Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:35 AM - Fw: RV-8 (Werner Schneider)
2. 07:44 AM - Re: Re: SD-8 cap (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:33 AM - Re: Single connector for instrument panel? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 09:34 AM - Molex terminals (Rick Johnson)
5. 10:11 AM - Starters: Sky-Tec/B&C/Magnaflite... Setting the Record Straight (Rich Chiappe)
6. 10:53 AM - Re: Starters: Sky-Tec/B&C/Magnaflite... (Trudy Ettelson)
7. 01:11 PM - Re: Molex terminals (plaurence@the-beach.net)
8. 01:19 PM - Re: Re: Single connector for instrument panel? (Scott, Ian)
9. 01:51 PM - Stein Bruch Alive Redux (Hebeard2@aol.com)
10. 03:56 PM - Re: Stein Bruch alive? (HCRV6@aol.com)
11. 04:47 PM - Re: single connector for instrument panel? (Dave Morris)
12. 06:02 PM - Re: single connector for instrument panel? Jabiru (Jim Bean)
13. 08:17 PM - Buttsplice vs. Solder Heatshrink? (hollandm)
14. 08:26 PM - Battery Bus Lead Length? (hollandm)
15. 08:49 PM - Starters: Setting the Record Straight (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 09:28 PM - Keeping Cables Separated (Don Boardman)
17. 10:24 PM - Low Density 9-PIN D-Sub Dust cover.... (Jack Lockamy)
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider@compuserve.com>
Sorry was intended to be directly sent!
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: SD-8 cap |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:31 PM 1/6/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
>
>The value isn't critical. The larger the value, the larger the charge it
>can store and the more the cap will look like a "battery" in case the
>battery isn't there.
>
>Dave Morris
Dave is correct. B&C's drawings for recommended capacitor
does indeed call out a 10KuF cap but I think the only one
they sell is the S251D479 shown at
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?26X358218
which is 47KuF at 16V.
Bob . . .
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: Single connector for instrument panel? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:16 AM 1/7/2004 +1100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian"
><ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
>
>
>I think that I already know the answer to this question, however I am
>considering installing a single connector between the firewall and the
>instrument panel in my Jabiru, so that I can easily remove the panel from
>the plane, without disconnecting all the switches on the panel, and the
>radios etc.
>
>I know that it could be a point of failure, however I wonder how big this
>is, What connector should I use?
>
>(simple day VFR aircraft, that runs haply with master switch off, (self
>exciting ignition).
If it were my airplane, I'd use the D-sub connector with machined
crimp pins in every practical situation where a connector is desired.
For the application you're considering, I think the D-sub would
do just fine.
Electrical Issues:
For pins that carry continuous current over 3A, you can parallel
pins for increased capacity. Put a 6" piece of 22AWG into the
wire grip on every pin that gets paralleled with another pin. Bring
the pigtails together into a butt splice and continue on with
the larger wire. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Parallel_Dsub_Pins//Parallel_Dsub_Pins.gif
Mechanical Issues:
If you've got a lot of eggs in the one basket, let's make it a
robust basket.
I'd use cable-to-cable connectors as shown in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Parallel_Dsub_Pins/Dsub_Safety.jpg
Install hoods on both connectors to immobilize wires as they
exit the rear of the connector shell. As a general rule, we
don't use anything smaller than 8-32 screws for structural
attach . . . this is no exception. Instead of relying on the
standard 4-40 hardware that usually holds d-subs together,
use safety wire as shown to maintain connection. You could
use the stock hardware AND safety wire . . . but don't
do it without the safety wire.
Having said all this, there ARE connectors out there that
are "more suited" in the eyes of my contemporaries. Mil-C-38999
series connectors have a variety of pin combinations that
would lend themselves to a "cleaner" installation. These
will be much larger, MUCH more expensive and require a
variety of expensive tools for assembly. I'd certainly
use them in a Beechjet . . . but I think the baling-wire-
and-sheet-metal approach described here is a satisfactory
alternative.
Using the techniques described above, your odds of successful
and trouble free installation of connector in a high-value
wire bundle are very good.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Johnson <ricklj@silverstar.com>
Could someone point me in the right direction? I would like to buy some
extra terminals (Molex terminal 4366-GL) for my Icom A200 radio. I need
to practice soldering/crimping before I start on the real thing. Does
anyone know of an outlet were I can purchase them? Thanks!
rick johnson
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: | Starters: Sky-Tec/B&C/Magnaflite... Setting the Record |
Straight
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rich Chiappe <service@skytecair.com>
On 1/3/200 Bob wrote Re: AeroElectric-List: Sky-Tec starter:
--> If getting the best starter wasn't an option for me, then
adding the run-on eliminator would be a good idea. Bob . . .
It was a lovely implication that the Sky-Tec PM starter wasn't the best for the
customer's application. A bold jab, Bob. It's too bad we can't keep things
on this board geared toward matters of fact and not opinion.
Here are some facts about Sky-Tec starters to help clear up some of the misconceptions
I've been reading on this board for close to a year (plus) now:
First of all, not all Sky-Tec starters are the same. In short, we manufacture
two basic types of Lycoming starter: Permanent Magnet "Flyweight(tm)" (LS & PM)
starters and wound-field "Hi-Torque" (HT and HTI) starters. Each has distinct
advantages and trade-offs. As has been noted on this board, the LS and PM
starters achieve their incredible weight savings (only 7.8 lbs) by utilizing
a permanent magnet motor. So while it offers incredible torque and unmatched
weight, the permanent magnet motor will draw more current than most on initial
in-rush (the split second required to get the starter motor turning initially).
This increased current draw is not a problem for the vast majority of aircraft
because most have electrical systems more than capable of the incremental
load (which explains why we've sold more LS/PM starters than any other). The
LS/PM utilize brass bushings and a plastic stationary gear and pivot arm which
some have implied make the starter less durable (metal must be better than plastic,
right?). Nothing could be further from the truth. In twelve years of
manufacturing lightweight starters, Sky-Tec has NEVER seen a brass bushing or
plastic stationary gear (or pivot arm) fail - NEVER - ZERO - ZILCH. We could
have engineered the use of heavier/more expensive all ball bearings/metal gears/metal
pivot arms, etc. to be sure. But why? The result would be a heavier
and more expensive starter. To us, that didn't make sense at the time and never
will. Bottom line: If your application is a weekend flyer who is sensitive
to cost and weight (and your aircraft electrical system is near par), the LS
& PM is nearly always the best starter for you. We have more than 20,000 LS/PM's
out there - they work very well and those that have them LOVE them in nearly
all cases (as evidenced in fact by the steady increase in their sales year
after year, their use as OEM starters on most aircraft and Lycoming factory).
The Sky-Tec Hi-Torque series of starters, on the other hand, utilize wound-field
motors that draw less current but tend to weigh just a little more than the
permanent magnet types (8.5 lbs for the HT and 9.4 lbs for the HTI - which is
1.7/0.8 lbs. lighter, respectively than the B&C). The HT/HTI's are all steel
construction and all ball bearing construction so please don't let someone tell
you that all "Sky-Tec starters" (generic/plural) use bushings and plastic parts.
Truth is some do and some don't, as it turns out. It depends on the intended
application of the particular model of starter. If rugged, steel construction
is required by your application (bush operators, helicopters, seaplanes,
charter operators, severe applications, etc.) then the HT and HTI are the way
to go.
If your application utilizes dual electronic ignitions (no impulse coupler or retard
points available) and sufficient provision has not been made for voltage
supply during initial starting, you will find the High-Torque Inline Lycoming
(HTI also known as the "NL" model) starter to be the best starter for your application.
Any starter, regardless of brand, can break on a kickback. Permanent
magnet starters may pull the voltage down below the ignition system's minimum
tolerance and could causing a ill-timed spark event. However, the High-Torque
inline both draws less current and has an internal kickback protection system
(field replaceable shear pin) that will enable you to avoid the damage and
expense of a broken starter or should a kickback occur, enable you to repair
your starter in the field while you fix your ignition timing/voltage problem.
As an aside, the High-Torque Inline Lycoming starter also sports a sleek, inline
form that allows it to fit applications that would otherwise preclude someone
from using any lightweight starter (RG Cessnas, A/C'd Pipers, etc.) making
it pretty much the only 'universal' lightweight starter capable of starting
just about any Lycoming-powered aircraft (-235 through -720). So if your application
is a tight fit (Cardinal RG, Falco, etc.), the HTI is the best starter
for you.
In addition, Sky-Tec also manufactures Continental and Franklin starters and tendencies
and features of one model do not necessarily translate across the line
to other models. Again, each is designed to be the best for a particular application
and may utilize different motor architectures, gear reduction and other
variables.
If we want to discuss which is "the best" general Lycoming starter in the industry,
Sky-Tec will gladly put our new High-Torque Inline Lycoming starter against
all comers for torque, ruggedness, low current draw, light weight, fit, features,
performance and price/value.
A note on Magnaflite regarding the question on a previous post. I would simply
caution that anyone considering purchasing a Magnaflite right now do some quick
research into their recent Bendix recall before buying into their "lightest/cheapest"
pitch. As far as I can tell, the Magnaflite will always be the cheapest
lightweight starter available because it is designed to be just that - the
cheapest to make. They do so by utilizing the same engagement method our grandfathers
used on their engines 50 years ago - the mechanical Bendix drive. Rarely
do motors/windings fail in starters. Typically the Bendix is the first
to go (most well before TBO). That's why Sky-Tec and B&C do not use Bendix drives.
Bendix failures account for probably 90% of "old style" starter failures
and they require constant maintenance and attention. In 2003, Kelly experienced
some problems with a supplier and suffered some issues with premature Bendix
failure. They seem to be addressing those problems and have been very up-front
with their customers from what we've heard. But the story is the same:
with a Bendix, it's not a function of "if" it's going to fail but "when" (then
again, to be fair, I guess ultimately the same is true of any mechanical device
- but our experience has proved without a doubt that electromechancal solenoid-engaged
drive will out perform the old Bendix by a long shot.
And finally, for all board posters that have questions/concerns about Sky-Tec starters,
please do not ever hesitate to call us and ask for me personally. I
try my best to tend to this board periodically but can only do so as I find time.
At our pace of sales, extra time is becoming rarer and rarer. I will try
to do so to keep up the quality of information available on this board as I can,
but if you prefer to get instant answers, please feel free to call me.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Here is how to get in touch with me:
- Rich Chiappe
Sky-Tec
800-476-7896
richc@skytecair.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Setting the Record Straight
| Subject: | Re: Starters: Sky-Tec/B&C/Magnaflite... |
Setting the Record Straight
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Trudy Ettelson" <tettelso@socal.devry.edu>
** Reply Requested When Convenient **
Please remove me from your list. I receive thousands of blind copies
from your list and others of its kind, which I don't need. I am an
English professor at DeVry University and am not in the aerospace
industry.> service@skytecair.com 01/07/04 10:10AM >>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rich Chiappe
<service@skytecair.com>
On 1/3/200 Bob wrote Re: AeroElectric-List: Sky-Tec starter:
--> If getting the best starter wasn't an option for me, then
adding the run-on eliminator would be a good idea. Bob . . .
It was a lovely implication that the Sky-Tec PM starter wasn't the best
for the customer's application. A bold jab, Bob. It's too bad we can't
keep things on this board geared toward matters of fact and not
opinion.
Here are some facts about Sky-Tec starters to help clear up some of the
misconceptions I've been reading on this board for close to a year
(plus) now:
First of all, not all Sky-Tec starters are the same. In short, we
manufacture two basic types of Lycoming starter: Permanent Magnet
"Flyweight(tm)" (LS & PM) starters and wound-field "Hi-Torque" (HT and
HTI) starters. Each has distinct advantages and trade-offs. As has
been noted on this board, the LS and PM starters achieve their
incredible weight savings (only 7.8 lbs) by utilizing a permanent magnet
motor. So while it offers incredible torque and unmatched weight, the
permanent magnet motor will draw more current than most on initial
in-rush (the split second required to get the starter motor turning
initially). This increased current draw is not a problem for the vast
majority of aircraft because most have electrical systems more than
capable of the incremental load (which explains why we've sold more
LS/PM starters than any other). The LS/PM utilize brass bushings and a
plastic stationary gear and pivot arm which some have implied make the
starter less durable (m!
etal must be better than plastic, right?). Nothing could be further
from the truth. In twelve years of manufacturing lightweight starters,
Sky-Tec has NEVER seen a brass bushing or plastic stationary gear (or
pivot arm) fail - NEVER - ZERO - ZILCH. We could have engineered the
use of heavier/more expensive all ball bearings/metal gears/metal pivot
arms, etc. to be sure. But why? The result would be a heavier and
more expensive starter. To us, that didn't make sense at the time and
never will. Bottom line: If your application is a weekend flyer who is
sensitive to cost and weight (and your aircraft electrical system is
near par), the LS & PM is nearly always the best starter for you. We
have more than 20,000 LS/PM's out there - they work very well and those
that have them LOVE them in nearly all cases (as evidenced in fact by
the steady increase in their sales year after year, their use as OEM
starters on most aircraft and Lycoming factory).
The Sky-Tec Hi-Torque series of starters, on the other hand, utilize
wound-field motors that draw less current but tend to weigh just a
little more than the permanent magnet types (8.5 lbs for the HT and 9.4
lbs for the HTI - which is 1.7/0.8 lbs. lighter, respectively than the
B&C). The HT/HTI's are all steel construction and all ball bearing
construction so please don't let someone tell you that all "Sky-Tec
starters" (generic/plural) use bushings and plastic parts. Truth is
some do and some don't, as it turns out. It depends on the intended
application of the particular model of starter. If rugged, steel
construction is required by your application (bush operators,
helicopters, seaplanes, charter operators, severe applications, etc.)
then the HT and HTI are the way to go.
If your application utilizes dual electronic ignitions (no impulse
coupler or retard points available) and sufficient provision has not
been made for voltage supply during initial starting, you will find the
High-Torque Inline Lycoming (HTI also known as the "NL" model) starter
to be the best starter for your application. Any starter, regardless of
brand, can break on a kickback. Permanent magnet starters may pull the
voltage down below the ignition system's minimum tolerance and could
causing a ill-timed spark event. However, the High-Torque inline both
draws less current and has an internal kickback protection system (field
replaceable shear pin) that will enable you to avoid the damage and
expense of a broken starter or should a kickback occur, enable you to
repair your starter in the field while you fix your ignition
timing/voltage problem. As an aside, the High-Torque Inline Lycoming
starter also sports a sleek, inline form that allows it to fit
applications that wo!
uld otherwise preclude someone from using any lightweight starter (RG
Cessnas, A/C'd Pipers, etc.) making it pretty much the only 'universal'
lightweight starter capable of starting just about any Lycoming-powered
aircraft (-235 through -720). So if your application is a tight fit
(Cardinal RG, Falco, etc.), the HTI is the best starter for you.
In addition, Sky-Tec also manufactures Continental and Franklin
starters and tendencies and features of one model do not necessarily
translate across the line to other models. Again, each is designed to
be the best for a particular application and may utilize different motor
architectures, gear reduction and other variables.
If we want to discuss which is "the best" general Lycoming starter in
the industry, Sky-Tec will gladly put our new High-Torque Inline
Lycoming starter against all comers for torque, ruggedness, low current
draw, light weight, fit, features, performance and price/value.
A note on Magnaflite regarding the question on a previous post. I
would simply caution that anyone considering purchasing a Magnaflite
right now do some quick research into their recent Bendix recall before
buying into their "lightest/cheapest" pitch. As far as I can tell, the
Magnaflite will always be the cheapest lightweight starter available
because it is designed to be just that - the cheapest to make. They do
so by utilizing the same engagement method our grandfathers used on
their engines 50 years ago - the mechanical Bendix drive. Rarely do
motors/windings fail in starters. Typically the Bendix is the first to
go (most well before TBO). That's why Sky-Tec and B&C do not use
Bendix drives. Bendix failures account for probably 90% of "old style"
starter failures and they require constant maintenance and attention.
In 2003, Kelly experienced some problems with a supplier and suffered
some issues with premature Bendix failure. They seem to be addressing
those prob!
lems and have been very up-front with their customers from what we've
heard. But the story is the same: with a Bendix, it's not a function
of "if" it's going to fail but "when" (then again, to be fair, I guess
ultimately the same is true of any mechanical device - but our
experience has proved without a doubt that electromechancal
solenoid-engaged drive will out perform the old Bendix by a long shot.
And finally, for all board posters that have questions/concerns about
Sky-Tec starters, please do not ever hesitate to call us and ask for me
personally. I try my best to tend to this board periodically but can
only do so as I find time. At our pace of sales, extra time is becoming
rarer and rarer. I will try to do so to keep up the quality of
information available on this board as I can, but if you prefer to get
instant answers, please feel free to call me.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Here is how to get in touch with me:
- Rich Chiappe
Sky-Tec
800-476-7896
richc@skytecair.com
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: Molex terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: plaurence@the-beach.net
try digikey or mouser
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Single connector for instrument panel? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
thanks
do not archive
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Single connector for instrument panel?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:16 AM 1/7/2004 +1100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian"
><ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
>
>
>I think that I already know the answer to this question, however I am
>considering installing a single connector between the firewall and the
>instrument panel in my Jabiru, so that I can easily remove the panel from
>the plane, without disconnecting all the switches on the panel, and the
>radios etc.
>
>I know that it could be a point of failure, however I wonder how big this
>is, What connector should I use?
>
>(simple day VFR aircraft, that runs haply with master switch off, (self
>exciting ignition).
If it were my airplane, I'd use the D-sub connector with machined
crimp pins in every practical situation where a connector is desired.
For the application you're considering, I think the D-sub would
do just fine.
Electrical Issues:
For pins that carry continuous current over 3A, you can parallel
pins for increased capacity. Put a 6" piece of 22AWG into the
wire grip on every pin that gets paralleled with another pin. Bring
the pigtails together into a butt splice and continue on with
the larger wire. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Parallel_Dsub_Pins//Parallel_Dsub_Pins.gif
Mechanical Issues:
If you've got a lot of eggs in the one basket, let's make it a
robust basket.
I'd use cable-to-cable connectors as shown in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Parallel_Dsub_Pins/Dsub_Safety.jpg
Install hoods on both connectors to immobilize wires as they
exit the rear of the connector shell. As a general rule, we
don't use anything smaller than 8-32 screws for structural
attach . . . this is no exception. Instead of relying on the
standard 4-40 hardware that usually holds d-subs together,
use safety wire as shown to maintain connection. You could
use the stock hardware AND safety wire . . . but don't
do it without the safety wire.
Having said all this, there ARE connectors out there that
are "more suited" in the eyes of my contemporaries. Mil-C-38999
series connectors have a variety of pin combinations that
would lend themselves to a "cleaner" installation. These
will be much larger, MUCH more expensive and require a
variety of expensive tools for assembly. I'd certainly
use them in a Beechjet . . . but I think the baling-wire-
and-sheet-metal approach described here is a satisfactory
alternative.
Using the techniques described above, your odds of successful
and trouble free installation of connector in a high-value
wire bundle are very good.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------------------
RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
local and long distance call packages. We also
offer converged multimedia and data services through
our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
This message is for the named person's use only.
Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
this message, and notify us immediately.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the message states
otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
be the views of any such entity.
----------------------------------------------------
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: | Stein Bruch Alive Redux |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hebeard2@aol.com
Guys,
Many thanks for the reassurance received from many of you. I was able to
access Stein's website, and sent him another e-mail last night. Waiting for a
reply.
Harley E. Beard
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: Stein Bruch alive? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
In a message dated 1/6/04 3:03:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, Hebeard2@aol.com
writes:
<< Does anyone have any information regarding Stein? >>
He must be alive because he posted something to this list just a few days ago.
Do not archive.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, firewall forward
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: single connector for instrument panel? |
Jabiru J400
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com> Jabiru
J400
Would one of the big 15 pin Molex connectors work well for this application?
Dave Morris
At 04:16 PM 1/6/2004, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian"
><ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
>
>
>I think that I already know the answer to this question, however I am
>considering installing a single connector between the firewall and the
>instrument panel in my Jabiru, so that I can easily remove the panel from
>the plane, without disconnecting all the switches on the panel, and the
>radios etc.
>
>I know that it could be a point of failure, however I wonder how big this
>is, What connector should I use?
>
>(simple day VFR aircraft, that runs haply with master switch off, (self
>exciting ignition).
>
>Thanks
>
>Ian Scott
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
>local and long distance call packages. We also
>offer converged multimedia and data services through
>our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
>Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
>
>This message is for the named person's use only.
>
>Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
>this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
>this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
>to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
>message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
>this message, and notify us immediately.
>
>Any views expressed in this message are those of the
>individual sender, except where the message states
>otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
>be the views of any such entity.
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: single connector for instrument panel? Jabiru |
J400
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
I used a pair of CPC series connectors for my panel and they worked very
well. They look like the "Cannon" connectors on big planes but they are
plastic and much cheaper. They use the same pins and tools as the dsub
type connectors.
Along with removal, another BIG plus for me was that I could wire the
airplane separately from the panel. Instead of having sheaves of wires
dangling off both sides of the fuselage, each wire got immediately
plugged into the connector and finished. Same with the panel, but on the
bench.
The chief problem with the CPC is that the biggest wire you can use is
#20. I used the fuse block system off of the panel so the wires in my
case are just #22 radio and instrument feeds.
Mouser and DigiKey both carry them. They use the "109" pins. The tools
can come from B&C.
Jim Bean
RV-8
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: | Buttsplice vs. Solder Heatshrink? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "hollandm" <hollandm@pacbell.net>
My question is dirt simple. Is there any particular reason why a solder joint,
covered by heat shrink, isn't as good or functional as a butt splice?
Perhaps I'm missing something but the solder joint would seem to be simpler, lighter
and electrically equivalent to a compression fitted splice.
Looking at having to do a lot of joining or two or more wires!
Mike Holland
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: | Battery Bus Lead Length? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "hollandm" <hollandm@pacbell.net>
In Bob's drawings, the battery bus feed length is specified as "6-inches or less".
Since the battery and bus are on opposite sides of the firewall this may
be a difficult specification to meet thus how critical is this?
What factors, other than providing a sufficient size wire for the loads anticipated
and appropriate circuit protection, enter into this spec.?
Thanks
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: | Starters: Setting the Record Straight |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rich Chiappe
<service@skytecair.com>
On 1/3/200 Bob wrote:
--> If getting the best starter wasn't an option for me, then
adding the run-on eliminator would be a good idea. Bob . . .
It was a lovely implication that the Sky-Tec PM starter wasn't the best
for the customer's application. A bold jab, Bob. It's too bad we can't
keep things on this board geared toward matters of fact and not
opinion.
Rich my friend, I've never said that any Sky-Tec product wasn't
the best or worst for anyone's APPLICATION. In fact, I've often said
that Sky-Tec products are by-and-large good value . . . but
I'll support my statement about the "best starter there is"
by noting that while Sky-Tec starters are the product of
choice for many OEMs, they ALL looked at the B&C starter years
before Sky-Tec existed. They all offered to buy them in volume at
prices below cost of manufacturing . . . TCM even demanded
an exclusive on the IO-240 starter! They had some fixed notion
of acceptable price irrespective of performance. Nobody could
tear up a B&C starter on the test stand and they all tried.
I'm pleased that Sky-Tec was able to address the OEM notion
of proper pricing. Irrespective of what you or I might
say about their choice, it WAS a demonstrable quantum jump
in quality for users of those engines.
B&C starters run routinely and predictably to TBO on Robinson
helicopters and come back for overhaul looking like they'd
run another 2000 hours.
We're still hearing stories from Sky-Tec customers about
recurring incidents of problems that point to what may
be a combination of engineering or manufacturing problems.
We're assured by Sky-Tec that these are isolated incidents
and/or have been addressed with design changes . . . and
that's a good thing to hear . . . won't argue with it.
But if I hear of another multiple-failure event from
a Sky-Tec customer, you can bet yer sweet bippy, I'll
"jab" you again. My job is not to be spokesperson for
Sky-Tec, B&C or any other manufacturer . . . but to
hold them to the standards that customers are entitled
to expect.
When I used the term "best", it was akin to comparing
an Olds with a Chevy 6-cyl stick . . . there are marked
differences in design and manufacturing philosophies but
is the 6-cyl a "poor value"??? I drove nothing but
4 and 6-cyl, no frills cars until I bought my present vehicle,
a EFI-V6 GMC van with lots of extras. It depends on whether
one's mission and budget comfortably allows some risk of
inconvenience or discomfort in trade for difference in cost
of ownership of competing products.
Similarly, Firestones are product-of-choice for a lot of car
manufacturers but they're the only brand of tire for
which I've personally experienced tread separation . . .
TWICE. I no longer buy them myself but neither do I refuse
to take out a rental car fitted with Firestones.
If you can buy a set of top-flight Firestones for a good
price, they can be honestly said to be a "good value" . . .
but may I suggest that assessing "value" and "quality" are
different tasks.
What started this thread was a discussion about delayed
starter disengagement which is a characteristic of ANY
brand of PM starter when the builder elects to use an
off-board contactor for improved start switch life.
Here are some facts about Sky-Tec starters to help clear up some of the
misconceptions I've been reading on this board for close to a year
(plus) now:
First of all, not all Sky-Tec starters are the same. In short, we
manufacture two basic types of Lycoming starter: Permanent Magnet
"Flyweight(tm)" (LS & PM) starters and wound-field "Hi-Torque" (HT and
HTI) starters. Each has distinct advantages and trade-offs. As has
been noted on this board, the LS and PM starters achieve their
incredible weight savings (only 7.8 lbs) by utilizing a permanent magnet
motor. So while it offers incredible torque . . .
. . . "incredible" is difficult to quantify. Can you offer
comparative measured data?
. . . and unmatched weight, the
permanent magnet motor will draw more current than most on initial
in-rush (the split second required to get the starter motor turning
initially). This increased current draw is not a problem for the vast
majority of aircraft because most have electrical systems more than
capable of the incremental load (which explains why we've sold more
LS/PM starters than any other).
The "split second" is tens of milliseconds before the armature
is accelerated into motion that the motor draws "locked rotor
current". This is on the order of 500-700 amps depending
on ship's wiring, battery condition and style of starter. Until
twitchy processor based engine accessories came along, virtually
every user could happily ignore this short lived event.
This can happen with ANY starter brand or configuration depending
on ship's wiring, battery size and condition. Given that the vast
majority of aircraft are not fitted with electronics having
this vulnerability, it only makes sense and it's to your credit
that the lower cost, lighter technology has enjoyed a relatively
happy service history in the marketplace.
The LS/PM utilize brass bushings and a
plastic stationary gear and pivot arm which some have implied make the
starter less durable (metal must be better than plastic, right?).
Nothing could be further
from the truth. In twelve years of manufacturing lightweight starters,
Sky-Tec has NEVER seen a brass bushing or plastic stationary gear (or
pivot arm) fail - NEVER - ZERO - ZILCH. We could have engineered the
use of heavier/more expensive all ball bearings/metal gears/metal pivot
arms, etc. to be sure. But why? The result would be a heavier and
more expensive starter. To us, that didn't make sense at the time and
never will. Bottom line: If your application is a weekend flyer who is
sensitive to cost and weight (and your aircraft electrical system is
near par), the LS & PM is nearly always the best starter for you. We
have more than 20,000 LS/PM's out there - they work very well and those
that have them LOVE them in nearly all cases (as evidenced in fact by
the steady increase in their sales year after year, their use as OEM
starters on most aircraft and Lycoming factory).
No argument there . . .
The Sky-Tec Hi-Torque series of starters, on the other hand, utilize
wound-field motors that draw less current but tend to weigh just a
little more than the permanent magnet types (8.5 lbs for the HT and 9.4
lbs for the HTI - which is 1.7/0.8 lbs. lighter, respectively than the
B&C). The HT/HTI's are all steel construction and all ball bearing
construction so please don't let someone tell you that all "Sky-Tec
starters" (generic/plural) use bushings and plastic parts. Truth is
some do and some don't, as it turns out. It depends on the intended
application of the particular model of starter. If rugged, steel
construction is required by your application (bush operators,
helicopters, seaplanes, charter operators, severe applications, etc.)
then the HT and HTI are the way to go.
If your application utilizes dual electronic ignitions (no impulse
coupler or retard points available) and sufficient provision has not
been made for voltage supply during initial starting, you will find the
High-Torque Inline Lycoming (HTI also known as the "NL" model) starter
to be the best starter for your application. Any starter, regardless of
brand, can break on a kickback. Permanent magnet starters may pull the
voltage down below the ignition system's minimum tolerance and could
causing a ill-timed spark event. However, the High-Torque inline both
draws less current and has an internal kickback protection system (field
replaceable shear pin) that will enable you to avoid the damage and
expense of a broken starter or should a kickback occur, enable you to
repair your starter in the field while you fix your ignition
timing/voltage problem.
Wasn't aware of the field-replaceable shear pin. Sounds
like a good move.
. . . . As an aside, the High-Torque Inline Lycoming
starter also sports a sleek, inline form that allows it to fit
applications that would otherwise preclude someone from using any
lightweight starter (RG Cessnas, A/C'd Pipers, etc.) making it
pretty much the only 'universal' lightweight starter capable of starting
just about any Lycoming-powered aircraft (-235 through -720). So if
your application is a tight fit (Cardinal RG, Falco, etc.), the HTI
is the best starter for you.
The B&C Lyc starters were STC'd on the 235 through 720
right out of the gate. This is one reason why they started
with and retained the wound field design. The other was
lower locked-rotor current.
In addition, Sky-Tec also manufactures Continental and Franklin
starters and tendencies and features of one model do not necessarily
translate across the line to other models. Again, each is designed to
be the best for a particular application and may utilize different motor
architectures, gear reduction and other variables.
If we want to discuss which is "the best" general Lycoming starter in
the industry, Sky-Tec will gladly put our new High-Torque Inline
Lycoming starter against all comers for torque, ruggedness, low current
draw, light weight, fit, features, performance and price/value.
I'd LIKE to discuss it . . . but with data. Have you compared
your products with others on the data acquisition test stand?
I've invited Bill to sponsor laboratory testing on the full range of
starters in the marketplace and plot them all onto one
piece of paper. He's got a Lycoming shell that could
be fitted with loads for dynamic testing of starters. He
also has a stock of Prestolite "pig" starters that could
provide a testing baseline. I object to the non-quantified
terms like "incredible" and would really like to see
some comparison of the full range of products in the
marketplace.
Bill hasn't shown an interest in sponsoring this kind
of activity. Hmmmm . . . wonder if Aviation Consumer
or Light Plane Maintenance would sponsor an article?
A note on Magnaflite regarding the question on a previous post. I
would simply caution that anyone considering purchasing a Magnaflite
right now do some quick research into their recent Bendix recall before
buying into their "lightest/cheapest" pitch. As far as I can tell, the
Magnaflite will always be the cheapest lightweight starter available
because it is designed to be just that - the cheapest to make. They do
so by utilizing the same engagement method our grandfathers used on
their engines 50 years ago - the mechanical Bendix drive. Rarely do
motors/windings fail in starters. Typically the Bendix is the first to
go (most well before TBO). That's why Sky-Tec and B&C do not use
Bendix drives. Bendix failures account for probably 90% of "old style"
starter failures and they require constant maintenance and attention.
In 2003, Kelly experienced some problems with a supplier and suffered
some issues with premature Bendix failure. They seem to be addressing
those problems and have been very up-front with their customers from what we've
heard. But the story is the same: with a Bendix, it's not a function
of "if" it's going to fail but "when" (then again, to be fair, I guess
ultimately the same is true of any mechanical device - but our
experience has proved without a doubt that electromechancal
solenoid-engaged drive will out perform the old Bendix by a long shot.
Agreed. I couldn't recommend an inertia-engaged
staring motor on anything but garden tractors
and outboards . . .
And finally, for all board posters that have questions/concerns about
Sky-Tec starters, please do not ever hesitate to call us and ask for me
personally. I try my best to tend to this board periodically but can
only do so as I find time. At our pace of sales, extra time is becoming
rarer and rarer. I will try to do so to keep up the quality of
information available on this board as I can, but if you prefer to get
instant answers, please feel free to call me.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Here is how to get in touch with me:
- Rich Chiappe
Sky-Tec
800-476-7896
richc@skytecair.com
As always Rich, I appreciate your time and support
of this List's charter to shine the light of data
and understanding through the fog of marketing
hyperbole and hangar legends. It can only serve to
make us all better at what we do.
By the way, I think there is a really good chance
that Raytheon Aircraft will be offering a full range
of testing services at what I trust will be attractive
prices to all comers by the end of 2004. There's been
a lot of grumbling amongst the bean-counters about how
our test labs have become a financial albatrosses. Years
ago, I used to enjoy access to Beech's labs in an
informal, over the counter basis. I could call out for
a window of opportunity and get in for a quick look-see
at my product's environmental vitals and walk out with
good data and a $75/hr tab to pay. I've got a charter and
encouragement from RAC management to see if we can renew that kind
of relationship with local industries who do not have
but can use such facilities.
It will probably be more like $150/hr today. Lab testing
will include the full range of DO-160 and MIL-STD-810
environmental tests . . . all or any part. I'm hoping
that we can attract/encourage a lot of developmental
investigation that often goes un-explored only to bite both
manufacturer and consumer at a later date.
I'm too close to retirement at RAC to consider more
than an assisting role but I may become a marketing
representative later on. Shucks, I've got a few products
of my own I'd like to shake, rattle, and zap if I
could get the right price! Keep us in mind should
you have need of such services. We've got some of the
best hammers in the business for beating on things to
see how well they are built!
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: | Keeping Cables Separated |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Don Boardman <dboardm3@twcny.rr.com>
Hi Bob,
PS Engineering in the installation manual for their PMA4000 Series Selector
Panel and Intercom system under NOISE state:
"Radiated signals can be a factor when low level microphone signals are
"bundled" with current carrying power wires. Keep these (I assume they mean
the mic and phone) cables physically separated."
I planed on running all wiring from mid-ship forward to behind the panel in
the same "tray" based on what I THOUGHT ??? has been suggested on the list.
Some words of wisdom please.
Thanks,
Don B
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: | Low Density 9-PIN D-Sub Dust cover.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy@att.net>
I'm not sure there is such a thing..... a black plastic cover for 9-PIN D-Sub connectors..
but I am curious if anyone has a known source for such an item.
I am planning to install 9-PIN D-Sub connectors on my instrument panel so I can
run a serial data cable to a laptop computer and record GRT EIS data and calibrate/update
the Dynon EFIS-D10 data. Leaving the D-subs exposed on the panel
is un-sitely and I would like to have black plastic covers to mask these and
keep dirt/dust away from the exposed pins. More of a cosmetic thing than anything
else.....
Any links, part nos. or manufacturer's phone number would be greatly appreciated...
TIA,
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
RV-7A N174JL reserved
www.jacklockamy.com
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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! --
|