator lights as high intensity LEDs
>with internal dropping resistors. Can I use one of these in place of your
>supplied low voltage warning filament lamp on the LR3C-14?
Yes, see http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/LV_Led.jpg
>I am also planning to be able to test all the warning lamps on my panel
>with a single push to test button, applying a ground or 12v as
>appropriate. For the alternator warning lights I was planning on using a
>relay to temporarily disconnect the low voltage warning light from pin 5
>on the regulator and connect to ground therefore placing 12v from the main
>bus across the light to test its operation. Is this ok?
If you're using LEDs throughout, I wouldn't bother about PTT. The
life of an LED is so high that you're MUCH more likely to loose
functionality of an annunciator for reasons that are not tested
by your PTT system. Keep the parts count down and check list shorter
by leaving this low-value feature off.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: Microair 760 intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:10 AM 12/30/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: RVEIGHTA@aol.com
>
>Bob/all: The built-in intercom of my Microair 760 transceiver is so noisy at
>normal cruise speeds that It's almost impossible to carry on a conversation
>with my passenger. The radio is installed in an RV-8A which is notoriously
>noisy.
A hot mic intercom depends on GOOD noise cancelling microphones
unless you use the intercom push-to-talk feature. If you
have the ptt feature in place, the 760's intercom feature will
be no better/worse than any system.
>I recently purchased a Softcom intercom which comes with a wiring harness.
>Several wires from the intercom (mic key, headset audio and mic audio) go to
>the radio, while the other wires are to connect to the headphone & mic jacks.
>
>Since I already have the jack wired up, using your wiring harness and wiring
>diagram, will I need to rewire the jacks using the wiring provided with the
>intercom? By the way, none of the IC jack wires are shielded.
I suggest you wire in accordance with the diagram
supplied with the intercom.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( A beginning of the end is marked by )
( replacement of experience and common )
( sense with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
--------------------------------------------
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: SD-8 Voltage Regulator Potential |
Overheating
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Overheating
At 08:35 PM 12/29/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Diffenbaugh"
><diff@foothill.net>
>
>Hi Bob & fellow Listers,
>
> Reached the point where I felt comfortable with my total system
> design
>utilizing Z-13 & was placing the order with Tim at B&C today when the topic
>of loading the SD-8 came up. When I indicated I had designed it for 8 amps
>or less continuous, Tim informed me the regulator was designed for 2 to 3
>amps continuous and would most likely fry at 8 amps unless some sort of
>cooling was provided. If located in the cockpit, it should have additional
>heatsinking and a fan would be a good idea, but there could be electrical
>noise. If mounted on the firewall in the engine compartment there would be
>less noise, but it would need substantial heat sinking, and/or a blast tube.
This is a new one on me! I'll have to look into this.
> In an earlier response, Bob mentioned if loaded greater than 8 amps
>continuous, a heat sink was necessary, or possibly a more robust regulator
>like the KeyWest. I Google searched KeyWest and only found one hit, where
>someone experienced regulator failure due to overheating with a Rotax & it
>also destroyed their alternator. Also was not able to find the KeyWest
>website. Anyone have its URL?
I've not heard much about Key West lately. It was a really
popular regulator for Rotax systems for folks building
Pulsars and Kitfoxes and it was mentioned a lot when I belonged
to those lists years ago.
>Does anyone have experience running the SD-8 continuously at 8 amps? Unless
>I have overlooked something, neither the installation instructions for the
>SD-8 nor Z-13 mention heat sinks or blast tubes. Am I missing something or
>might Z-13 users experience regulator overheating if their main alternators
>fail? (according to Tim, the stuff inside the regulator housing starts to
>ooze out when overheated)
This is a mind-blower . . . there are many hundreds of SD-8's
flying as the ONLY source of engine driven power. If they've
had problems with regulator performance, I've been unaware of
it. Based on this, I've shown the SD-8 as a really useful
and reliable second source in Figure Z-13 . . . if this is
NOT the case, then I've got a lot of explaining to do to a hundred
or more builders who have installed Z-13.
Watch this space!
>Thank you in advance for your assistance with this issue. I have put my
>order on hold until I have a better understanding.
Good idea . . .
Bob . . .
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: manual master switches, over-voltage controllers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<The pros of a manual switch seem to be no holding current and
a bit of security/theft protection if it is hidden or at least not on
the panel.
Well it turns out that the massive but low cost metal unit sold by
Summit racing (and even cheaper at my local farm supply) is actually
heavier than an electric contactor.
If I hard wire my battery to the starter, same as when my car engine was
in its first life, then it seems that there is no particular need for a
large contactor anyway. A small 40 amp relay (or even two for
redundancy) would suffice for killing power to the distribution system.
And even they won't kill battery bus power to my two efi and ignition
computers.
Anyway I'm having trouble justifying the need for a battery contactor or
manual switch.>>
Ken, I find your comments to be logical. It seems to me that much of the
complexity found in an aircraft system has to do with safety AFTER a
failure, not preventing failures. In fact the extra components almost
require that the system be less reliable than it could otherwise be. Your
theory is to provide a switch to take power away from everything except the
starter, just as in a car. Sounds logical unless you desire a redundant
method of shutting off the starter. Redundant shut-offs are no good unless
you have some way to shut off the starter anyway. One good way to shut off
the starter without a seperate switch is to shut off the engine. The
battery will soon be dead, which is no problem. Are mechanical master
switches heavier than contactors? Perhaps, but you have to include the
extra wires and master switch. You plan to use two alternators of modest
capacity to power the system as I have considered. Sounds logical to me.
What's the potential problem caused by a shorted regulator leading to an
over-voltage condition? I don't know, but I have heard alarmists say that a
fully charged battery will not accept the current, leading to a
"dangerously" high voltage in milliseconds, which I don't believe. I'm sure
one wants to have a way to disconnect the alternator output from the system,
but why can't that be a manual switch, triggered by an over-voltage alarm
and activated by a human? The advantage of doing it this way would be that
the human involved could then to turn the alternator back on periodically to
recharge the battery. OV systems, once they detect and over-voltage
condition, usually don't allow an override, no matter how desperate the
pilot. Battery venting considerations? Wet batteries should be vented
anyway, and I would expect that after an over-voltage episode one would
certainly inspect the battery area for problems and perhaps throw away the
battery. No problem.
Adding complexity to increase flight SAFETY is a laudable activity. Adding
complexity to reduce the COST of a failure mode is questionable. The extra
complexity increases the likelihood of a failure and must get paid for up
front to be carried with the airplane its whole life even if there is never
a failure. I have heard a second contactor in series with the starter
solenoid (in series with the master contactor) justified by the fact that IF
the starter solenoid fails in the "on" position the starter can be shut off
with the starter contactor, avoiding having to recharge the battery after a
stuck starter event. Not a good justification.
Gary Casey
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: | Manual master switch- OV protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman@albedo.net
Rino
I'll think about the ground contactor idea. That's a new one for me.
I can't provide facts but I am under the impression that another
possible minor benefit of slowing an alternator is that it runs a bit
cooler which may make the regulator/diodes a touch more reliable. I've
been told that above the rpm for rated current, internal losses and heat
generation go up faster than additional cooling and the unit is less
efficient. Someone may know if that is true or significant at all.
Interestingly now that RG batteries are common, I think of your 17AH
battery as a largish battery rather than a small battery for a
homebuilt. With two alternators I've considered going as small as two
5AH, 4.4 lb, ATP ultrastart red batteries- (with a crossfeed contactor
and OV protection ;) )
Dan
I absolutely agree that RG batteries are the way to go. I am unfamiliar
with what happens when they are overcharged though and don't want to
make assumptions about that. OV situations are rare enough that I would
consider a ruined battery to be an acceptable outcome providing there
were no additional in flight risks from it. Many batteries won't survive
a deep discharge after disconnecting the alternator anyway so an ov
disconnect contactor does not have a clear economic advantage from that
perspective. I really think the concept of automatic ov protection that
applies additional load (rather than disconnecting the alternator) has
some advantages for systems with smallish alternators. More so for
systems with only one alternator. Checking the power consumption of the
heater in some 12 volt windshield defrosters is on my to do list since
I need a defroster fan anyway.
thank you for the comments gentlemen
Ken
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | No Electric Starter/System Ques |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Bob, in a thread while I was away over Christmas, you answered the following
question thus:
>MAIN ALTERNATOR OUTPUT
>
>1. ? Without a starter contactor will the output of the main 50 amp
>alternator go to the
> 60-anl on the firewall and then to the post of the Main Bus Fuse
>Block?
Yes, but mount the ANL-60 as close to Main Bus as practical.
That interested me since in another context I had been wondering about ANL
location. I was puzzling why in Z-24 the ANL was shown downstream of the
internally regulated alternator isolation contactor. My thinking was that by
having it close to the alternator it would blow if anything (including the
isolation contactor) ran amok downstream.
What is the advantage of having it at the main bus end ?
Thanks, Steve.
---
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: SD-8 Voltage Regulator Potential Overheating |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:37 AM 12/30/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net> Overheating
>
>At 08:35 PM 12/29/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Diffenbaugh"
> ><diff@foothill.net>
> >
> >Hi Bob & fellow Listers,
> >
> > Reached the point where I felt comfortable with my total system
> > design
> >utilizing Z-13 & was placing the order with Tim at B&C today when the topic
> >of loading the SD-8 came up. When I indicated I had designed it for 8 amps
> >or less continuous, Tim informed me the regulator was designed for 2 to 3
> >amps continuous and would most likely fry at 8 amps unless some sort of
> >cooling was provided. If located in the cockpit, it should have additional
> >heatsinking and a fan would be a good idea, but there could be electrical
> >noise. If mounted on the firewall in the engine compartment there would be
> >less noise, but it would need substantial heat sinking, and/or a blast tube.
>
> This is a new one on me! I'll have to look into this.
I've been in touch with folks at B&C . . . Tim is sending
me an SD-8 regulator for some thermal dynamics studies in
our shop. I'll be developing some recommendations for either
redesign of the regulator or expanded installation instructions
or both. Can't move in the right direction until I have data.
Folks at B&C will be the first to know . . . folks here on
the 'list will be next . . .
Bob . . .
By the way. The situation surrounding failures on the SD-20
series alternators seems . . . I say again SEEMS to center
on a limited number of installations on a specific engines
and aircraft.
Failures on these aircraft have involved several
structural issues with respect to the alternator in addition
to the cracked mounting flange initially discussed here.
These are really off-the-wall things that have not been seen
on any other installation EVER. When details are fully
uncovered, we'll make you all aware of them . . . In
the mean time, initial indications are that 99.9% of
users of the SD-20 or its close cousins have no cause
for concern.
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: Manual master switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Chad Robinson <crobinson@rfgonline.com>
In re: manual switches vs. contactors.
Bob, back to the original topic of manual (say, knife or similar) switches vs.
contactors, I'd appreciate your opinion on this core concept. It happens that
my layout would be conducive to such an arrangement, and aside from
"necessary" or "helpful" requirements, I'd like to know if you have anything
specific against manual switches designed for high current loads.
The only things I can think of that might matter are:
1. A contactor adds to the current load to keep it closed.
2. A contactor provides a sealed switching environment.
3. During a power failure, a contactor will open automatically.
4. A contactor can theoretically refuse to release, although I've never
actually seen this happen in practice.
Are there any other relevant arguments for or against?
Regards,
Chad
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: | Manual master switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber@earthlink.net>
The attraction of a manual battery switch is that it eliminates some
parts and requires no battery current to keep closed. These same
features are found in the alternate feed path recommended for an
endurance bus. If you really want to consider replacing the big battery
contactor with a manual switch, it seems to me that the main
consideration would be the location of the battery, and the close
proximity of the master switch/contactor to the battery. Heavy-duty
manual switches capable of replacing the master contactor are available
sealed or unsealed, and with or without removable keys. If you can
place it next to the battery and still easily reach it, I don't see any
downside. If you have to mount it a distance from the battery in order
to reach it, you are compromising the crash safety that the master
disconnect provides. You may justify it because you have a composite
fuselage or because you are willing to accept more risk. Whatever the
reason, you are free to make your own decision because it is an OBAM
aircraft.
Dave Swartzendruber
>
> In re: manual switches vs. contactors.
>
> The only things I can think of that might matter are:
> 1. A contactor adds to the current load to keep it closed.
> 2. A contactor provides a sealed switching environment.
A manual switch can too.
> 3. During a power failure, a contactor will open automatically.
Are you sure?
> 4. A contactor can theoretically refuse to release, although I've
never
> actually seen this happen in practice.
>
> Are there any other relevant arguments for or against?
>
> Regards,
> Chad
>
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: | No Electric Starter/System Ques |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:33 PM 12/30/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
><SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
>Bob, in a thread while I was away over Christmas, you answered the following
>question thus:
>
> >MAIN ALTERNATOR OUTPUT
> >
> >1. ? Without a starter contactor will the output of the main 50 amp
> >alternator go to the
> > 60-anl on the firewall and then to the post of the Main Bus Fuse
> >Block?
>
> Yes, but mount the ANL-60 as close to Main Bus as practical.
>
>That interested me since in another context I had been wondering about ANL
>location. I was puzzling why in Z-24 the ANL was shown downstream of the
>internally regulated alternator isolation contactor. My thinking was that by
>having it close to the alternator it would blow if anything (including the
>isolation contactor) ran amok downstream.
>
>What is the advantage of having it at the main bus end ?
The ANL limiter (fat fuse) is there to protect the alternator
b-lead wire . . . the source of energy that places this wire
at risk is NOT the alternator but the battery. An alternator
is incapable of putting out enough current to open its own
b-lead protection while the battery is capable of fat-wire
faults approaching 1000 amps. So, while selecting the SIZE of the
protection device is driven by alternator output capability,
selecting LOCATION is associated with the risk source . . .
the BATTERY.
On some occasions, we have fat wires that can source a fault
from either end . . . in which case, you might have a limiter
at both ends of the same conductor. However, I've never
encountered a situation like this for small aircraft.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Manual master switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:48 PM 12/30/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Swartzendruber"
><dswartzendruber@earthlink.net>
>
>The attraction of a manual battery switch is that it eliminates some
>parts and requires no battery current to keep closed. These same
>features are found in the alternate feed path recommended for an
>endurance bus. If you really want to consider replacing the big battery
>contactor with a manual switch, it seems to me that the main
>consideration would be the location of the battery, and the close
>proximity of the master switch/contactor to the battery. Heavy-duty
>manual switches capable of replacing the master contactor are available
>sealed or unsealed, and with or without removable keys. If you can
>place it next to the battery and still easily reach it, I don't see any
>downside. If you have to mount it a distance from the battery in order
>to reach it, you are compromising the crash safety that the master
>disconnect provides. You may justify it because you have a composite
>fuselage or because you are willing to accept more risk. Whatever the
>reason, you are free to make your own decision because it is an OBAM
>aircraft.
>
>Dave Swartzendruber
An excellent response. Thanks Dave. I would only add
that manual battery switches offer the greatest attraction
to builders with limited alternator capacity. If an SD-8
or even a Rotax 18A PM alternator on a 912/914 is your
only engine driven power source, it MIGHT (depending on
your load analysis) be helpful to apply approx 1A of
no-value-added contactor current to other more useful
tasks.
This is not a new concept. A Tri-Pacer I took dual
instruction in 40 years ago had the battery mounted
under right front passenger seat. Master switch was
a manual device mounted on the seat support rail. An
equally manual starter engage switch was also located
near by. Using a contactor is a convenience issue
of having all controls centralized on the panel or
when the battery is so remote from the pilot position
that direct manual switching is unattractive.
I had some builders years ago fabricate manual devices
from NASCAR battery switches. They took the stock knob
off and fabricated a belcrank that would translate
push-pull motion of a Bowden control into necessary
rotary motion for switch operation. One caveat here,
make it a PULL for OFF architecture. If a Bowden control
is at risk of not working, it's mostly during a PUSH
motion that might buckle some portion of the mechanism.
The function that really needs to work the first time
every time when your pucker factor is rising is to
turn the battery OFF. Making the control operate in
tension for the off function increases probability
of proper operation.
Here's some exemplar devices:
http://www.colehersee.com/pdf/master_cat/T138%20Battery.PDF
Be prepared to spend as much or more for one
of these switches as you will for a contactor.
As I recall, the original poster had a 40A or larger
main alternator which makes load issues moot since
the battery contactor is normally OFF and not drawing
power during battery only or battery+SD8 operations.
I'd stay with the contactor . . . they've done a
really fine job for a lot of years in a whole lot
of airplanes.
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
Hi Bob,
I am using Aeroflash strobes on my RV7. I was thinking of using a terminal block
to make the wiring more manageable. Can I use a terminal block to link all of
the remotely mounted power supplies and then run one wire from the T block to
the switch panel? If so what gauge would you recommend from the T block to the
switch? Same with the position lights?
Part two- I am mounting my head phone and mic jacks behind the seats. Is there
any down side to using a T block for this purpose again to ease the wiring runs?
And, can the ground wire from the mic jack and phone jack be combined?
Thanks,
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
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: Manual master switch- OV protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:53 PM 12/30/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman@albedo.net
>
>Rino
>
>I'll think about the ground contactor idea. That's a new one for me.
>
>I can't provide facts but I am under the impression that another
>possible minor benefit of slowing an alternator is that it runs a bit
>cooler which may make the regulator/diodes a touch more reliable. I've
>been told that above the rpm for rated current, internal losses and heat
>generation go up faster than additional cooling and the unit is less
>efficient. Someone may know if that is true or significant at all.
If we're talking about certified 1960's trash flying in most
spam cans, there might be a grain of fact to this . . . Today,
you can install a NiponDenso alternator with a track record
of 15 years, 2 to 3 thousand installations and what must by
now be a half million flight hours . . . all of the concerns
cited are non-issues.
>Interestingly now that RG batteries are common, I think of your 17AH
>battery as a largish battery rather than a small battery for a
>homebuilt. With two alternators I've considered going as small as two
>5AH, 4.4 lb, ATP ultrastart red batteries- (with a crossfeed contactor
>and OV protection ;)
I recommend the 17 a.h. battery for its VALUE. Smaller batteries
with engine cranking ability are out there but they're not
cheap. If one is interested in ultimate battery reliability
then using the 17 a.h. package at $40 a pop and rotating out
yearly gives you battery-only energy storage options that
are difficult to beat for the money.
>Dan
>I absolutely agree that RG batteries are the way to go. I am unfamiliar
>with what happens when they are overcharged though and don't want to
>make assumptions about that. OV situations are rare enough that I would
>consider a ruined battery to be an acceptable outcome providing there
>were no additional in flight risks from it.
A properly handled ov condition with a large alternator lasts less
than a second. With a small PM alternator, it could stretch out in
time depending on loads. What architecture are we considering here?
Is the small PM alternator the only engine driven power source?
> Many batteries won't survive
>a deep discharge after disconnecting the alternator anyway . . .
Only a poorly maintained battery will not survive a deep discharge
cycle. If your battery is less than a year old and has never
been left to die after deep discharge, then it's capacity during
an alternator-out event is a given.
> . . . so an ov
>disconnect contactor does not have a clear economic advantage from that
>perspective. I really think the concept of automatic ov protection that
>applies additional load (rather than disconnecting the alternator) has
>some advantages for systems with smallish alternators.
Adding load to contain an ov event is not recommended for any
size alternator. It's so easy to just shut it off . . . why
not?
Bob . . .
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: manual master switches, over-voltage controllers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>Anyway I'm having trouble justifying the need for a battery contactor or
>manual switch.>>
>
>Ken, I find your comments to be logical. It seems to me that much of the
>complexity found in an aircraft system has to do with safety AFTER a
>failure, not preventing failures. In fact the extra components almost
>require that the system be less reliable than it could otherwise be. Your
>theory is to provide a switch to take power away from everything except the
>starter, just as in a car. Sounds logical unless you desire a redundant
>method of shutting off the starter.
Had two customers in years past try to set their airplanes on
fire after a direct connected starter contactor stuck and they
couldn't shut them off . . .
> Redundant shut-offs are no good unless
>you have some way to shut off the starter anyway.
Don't understand . . .
> One good way to shut off
>the starter without a seperate switch is to shut off the engine. The
>battery will soon be dead, which is no problem.
Unless it smokes the starter or melts a hole in the side of the
battery . . .
> Are mechanical master
>switches heavier than contactors?
Yes, generally . . .
> Perhaps, but you have to include the
>extra wires and master switch. You plan to use two alternators of modest
how big is "modest"
>capacity to power the system as I have considered. Sounds logical to me.
>What's the potential problem caused by a shorted regulator leading to an
>over-voltage condition? I don't know, but I have heard alarmists say that a
>fully charged battery will not accept the current, leading to a
>"dangerously" high voltage in milliseconds, which I don't believe.
Please do believe. I've been designing and building ov protection
systems for aircraft since 1974. Somewhere in the archives I can
dig out chart recordings of how fast the bus voltage takes off
for the moon when the regulator craps . . . it's amazing.
> I'm sure
>one wants to have a way to disconnect the alternator output from the system,
>but why can't that be a manual switch, triggered by an over-voltage alarm
>and activated by a human?
How fast are you?
> The advantage of doing it this way would be that
>the human involved could then to turn the alternator back on periodically to
>recharge the battery.
How about carrying enough battery to supply minimal
loads that make sure you get where you are going in
spite of alternator. Turning the alternator back on
is like pushing in a circuit breaker. Do you want to
give the broken system a SECOND chance to set you on
fire?
> OV systems, once they detect and over-voltage
>condition, usually don't allow an override, no matter how desperate the
>pilot.
This is not true of any ov system I've seen.
ALL will allow pilot reset at will.
Why desperate? Check out
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
and lets see if we can configure a system that will
never cause to break a sweat. Convective weather
and ice are desperate situations. There is no
reason for electrical systems to be desperate too.
>Battery venting considerations?
RG batteries don't need a box. Strap them down in
an open tray and hook 'em up. Save the weight and
labor for other, more useful parts of the airplane.
>Adding complexity to increase flight SAFETY is a laudable activity. Adding
>complexity to reduce the COST of a failure mode is questionable. The extra
>complexity increases the likelihood of a failure and must get paid for up
>front to be carried with the airplane its whole life even if there is never
>a failure. I have heard a second contactor in series with the starter
>solenoid (in series with the master contactor) justified by the fact that IF
>the starter solenoid fails in the "on" position the starter can be shut off
>with the starter contactor, avoiding having to recharge the battery after a
>stuck starter event. Not a good justification.
Starters are not designed to run at operational
loads for minutes. Recall that it may take two or
three minutes for a 17 a.h. battery to stop
rotating an engine with a stuck contactor. I've
not tested this condition to gather data but two
I know builders have. One melted a hole in the battery case.
His starter still functioned after the event but
it had certainly spent a bunch of its nine lives.
I don't recall outcome details of the other event.
Whether you install a battery master contactor
or manual disconnect switch, please consider having
it control starter supply power as well.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: manual master switches, over-voltage controllers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William" <wschertz@ispwest.com>
>capacity to power the system as I have considered. Sounds logical to me.
>What's the potential problem caused by a shorted regulator leading to an
>over-voltage condition? I don't know, but I have heard alarmists say that
a
>fully charged battery will not accept the current, leading to a
>"dangerously" high voltage in milliseconds, which I don't believe.
Please do believe. I've been designing and building ov protection
systems for aircraft since 1974. Somewhere in the archives I can
dig out chart recordings of how fast the bus voltage takes off
for the moon when the regulator craps . . . it's amazing.
> I'm sure
>one wants to have a way to disconnect the alternator output from the
system,
>but why can't that be a manual switch, triggered by an over-voltage alarm
>and activated by a human?
How fast are you?
---------------------------
I just became a big believer in OV protection, friend of mine at the airport
just bought an RV-6, and on the flight home, the regulator shorted out, and
the voltage went high. fried the voltmeter and oil pressure guages, and the
power supplies to the GPS/Com and Xponder. Simple OV protection would have
saved him a *bunch* of $$
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
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: | Horizontal Contactor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
Re-post original may have gotten lost in the Christmas rush.
I hope to install the contactor tomorrow.
Hi Bob and All,
Quick question. Is there any concern about mounting a battery contactor with
the coil tube in the horizontal position? Given the pounding that our
seaplane will take on the water I wondered if there was any problem with the
coil holding the contact bar in a horizontal position verses pulling it down
while in a vertical position.
Thanks,
Don B.
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: | Phone/Mic Jack Connector |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
Re-post original may have gotten lost in the Christmas rush.
Hi Bob and All,
We plan to put two cigar power jacks and the pilot's and co-pilot's phone
and mic jacks between the pilot and co-pilot seats in a "small console".
This console will need to be removed during annual inspection and therefore
will need a disconnect.
Are there any special considerations in selecting a connector because of the
the phone and mic jacks? I am thinking Molex? Possibly D-sub?
Thanks,
Don B.
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: | Phone/Mic Jack Connector |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
I have a similar console for the back seat in my RV-8. I was planning
to just unscrew the nuts that secure the power jack and mic/phone jacks
as needed when removing the console. That won't work in your situation?
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Boardman [mailto:dboardm3@twcny.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:37 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Phone/Mic Jack Connector
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman
> --> <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
>
> Re-post original may have gotten lost in the Christmas rush.
>
> Hi Bob and All,
>
> We plan to put two cigar power jacks and the pilot's and
> co-pilot's phone and mic jacks between the pilot and co-pilot
> seats in a "small console". This console will need to be
> removed during annual inspection and therefore will need a disconnect.
>
> Are there any special considerations in selecting a connector
> because of the
> the phone and mic jacks? I am thinking Molex? Possibly D-sub?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Don B.
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: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
I have Bob's OVM-14 Over Voltage Protection module for my internally
regulated alternator installed in my plane. What's the easiest way to
test it & verify I've installed it correctly?
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
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: Phone/Mic Jack Connector |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
Hi Larry,
Unscrewing the jacks will not work in my situation. An additional panel
below needs to be removed.
Thanks,
Don B.
> From: Larry Bowen <Larry@BowenAero.com>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:53:39 -0500
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Phone/Mic Jack Connector
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
>
> I have a similar console for the back seat in my RV-8. I was planning
> to just unscrew the nuts that secure the power jack and mic/phone jacks
> as needed when removing the console. That won't work in your situation?
>
> -
> Larry Bowen
> Larry@BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Don Boardman [mailto:dboardm3@twcny.rr.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:37 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Phone/Mic Jack Connector
>>
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman
>> --> <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
>>
>> Re-post original may have gotten lost in the Christmas rush.
>>
>> Hi Bob and All,
>>
>> We plan to put two cigar power jacks and the pilot's and
>> co-pilot's phone and mic jacks between the pilot and co-pilot
>> seats in a "small console". This console will need to be
>> removed during annual inspection and therefore will need a disconnect.
>>
>> Are there any special considerations in selecting a connector
>> because of the
>> the phone and mic jacks? I am thinking Molex? Possibly D-sub?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Don B.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: OV module on RV with 60Amp internally-regulated |
alternator.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Amit Dagan" <amitdagan@hotmail.com>
> >Hi All,
> >I would like to see a picture (or explanation) of an RV with Bob's OV
>module
> >and relay for the 60A alt that VAN's sell.
> >Thanks a lot,
> >Amit, RV-7, wiring.
>
>
> Not sure I understand your question. Does the alternator
> you have come with a built in regulator?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> It is the one in Vansaircraft catalog.
> From their catalog:
> "ES 14684: A small lightweight high output unit that is
> capable of developing 60 amperes (12 volt DC). This unit is
>INTERNALLY voltage regulated and will work fine with any of
>the batteries sold by Van's Aircraft."
> I believe this is very popular with RV builders.
> I hope this explains my question to you.
> Thanks, Amit.
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: | Twisting Fat Wires |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
Hi All,
Not to long ago I saw reference to twisting the fat wires (#4) from a
battery located aft in the fuselage as they ran up to the firewall. I can't
find a reference in Bob's book. This seems to complicate the installation of
the wires. I can find no reference in the archives.
SO... Twisted or parallel? What's the scoop?
Thanks,
Don B
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! --
|