---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 02/24/04: 42 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:17 AM - Re: Garmin 430 install manual (ivorphillips) 2. 12:18 AM - Garmin 430 and Diplexer/splitter (Jeffrey W. Skiba) 3. 05:03 AM - Re: Garmin 430 and Diplexer/splitter (Alex Peterson) 4. 07:15 AM - Re: Headset noise (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 07:26 AM - Flap motor testing (Fiveonepw@aol.com) 6. 07:36 AM - Re: Two alternators-using total rated combined output (Phil Birkelbach) 7. 07:38 AM - Re: Electric fuel pump circuit (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 07:42 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Benford2@aol.com) 9. 07:49 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Nightingale Michael) 10. 07:55 AM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 08:02 AM - Load Dumps (George Braly) 12. 08:10 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Cy Galley) 13. 08:32 AM - metalic paint (Ron Raby) 14. 08:34 AM - Re: Pass during flight test (Paul Messinger) 15. 08:55 AM - ANR headsets (Ron Lee) 16. 09:25 AM - Re: ANR headsets (Matt Prather) 17. 09:26 AM - Re: metalic paint (F1Rocket@comcast.net) 18. 09:44 AM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (George Braly) 19. 09:48 AM - Re: metalic paint (Ron Raby) 20. 09:54 AM - Re: Two alternators-using total rated combined output (David Carter) 21. 10:24 AM - Re: metalic paint (Jeff Hildebrand) 22. 10:39 AM - Re: metalic paint (F1Rocket@comcast.net) 23. 11:09 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Fiveonepw@aol.com) 24. 11:37 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Dan Branstrom) 25. 11:47 AM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two bat (Ken Harrill) 26. 12:38 PM - Re: Two alternators-using total rated combined output (BobsV35B@aol.com) 27. 01:27 PM - Re: Flap motor testing (Fiveonepw@aol.com) 28. 02:08 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (Jim Stone) 29. 03:07 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two (Mickey Coggins) 30. 04:18 PM - Re: Garmin 430 install manual (David Schaefer) 31. 05:11 PM - Re: Dual fuel pumps (czechsix@juno.com) 32. 05:49 PM - Re: Electric fuel pump circuit (Charlie Kuss) 33. 06:04 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (GMC) 34. 06:04 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 35. 07:18 PM - Re: ANR headsets (Lowell Fitt) 36. 07:18 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (John Slade) 37. 07:26 PM - Flap motors and Fuel pumps (Dale Martin) 38. 08:09 PM - Re: metalic paint (Ron Raby) 39. 08:33 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (Dan Branstrom) 40. 08:47 PM - Re: Flap motor testing (James E. Clark) 41. 09:50 PM - Garmin 430, where to purchase (Colt Seavers) 42. 10:10 PM - Re: Garmin 430, where to purchase (richard@riley.net) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:17:40 AM PST US From: "ivorphillips" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "ivorphillips" I can send it as a PDF file if you want? let me know regards Ivor Phillips XS486 London UK CM Installed,working on rudder cables, trial fit top and wings ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" > > I seem to remember that there was somewhere to download the install manual > for garmin products in particular the 430? But I can not find it on there > site, Anybody know where I can download this ?? > > Thanks > Jeff. > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:18:06 AM PST US From: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 and Diplexer/splitter --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" Quick question, On a Garmin 430 or 530 for that matter is a Diplexer/splitter required if you have Bob Archer (like the one found at http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/vorwingtipantenna/plans24bit.jpg ) Wing tip NAV antennas ?? One in each wing tip Total of TWO. I am trying to get a hold of an install manual to confirm this for my self but a recent contestation brought up the topic and would like answer faster than I will probably have my hands on an install manual Thanks Jeff. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:03:23 AM PST US From: "Alex Peterson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 and Diplexer/splitter --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > > Quick question, > > On a Garmin 430 or 530 for that matter is a Diplexer/splitter > required if you have Bob Archer (like the one found at > http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/vorwingtipantenna/plans24 bit.jpg ) Wing tip NAV antennas ?? One in each wing tip Total of TWO. Is the second nav antenna for a second nav radio? If so, you need one coax from one nav antenna brought to a splitter near the 430, then a splitter to feed the nav/loc and gs portions of the 430. I got my splitter from my local avionics guy. Alex Peterson Maple Grove, MN RV6-A N66AP 442 hours http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/ ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:15:28 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset noise --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:14 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Hersha" > >Bob, > I connected the filter between the bus and the power lead to my #1 COM >and it worked like a charm. This was a new filter with a 10uf capacitor. I >also wired the other filter I made with the 220uf capacitor the same way to >my #2 COM. It works just as well as #1. I can't tell any difference. I >now have a quiet, clear headset with no noise...Yea!!! >Scott Hersha Success is always gratifying and I'm pleased that you're pleased. The nagging question concerns why you needed to install these filters in the first place. Unfortunately, the answer lays in detailed analysis of the differences between your system before filters were installed and other systems that do not need filters. Not trying to spotlight your efforts here Scott, but your experience is perhaps illustrative of the value in "doing a lot of things that have never been done in 200,000+ certified ships" without demonstrable reasons. We often field questions about suggestions printed in the 'Connection with respect to architecture and techniques. Folks ask why they should go to all that trouble when their C-172 doesn't have it and "it works just fine." It would be interesting to see how the variables in your project stacked up to force adding filters to the radios but it's probably not a practical effort. The main thing is that your airplane's utility, performance and comfort levels are now satisfactory to your needs. We'll have to save the harvesting of knowledge for another time and airplane. A lot of my work at RAC involves harvesting knowledge on designs already in production . . . some for 30 years or more. In these cases, fixes to problems are retrofitted to hundreds of aircraft and it's never easy or cheap. There's a plaque I saw on the wall of an engineer at one of our suppliers a few years ago that read: "If you don't have time to do it right the first time, how will you ever find the time to do it over?" Here's hoping that the remaining efforts to get your project completed are easy and cheap! Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:26:59 AM PST US From: Fiveonepw@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com Thanks to all for your thoughts on the flap fuse failure fiasco- lot's of good info... The following is long, tedious and boring (unless you're an electrical masochist!) so delete now if so inclined............ Test results using Fluke 87 MM (10 amps max. current) connected at fuse block. Flap motor (motion brand) is wired direct through a quality NKK DPDT switch of the proper rating (no relays) using 18ga. My meter does have an "analog" scale along the bottom of the display that responds very quickly, and it did go off-scale the instant the switch is first turned on indicating over 10a on start. This was also confirmed (If I did it correctly) by the min/max function that records for 100 msec. which indicated "OL" or "out of range" for the instrument. This confirms Bob's statement about inrush current. Below are my readings, as best as I could tell while watching altimeter, airspeed, MM, and an occasional glance for traffic (darn, no dang "required crew member"!) This is all done with 10 amp fuse installed. On the ground, engine off- cycled flaps repeatedly in both directions trying to get a failure. Even held switch after full travel many times for as much as 5 seconds with motor freewheeling, no failure, up or down. Traveling Down: .8a Freewheeling Down: 1.9a Traveling Up: .9a Freewheeling Up: 1.7a (anyone know if this would indicate that the motion actuator has a a friction clutch in it?) Same values with engine running (LVWM off) at idle. Tested again at runup (1700 rpm) and Down required .9 indicating harder work against propwash. Up netted .8 for same reason- looks like we're getting good data... Climbed to 3000', trimmed for 100 mph indicated. Naturally these readings are dynamic as the flaps change angle and airspeed falls, and the meter display lags a little, but after repeated attempts, the values are as close as I could get them by timing the extension/retraction - I'd release the switch while watching the meter and verify flap had stopped at proper position- if not, I'd re-do it. (again, no extra crewman!) Traveling Down at 20 degrees: 2.0a Traveling Up at 20 degrees: .7a Trimmed for 90 mph. Traveling Down at 40 degrees: 3.4a Traveling Up at 40 degrees: .7a Switch held in Up position with flaps Up in flight (motor freewheeling) 1.3a (don't know why this is different than when sitting on ground) One interesting thing I did notice was that when fully extending the flaps at 80-90mph to the point that the motor was freewheeling, or about 43 degrees on my plane, the current would rise continuously until the end of travel, going just over 5a at full extension, then as the motor began to freewheel, the current dropped to 1.2 until I released the switch- not sure how the actuator is constructed, but the air load is obviously not held by motor power alone... Flaps performed flawlessly throughout this regimen, as did the rest of the plane (omigawd what an awesome machine! - can you tell I like it?!) Now here's the clincher. I had a little time to kill before dark and did some T&G's. The first was pretty darn acceptable, flaps raised before taking off again and extended normally on approach. On the second T&G I let the bottom fall out a few feet up and got a bounce. Again raised the flaps before taking off, all is normal. On downwind I hit the flap switch at 100 mph and NOTHING! Fuse blown again! Same as both times before. Open for all ideas at this point! Mark Phillips - N51PW - ONLY 1.9 HOURS TIL I GET OUT OF MY CAGE!!!!! 8-) ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:36:03 AM PST US From: "Phil Birkelbach" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Two alternators-using total rated combined output --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach" > - What is the "simplest" way to a) have the two identical regulators > and alternators each share roughly 1/2 of the load, whatever it is, or, b) > allow 1 alternator to go up to its rated output and then have any subsequent > increase in load be picked up by the other alternator? Are there other > "approaches" to this? > > David Carter The simplest way would be to simply split the loads. Have two electrical systems. Put Comm 1 on buss 1 and Comm 2 on buss 2, put the taxi light on one side the landing light on the other. Two smaller batteries and a crossover contactor for starting, and for single alternator operations. Put a load meter on each one so you know what is going on and you've got it. This also builds in a level of redundancy. I think Bob has a 2 alternator, 2 battery system in the Z diagrams somewhere. There are probably some voltage regulators out there that can handle the load sharing but I doubt that any of it would be 'simple'. Godspeed, Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Baffles / Cowling http://www.myrv7.com ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:38:15 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric fuel pump circuit --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:45 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >Bob & Listers, > I am currently modifying your Z-11 drawing for my specific RV-8A. I > recall that you recently recommended the use of relays for circuits > drawing over 5 amps. My Airflow Performance electric fuel pump draws > about 5 - 6 amps in rush. Once running, it draws 3.5 to 4 amps. Do I need > a relay on this circuit? Would you recommend installing this circuit on > the main, endurance or battery bus? I have an engine with 1 magneto and 1 > Jeff Rose electronic ignition. Does your fuel pump run all the time or is it a backup for an engine driven pump? Bob . . . ----------------------------------------- ( Experience and common sense cannot be ) ( replaced with policy and procedures. ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:42:13 AM PST US From: Benford2@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com In a message dated 2/24/2004 8:27:55 AM Mountain Standard Time, Fiveonepw@aol.com writes: > On downwind I hit the flap switch at 100 mph and NOTHING! Fuse blown > again! Same as both times before. Open for all ideas at this point! > > Mark Phillips - N51PW - ONLY 1.9 HOURS TIL I GET OUT OF MY CAGE!!!!! 8-) > Heck, thats easy.. Just leave the meter on the circuit and look at it often. It will never blow another fuse... . Jus kiddin.. Your extensive testing is what homebuilding is all about, If it worked every time, woman and children would be constructing these things. My best guess would be the inrush shortened the life of the fuse and it finally died. Maybe a slow blow fuse or something to eat up a little amps before the fuse. I am sure Bob will know exactly what to do. Thanks again for posting your test results. Now we all know more then we knew yesterday. Ben Haas N801BH do not archive. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:49:16 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing From: "Nightingale Michael" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Nightingale Michael" Possible heat build up in fuse from first two T&G's. Is the fuse cartridge a SLO-BLOW or a standard link type? Mike 90259 wiring -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fiveonepw@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com Thanks to all for your thoughts on the flap fuse failure fiasco- lot's of good info... The following is long, tedious and boring (unless you're an electrical masochist!) so delete now if so inclined............ Test results using Fluke 87 MM (10 amps max. current) connected at fuse block. Flap motor (motion brand) is wired direct through a quality NKK DPDT switch of the proper rating (no relays) using 18ga. My meter does have an "analog" scale along the bottom of the display that responds very quickly, and it did go off-scale the instant the switch is first turned on indicating over 10a on start. This was also confirmed (If I did it correctly) by the min/max function that records for 100 msec. which indicated "OL" or "out of range" for the instrument. This confirms Bob's statement about inrush current. Below are my readings, as best as I could tell while watching altimeter, airspeed, MM, and an occasional glance for traffic (darn, no dang "required crew member"!) This is all done with 10 amp fuse installed. On the ground, engine off- cycled flaps repeatedly in both directions trying to get a failure. Even held switch after full travel many times for as much as 5 seconds with motor freewheeling, no failure, up or down. Traveling Down: .8a Freewheeling Down: 1.9a Traveling Up: .9a Freewheeling Up: 1.7a (anyone know if this would indicate that the motion actuator has a a friction clutch in it?) Same values with engine running (LVWM off) at idle. Tested again at runup (1700 rpm) and Down required .9 indicating harder work against propwash. Up netted .8 for same reason- looks like we're getting good data... Climbed to 3000', trimmed for 100 mph indicated. Naturally these readings are dynamic as the flaps change angle and airspeed falls, and the meter display lags a little, but after repeated attempts, the values are as close as I could get them by timing the extension/retraction - I'd release the switch while watching the meter and verify flap had stopped at proper position- if not, I'd re-do it. (again, no extra crewman!) Traveling Down at 20 degrees: 2.0a Traveling Up at 20 degrees: .7a Trimmed for 90 mph. Traveling Down at 40 degrees: 3.4a Traveling Up at 40 degrees: .7a Switch held in Up position with flaps Up in flight (motor freewheeling) 1.3a (don't know why this is different than when sitting on ground) One interesting thing I did notice was that when fully extending the flaps at 80-90mph to the point that the motor was freewheeling, or about 43 degrees on my plane, the current would rise continuously until the end of travel, going just over 5a at full extension, then as the motor began to freewheel, the current dropped to 1.2 until I released the switch- not sure how the actuator is constructed, but the air load is obviously not held by motor power alone... Flaps performed flawlessly throughout this regimen, as did the rest of the plane (omigawd what an awesome machine! - can you tell I like it?!) Now here's the clincher. I had a little time to kill before dark and did some T&G's. The first was pretty darn acceptable, flaps raised before taking off again and extended normally on approach. On the second T&G I let the bottom fall out a few feet up and got a bounce. Again raised the flaps before taking off, all is normal. On downwind I hit the flap switch at 100 mph and NOTHING! Fuse blown again! Same as both times before. Open for all ideas at this point! Mark Phillips - N51PW - ONLY 1.9 HOURS TIL I GET OUT OF MY CAGE!!!!! 8-) ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:37 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" batteries Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" batteries At 03:23 PM 2/22/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" > >The reason I went with two batteries is two fold. First, I have one mag >and one electronic ignition (not a electrically dependant engine). which by itself is not a driver for dual batteries >During start I thought I would use the main battery for cranking engine, >the aux battery for powering the electronic ignition (to avoid any >possibility of kick back in the event main battery voltage drops below >min required for electronic ignition). ???? Is it the stated policy/recommendation by the manufacturer of the ignition system that you do this? I'm increasingly mystified by what I perceive as an upsurge in worries about this. Perhaps it's just that the economy is improving and more folks are building airplanes with electronic ignition. Market forces notwithstanding, I'm wondering if the risk is real and whether or not the manufacturers of these products are acknowledging a shortcoming in their product's design. The low voltage event during cranking is tens of milliseconds long as the starter motor spins up. There is no good reason why you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is a rudimentary technique of circuit design. > The second reason is your >recommended battery replacement plan of once a year, I will always have >one new battery and one no more than two years old. So with that said, >don't you agree that having the ability to use both batteries to power >the essential bus to is a good idea? If so, is the solution a 2-10 >switch? Dual, rotated batteries implies two batteries of the same size. My personal favorite is the 17 a.h. VSLA/RG battery at 15 or so pounds. If you're willing to carry a 15# "penalty" for the value of improved battery performance, perhaps this no big deal. You'll have a wealth of capacity aboard that would allow you to close both battery contactors should you find that the main battery is over-taxed during alternator out ops. Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking through the requirement for dual batteries . . . Your wife may wish that the airplane had 15# more payload to bring home souvenirs of that trip to the Bahamas. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:02:11 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Dumps From: "George Braly" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" Bob, I have not tried to measure the energy in the load dump event. When I started observing some component damage, I started to try to control it. This was with an alternator pulling about 35 to 40 amps. I tried the easy stuff first, and the 5KWatt TVS device was my second effort after the 1.5K. Regards, George [PS... Bob, this is being sent as plaint text instead of HTML... should stop the gibberish from the last message.] At 10:51 AM 2/14/2004 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly > > >Bob, > >I have done a fair amount of testing a couple of years ago, working with the >TVS devices, including the larger sized versions. > >In my experience, they have not been adequate, alone, to prevent over >voltage spikes on load dumps, even from smaller alternators. > >They help. But I have blown some of them on load dumps. Have you taken any energy measurements on the load (battery)-dump phenomenon? Bob . . . --- ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:10:09 AM PST US From: "Cy Galley" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" If you are having a fuse problem because of a temporary surge, wouldn't a slo-blow fuse be in order? ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com > > Thanks to all for your thoughts on the flap fuse failure fiasco- lot's of > good info... The following is long, tedious and boring (unless you're an > electrical masochist!) so delete now if so inclined............ > > Test results using Fluke 87 MM (10 amps max. current) connected at fuse > block. Flap motor (motion brand) is wired direct through a quality NKK DPDT switch > of the proper rating (no relays) using 18ga. My meter does have an "analog" > scale along the bottom of the display that responds very quickly, and it did > go off-scale the instant the switch is first turned on indicating over 10a on > start. This was also confirmed (If I did it correctly) by the min/max function > that records for 100 msec. which indicated "OL" or "out of range" for the > instrument. This confirms Bob's statement about inrush current. Below are my > readings, as best as I could tell while watching altimeter, airspeed, MM, and an > occasional glance for traffic (darn, no dang "required crew member"!) This > is all done with 10 amp fuse installed. > > On the ground, engine off- cycled flaps repeatedly in both directions trying > to get a failure. Even held switch after full travel many times for as much > as 5 seconds with motor freewheeling, no failure, up or down. > > Traveling Down: .8a > Freewheeling Down: 1.9a > Traveling Up: .9a > Freewheeling Up: 1.7a > > (anyone know if this would indicate that the motion actuator has a a friction > clutch in it?) > > Same values with engine running (LVWM off) at idle. > > Tested again at runup (1700 rpm) and Down required .9 indicating harder work > against propwash. Up netted .8 for same reason- looks like we're getting good > data... > > Climbed to 3000', trimmed for 100 mph indicated. Naturally these readings > are dynamic as the flaps change angle and airspeed falls, and the meter display > lags a little, but after repeated attempts, the values are as close as I could > get them by timing the extension/retraction - I'd release the switch while > watching the meter and verify flap had stopped at proper position- if not, I'd > re-do it. (again, no extra crewman!) > > Traveling Down at 20 degrees: 2.0a > Traveling Up at 20 degrees: .7a > > Trimmed for 90 mph. > > Traveling Down at 40 degrees: 3.4a > Traveling Up at 40 degrees: .7a > > Switch held in Up position with flaps Up in flight (motor freewheeling) 1.3a > (don't know why this is different than when sitting on ground) > > One interesting thing I did notice was that when fully extending the flaps at > 80-90mph to the point that the motor was freewheeling, or about 43 degrees on > my plane, the current would rise continuously until the end of travel, going > just over 5a at full extension, then as the motor began to freewheel, the > current dropped to 1.2 until I released the switch- not sure how the actuator is > constructed, but the air load is obviously not held by motor power alone... > > Flaps performed flawlessly throughout this regimen, as did the rest of the > plane (omigawd what an awesome machine! - can you tell I like it?!) Now here's > the clincher. I had a little time to kill before dark and did some T&G's. The > first was pretty darn acceptable, flaps raised before taking off again and > extended normally on approach. On the second T&G I let the bottom fall out a > few feet up and got a bounce. Again raised the flaps before taking off, all is > normal. On downwind I hit the flap switch at 100 mph and NOTHING! Fuse blown > again! Same as both times before. Open for all ideas at this point! > > Mark Phillips - N51PW - ONLY 1.9 HOURS TIL I GET OUT OF MY CAGE!!!!! 8-) > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:32:04 AM PST US From: "Ron Raby" Subject: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" To everyone: I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have mounted on the inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the side, where the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish. Thanks Ron Raby Lancair ES ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:34:53 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pass during flight test --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" Yes I have read that AC and the Local FAA flight standards office said such permission was extremely unlikely to be allowed (never done here per the rep) as they see no reason why audio and/or video cameras will not do a better job etc etc. You would need to justify why other recording methods cannot be used and also that the measurements must be made during the initial testing phase. Cost is not generally a valid reason for a second person. But your point is well taken. However you will need a specific written exception as AC 20-27F states. In addition permission from your insurance Co will also be needed (assuming you have insurance) as normally more than one in the fly off phase will invalidate your insurance even if you have FAA approval. Thus its possible in theory to get both written permission and insurance Co permission for a second person for a specific flight test. The FAA's general position as told to me is they have never given permission and see no need to do so for SEL experimental acft during initial flight test period. Personally I use a video camera mounted to view the panel and the audio tied into the intercom. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor overload? > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" > > Here's what Advisory Circular 20-27F, Certification and Operation of Amateur > Built Aircraft says about it taking someone along during the flight test > period: > > 13. PHASE 1 FLIGHT TESTING. > e. Restrictions > (1) Carrying Passengers. You may not carry passengers while you are > restricted to the flight test area or during any portion of your Phase I > flight test program. We suggest you use a tape or video recorder for > recording readings and other similar tasks. If you need an additional > crewmember for a particular flight test, specify that in your application > program letter for the airworthiness certificate. We will list this need in > your operating limitations. > (2) Flight Instruction. You may not receive flight instruction during your > flight test. > > Terry > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:35 AM PST US From: "Ron Lee" Subject: AeroElectric-List: ANR headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Lee" A couple of us older guys without perfect hearing (high range) have had to return ANR headsets because we couldn't hear well on them. The problem is the audio is very bass and little treble, kind of like the person on the other end is on a distant speaker phone. We hear ok on standard headsets but wanted the ANR to preserve our hearing. The question is, is this normal or have we each gotten bad brands? ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:25:14 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ANR headsets From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" I used the "headsets inc." ANR conversion kit for my flightcom cheapies. The modules that are included replace the speakers (transducers) in each ear cup. The sound quality with this kit is far better and more intelligible than was the original (admittadly, cheap) setup. I don't see any reason why an ANR system would change the tonal balance of sounds being reproduced. Matt- VE N34RD > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Lee" > > A couple of us older guys without perfect hearing (high range) have had > to return ANR headsets because we couldn't hear well on them. The > problem is the audio is very bass and little treble, kind of like the > person on the other end is on a distant speaker phone. We hear ok on > standard headsets but wanted the ANR to preserve our hearing. The > question is, is this normal or have we each gotten bad brands? > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:26:28 AM PST US From: F1Rocket@comcast.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue metallic above on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the bottom). Randy F1 Rocket http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/ > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" > > > To everyone: > > I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was > wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have mounted on the > inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the side, where > the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish. > > Thanks > > Ron Raby > > Lancair ES > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 09:44:15 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries From: "George Braly" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" >>There is no good reason why you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is a rudimentary technique of circuit design.<< Amen. --- ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:36 AM PST US From: "Ron Raby" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" Randy My antenna's are mounted on the inside shooting through the fiberglass. I am assuming on an RV6 that the antenna's are on the outside of the plane and paint.? Thanks Ron Raby ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net > > My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue metallic above on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the bottom). > > Randy > F1 Rocket > http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/ > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" > > > > > > To everyone: > > > > I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was > > wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have mounted on the > > inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the side, where > > the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish. > > > > Thanks > > > > Ron Raby > > > > Lancair ES > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:54:31 AM PST US From: "David Carter" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Two alternators-using total rated combined output --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" Phil, thanks - I like that - is intuitively simple and sound. Are you building at DW Hooks Airport or at home? I'm over in Nederland (by Beaumont) and go to Houston frequently. David 409-722-7259 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Birkelbach" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Two alternators-using total rated combined output > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach" > > > > - What is the "simplest" way to a) have the two identical regulators > > and alternators each share roughly 1/2 of the load, whatever it is, or, b) > > allow 1 alternator to go up to its rated output and then have any > subsequent > > increase in load be picked up by the other alternator? Are there other > > "approaches" to this? > > > > David Carter > > The simplest way would be to simply split the loads. Have two electrical > systems. Put Comm 1 on buss 1 and Comm 2 on buss 2, put the taxi light on > one side the landing light on the other. Two smaller batteries and a > crossover contactor for starting, and for single alternator operations. Put > a load meter on each one so you know what is going on and you've got it. > This also builds in a level of redundancy. I think Bob has a 2 alternator, > 2 battery system in the Z diagrams somewhere. > > There are probably some voltage regulators out there that can handle the > load sharing but I doubt that any of it would be 'simple'. > > Godspeed, > > Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas > RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Baffles / Cowling > http://www.myrv7.com ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 10:24:51 AM PST US From: "Jeff Hildebrand" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Hildebrand" When we planned our metallic paint job, we had the same worries. We talked to Lancair and they said it was no problem, they have seen many planes with metallic paint and it was no issue. Jeff Hildebrand Lancair ES http://lancair.northstartraffic.ca -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Raby Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" Randy My antenna's are mounted on the inside shooting through the fiberglass. I am assuming on an RV6 that the antenna's are on the outside of the plane and paint.? Thanks Ron Raby ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net > > My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue metallic above on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the bottom). > > Randy > F1 Rocket > http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/ > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" > > > > > > To everyone: > > > > I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was > > wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have mounted on the > > inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the side, where > > the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish. > > > > Thanks > > > > Ron Raby > > > > Lancair ES > > > > > > > > > > > > > > == == == == ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 10:39:20 AM PST US From: F1Rocket@comcast.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net Yes. Sorry I missed the distinction on your question. Randy > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" > > Randy > > My antenna's are mounted on the inside shooting through the fiberglass. I am > assuming on an RV6 that the antenna's are on the outside of the plane and > paint.? > > Thanks > > Ron Raby > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net > > > > My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue metallic > above on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the > bottom). > > > > Randy > > F1 Rocket > > http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/ > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" > > > > > > > > > > To everyone: > > > > > > I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was > > > wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have mounted on > the > > > inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the side, > where > > > the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Ron Raby > > > > > > Lancair ES > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 11:09:47 AM PST US From: Fiveonepw@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com In a message dated 2/24/04 10:11:33 AM Central Standard Time, cgalley@qcbc.org writes: > If you are having a fuse problem because of a temporary surge, wouldn't a > slo-blow fuse be in order? It has only happened when least loaded- still suspect a short, somehow related to harder than normal landings each time- will have to pull floorboards to inspect all wiring, but this still doesn't explain why the flaps get all the way up, and then when I need them again find the fuse is blown. For all I know, they "could" be blowing when I first touch the switch after power ruduction on downwind- (see note on Lancair at bottom) >> Is the fuse cartridge a SLO-BLOW or a standard link type? ATC fuse in B&C fuseblock A Lancair driver here says he was popping breakers when his engine (Engineair V-8) was idling due to alternator turning very slowly (normal operating rpm for this monster is WAY above 2700!) and voltage was very low from other loads- "less volts=more current"(?) Suggested that raising flaps with engine idling (voltage low) would make current go up resulting in blow, but I never noticed a LV alert from the EIS or LVWM- anyone else heard this theory? It doesn't sit well with my prior agreements with Mr. Ohm... I think the next step is to rig a test lamp to the fuseblock output faston so I know exactly WHEN the little wire goes "poof!" Mark ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:03 AM PST US From: "Dan Branstrom" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" still doesn't explain why the flaps get all the > way up, and then when I need them again find the fuse is blown. Could there be some problem with the up limit on the flaps when under load? The stop microswitch relative to the flaps could be positioned differently in the air and on the ground. Dan Branstrom ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:57 AM PST US From: Ken Harrill teries Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two bat teries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken Harrill --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" batteries >During start I thought I would use the main battery for cranking engine, >the aux battery for powering the electronic ignition (to avoid any >possibility of kick back in the event main battery voltage drops below >min required for electronic ignition). ???? Is it the stated policy/recommendation by the manufacturer of the ignition system that you do this? I'm increasingly mystified by what I perceive as an upsurge in worries about this. Perhaps it's just that the economy is improving and more folks are building airplanes with electronic ignition. Market forces notwithstanding, I'm wondering if the risk is real and whether or not the manufacturers of these products are acknowledging a shortcoming in their product's design. The low voltage event during cranking is tens of milliseconds long as the starter motor spins up. There is no good reason why you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is a rudimentary technique of circuit design. Bob, This may be a legitimate "worry". I spent quite a bit of time and energy attempting to resolve the starting problems with my LSE ignition system. I have a permanent magnet Lycoming starter, a 17 AH battery, and I start the engine on the electronic ignition only. My engine would only start when I released the starter button. It always started, but it left me with an uneasy feeling that sometime, far away from home, it may not. The voltage (measured at the ignition module) drops to around 8 volts with the starter engaged, and the LSE does not fire at that voltage, regardless of what Klause claims. I resolved the problem for now by switching to an Odyssey battery, which does not produce quite as much voltage drop. A better solution is a B & C starter that draws less current, but that cost $$$. If I were building an airplane with two batteries, I would certainly consider starting on one and powering the electronic ignition from the other. Ken Harrill RV-6, 300 hours ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 12:38:15 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Two alternators-using total rated combined output --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 2/24/04 12:04:52 PM Central Standard Time, phil@petrasoft.net writes: The simplest way would be to simply split the loads. Have two electrical systems. Put Comm 1 on buss 1 and Comm 2 on buss 2, put the taxi light on one side the landing light on the other. Two smaller batteries and a crossover contactor for starting, and for single alternator operations. Put a load meter on each one so you know what is going on and you've got it. Good Afternoon Phil, For What It Is Worth, that is the method used by Beechcraft on the very first few Twin Beechcrafts built in the middle thirties. The only exception is that they did not normally tie the batteries together for starting. Each side was left separated. There really is very little new under the sun. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 01:27:29 PM PST US From: Fiveonepw@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com In a message dated 2/24/04 1:41:46 PM Central Standard Time, danbranstrom@verizon.net writes: > Could there be some problem with the up limit on the flaps when under load? There is no switch, either end of travel- the device has a specific stroke length and is designed to freewheel at each end. Mark - do not archive ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 02:08:43 PM PST US From: "Jim Stone" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" Bob said: ???? Is it the stated policy/recommendation by the manufacturer of the ignition system that you do this? I'm increasingly mystified by what I perceive as an upsurge in worries about this. Perhaps it's just that the economy is improving and more folks are building airplanes with electronic ignition. Market forces notwithstanding, I'm wondering if the risk is real and whether or not the manufacturers of these products are acknowledging a shortcoming in their product's design. The low voltage event during cranking is tens of milliseconds long as the starter motor spins up. There is no good reason why you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is a rudimentary technique of circuit design. Yes it is. I guess this somewhat "rare" problem is occurring due to the high inrush current that some of the super light starter motors can draw. Skytec sees the problem on a regular basis in the return of their units for repair following a kickback. As I mention earlier, if the conditions are right, i.e., its cold, battery a bit weak or old or both, and you some how find yourself with less than minimum volts to power the EI, you may have an expensive repair on your hands. A second battery is just one way to avoid it. Dual, rotated batteries implies two batteries of the same size. My personal favorite is the 17 a.h. VSLA/RG battery at 15 or so pounds. If you're willing to carry a 15# "penalty" for the value of improved battery performance, perhaps this no big deal. You'll have a wealth of capacity aboard that would allow you to close both battery contactors should you find that the main battery is over-taxed during alternator out ops. I have dual Odyssey 680s 17 ah at 15# each. Most Rockets are a bit nose heavy so an extra 5# of battery (in the rear) above the designed wt and balance figure should be a wash between loss of payload and lighter nose. Since battery power is my only electrical backup and with the kickback concern and the plan for annual replacement of a battery, it just all added up to having two identical batteries. Plenty of juice during alt. out ops. Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking through the requirement for dual batteries . . . Another solution may be to keep the main batt powering everything it normally powers with alternator operating, and have the Aux batt for use when the main batt voltage drops below a certain point. At that point just select alternate feed of the essential bus to extend your time you have to find a suitable field. Which sounds like a better way to go? Your wife may wish that the airplane had 15# more payload to bring home souvenirs of that trip to the Bahamas. Perhaps if she dropped 15#s she could bring more souvenirs back, just kidding honey. Thanks Bob, Jim. . . == == == == ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 03:07:37 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins batteries Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins batteries > Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for > e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking > through the requirement for dual batteries . . . Wow - this is interesting. I seem to have inferred from all your previous posts and the book that for people with electrically dependent engines (ignition/fuel pump) like auto conversions that two batteries were a "must". I guess this may be a case of choosing between "don't put all your eggs in one basket" vs. "put all your eggs in one basket - and watch that basket!" Do I understand correctly that you would not consider someone an idiot to fly an auto conversion with only one alternator and one battery? Thanks for sharing your wisdom! Mickey -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 QB Wings/Fuselage ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 04:18:11 PM PST US From: "David Schaefer" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" If you don't find it I can email you a copy. David RV6-A -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey W. Skiba Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" I seem to remember that there was somewhere to download the install manual for garmin products in particular the 430? But I can not find it on there site, Anybody know where I can download this ?? Thanks Jeff. ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 05:11:08 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual fuel pumps From: czechsix@juno.com --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com Hi Bob, Just an FYI for you or anyone else out there considering one of the "Bendix thump-thump" pumps....I believe you're referring to the "beer can" cylindrical pumps found on lots of Piper/other spam cans. These used to be Bendix but were bought by Facet years ago, and Facet still produces them, but the newer models now use solid-state triggering to control the solenoid for pumping action. This replaces the points that the older ones used and should prove to be much more reliable (not that they were bad to begin with)...Facet told me the design life for the newer ones is over 5000 hours. If you want to make sure you're getting one with solid-state triggering, you can tell by the "E" at the end of the part number. I'm using the #40007E, which is identical to the pump you find on your typical Piper Cherokee (#478360) except that 1) it has the solid state triggering device instead of points and 2) it has 1/4" pipe thread for the inlet/outlet fittings instead of 1/8" like the Pipe rs use. If you need the 1/8" pipe thread fittings, and want the solid state triggering, just get the #478360E model. In case anyone wonders, the reason I used this type of pump on my RV-8A instead of the little square one Vans recommends (I believe it's #40108) is because I put it in the wing root, and the shape of the "beer can" pump and its inlet/outlet locations seemed to fit better in the space available. I also like that it has a 74 micron inlet filter screen that is pretty easy to remove and clean periodically, whereas the square pump Vans uses does not have this feature. FWIW, YMMV, etc. et al. --Mark Navratil Cedar Rapids, Iowa RV-8A N2D firewall forward stuff... From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual fuel pumps The Facet pumps, unlike their Bendix thump-thump ancestors are all solid state for controlling solenoid current and have very simple mechanical designs. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 05:49:50 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric fuel pump circuit --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss Bob, I'm sorry I was not clear. I have a mechanical pump as well. Charlie >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >At 12:45 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, you wrote: >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >> >>Bob & Listers, >> I am currently modifying your Z-11 drawing for my specific RV-8A. I >> recall that you recently recommended the use of relays for circuits >> drawing over 5 amps. My Airflow Performance electric fuel pump draws >> about 5 - 6 amps in rush. Once running, it draws 3.5 to 4 amps. Do I need >> a relay on this circuit? Would you recommend installing this circuit on >> the main, endurance or battery bus? I have an engine with 1 magneto and 1 >> Jeff Rose electronic ignition. > > Does your fuel pump run all the time or is it a backup for > an engine driven pump? > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------- > ( Experience and common sense cannot be ) > ( replaced with policy and procedures. ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ----------------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:33 PM PST US From: "GMC" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "GMC" And of course there is always a simple solution like using toggle switches for the ignition and letting the engine turn over two blades before turning the ignition on! SOP for my 6-A. George in Langley -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" Bob said: ???? Is it the stated policy/recommendation by the manufacturer of the ignition system that you do this? I'm increasingly mystified by what I perceive as an upsurge in worries about this. Perhaps it's just that the economy is improving and more folks are building airplanes with electronic ignition. Market forces notwithstanding, I'm wondering if the risk is real and whether or not the manufacturers of these products are acknowledging a shortcoming in their product's design. The low voltage event during cranking is tens of milliseconds long as the starter motor spins up. There is no good reason why you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is a rudimentary technique of circuit design. Yes it is. I guess this somewhat "rare" problem is occurring due to the high inrush current that some of the super light starter motors can draw. Skytec sees the problem on a regular basis in the return of their units for repair following a kickback. As I mention earlier, if the conditions are right, i.e., its cold, battery a bit weak or old or both, and you some how find yourself with less than minimum volts to power the EI, you may have an expensive repair on your hands. A second battery is just one way to avoid it. Dual, rotated batteries implies two batteries of the same size. My personal favorite is the 17 a.h. VSLA/RG battery at 15 or so pounds. If you're willing to carry a 15# "penalty" for the value of improved battery performance, perhaps this no big deal. You'll have a wealth of capacity aboard that would allow you to close both battery contactors should you find that the main battery is over-taxed during alternator out ops. I have dual Odyssey 680s 17 ah at 15# each. Most Rockets are a bit nose heavy so an extra 5# of battery (in the rear) above the designed wt and balance figure should be a wash between loss of payload and lighter nose. Since battery power is my only electrical backup and with the kickback concern and the plan for annual replacement of a battery, it just all added up to having two identical batteries. Plenty of juice during alt. out ops. Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking through the requirement for dual batteries . . . Another solution may be to keep the main batt powering everything it normally powers with alternator operating, and have the Aux batt for use when the main batt voltage drops below a certain point. At that point just select alternate feed of the essential bus to extend your time you have to find a suitable field. Which sounds like a better way to go? Your wife may wish that the airplane had 15# more payload to bring home souvenirs of that trip to the Bahamas. Perhaps if she dropped 15#s she could bring more souvenirs back, just kidding honey. Thanks Bob, Jim. . . == == == == ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:33 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" batteries Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" batteries At 12:07 AM 2/25/2004 +0100, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > batteries > > > > Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for > > e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking > > through the requirement for dual batteries . . . > > >Wow - this is interesting. I seem to have inferred from all >your previous posts and the book that for people with >electrically dependent engines (ignition/fuel pump) like >auto conversions that two batteries were a "must". He said he has one mag and one electronic ignition. The fact that one ignition is supported by a well maintained battery and works in concert with a mechanically driven ignition system seems to provide a high degree of risk mitigation for his engine which is therefore, NOT electrically dependent. His question was predicated on assumptions that (1) there is value in having a second battery to accommodate an ignition system that may not be designed to live in the real world and (2) if there are two batteries (of equal size due to adoption of the new- main-battery-yearly rotation philosophy) that perhaps there was value in being able to tap the second battery for endurance-bus power during alternator-out operations. I reasoned that his battery selection choices now included a consideration of going to two smaller (and more expensive/difficult to find) batteries capable of cranking the engine whereupon he would also consider the combined capacity of two batteries for e-bus support. If he stayed with the cheap and popular 17 a.h. battery, then there was a pretty good weight penalty to pay for the price of supporting a less-than- alternator-out battery capacity would be huge . . . and his question properly considered the wisdom/utility of tapping this extra reserve for e-bus support. >I guess this may be a case of choosing between "don't put >all your eggs in one basket" vs. "put all your eggs in >one basket - and watch that basket!" > >Do I understand correctly that you would not consider >someone an idiot to fly an auto conversion with only >one alternator and one battery? I'm certainly not qualified to assess anyone's mental competency based on the degree of risk mitigation they choose to fly with. I've seen William Wynne's Corvair engine conversion presentations at fly-ins. He's flown this engine in several configurations with a single alternator, single battery, single Kettering (stock) ignition system for what is most certainly an electrically dependent engine. See http://www.flycorvair.com But with a single ignition system (that delivers a high degree of reliability and service life with reasonable attention to installation and maintenance) there seems to be little added value by having more than one, well maintained battery to power it. He offers compelling reasoning to support that philosophy. However, if anyone really wants dual ignition systems, he'll show you where to drill and tap the heads and how to strap on some more hardware. When a second system is added, one has to assess the value in adding a second battery too . . . and this hasn't even touched on fuel delivery considerations. Every component added to offset the deleterious effects of failure of other components comes at a price of increased weight, complexity (increases chances of pilot/mechanic error), cost of ownership and potential DECREASE in overall reliability due to unforeseen failure modes. The original post in this thread was considering the value and technique for making the best of a picky ignition system and taping all the resources it forced onto the design . . . reliability wasn't a concern. Some people think I'm an idiot for climbing into a light aircraft with the intent to transport myself to someplace else . . . but what do they know? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 07:18:51 PM PST US From: "Lowell Fitt" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ANR headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" I use the headset from DRE. They seem to boost highs while the ANR feature is on, but also seem to attenuate the high frequencies when turned off. But consider that I wear hearing aids and they are programmable digital models. One feature they have that I use routinely while flying is to turn them to program 3 which turns off the microphones and turns on an inductance coil in the hearing aid that then will receive the magnetic signal from the headset. This feature was designed for telephone use, which I haven't yet learned to master. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Lee" Subject: AeroElectric-List: ANR headsets > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Lee" > > A couple of us older guys without perfect hearing (high range) have had to return ANR headsets because we couldn't hear well on them. The problem is the audio is very bass and little treble, kind of like the person on the other end is on a distant speaker phone. We hear ok on standard headsets but wanted the ANR to preserve our hearing. The question is, is this normal or have we each gotten bad brands? > > ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 07:18:54 PM PST US From: "John Slade" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" > Wow - this is interesting. I seem to have inferred from all > your previous posts and the book that for people with > electrically dependent engines (ignition/fuel pump) like > auto conversions that two batteries were a "must". Yes, I've been finding this interesting too. Now I think of it, I'd like to be able to power my ebus (EFI, Fuel pumps, Injectors, Coils) from either battery. Is there a wiring diagram that covers this? John Slade Cozy IV ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 07:26:34 PM PST US From: "Dale Martin" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap motors and Fuel pumps --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Martin" All, I ran across something in the hanger that may Save $$$ for someone in our group. After a week they go on Ebay. 2 - SKF 24v Linear actuators (Flap Motors) and one FL2 Limit Switch and Controlling Unit. 2 - High pressure Weldon Fuel Pumps for Fuel Injected engines. P/N 8163-B. Minimum flow of 35 GPH @ 21 PSI. Everything is brand new and never used. I have jpeg pictures of the units or you can look in the ACS catalog page 173 for the actuators, switch and page 235 for the Weldon Pumps to get an idea of what they are. These were spares back when I was building Lancairs and I forgot about them. They can be used on any aircraft. I would be willing to let them go at 50% of the ACS price. ACS does not list the 8163-B. Contact me directly for information - niceez@cableone.net Do not archive ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:39 PM PST US From: "Ron Raby" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" thanks Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Hildebrand" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Hildebrand" > > When we planned our metallic paint job, we had the same worries. We > talked to Lancair and they said it was no problem, they have seen many > planes with metallic paint and it was no issue. > > Jeff Hildebrand > Lancair ES > http://lancair.northstartraffic.ca > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron > Raby > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" > > > Randy > > My antenna's are mounted on the inside shooting through the fiberglass. > I am > assuming on an RV6 that the antenna's are on the outside of the plane > and > paint.? > > Thanks > > Ron Raby > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net > > > > My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue > metallic > above on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the > bottom). > > > > Randy > > F1 Rocket > > http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/ > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" > > > > > > > > > > To everyone: > > > > > > I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was > > > wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have > mounted on > the > > > inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the > side, > where > > > the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Ron Raby > > > > > > Lancair ES > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > == > == > == > == > > ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:11 PM PST US From: "Dan Branstrom" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" > I'm certainly not qualified to assess anyone's > mental competency based on the degree of risk > mitigation they choose to fly with. I've seen > William Wynne's Corvair engine conversion presentations > at fly-ins. He's flown this engine in several > configurations with a single alternator, single battery, > single Kettering (stock) ignition system for what > is most certainly an electrically dependent engine. > > See http://www.flycorvair.com > > But with a single ignition system (that delivers > a high degree of reliability and service life with > reasonable attention to installation and maintenance) > there seems to be little added value by having more > than one, well maintained battery to power it. > He offers compelling reasoning to support that > philosophy. > I just went to William Wynne's Corvair College about a month ago. Risk management is a large part of his philosophy. He now advocates an ignition system with dual points going to dual coils with a coil switcher. (All are high quality parts, and the coils and coil switcher are kept cool and away from the engine). He also does not advocate flying a Corvair under IFR conditions. For that, he says, go with a certified engine. The failure mode of the points is that they gradually lose their effectiveness, giving fair warning with hard starting. Ironically, there are people who don't like having a system with points, but prefer mags. As I understand it, mags have points. Because he is using a Corvair engine in a direct drive configuration and low rpm, he says the points will last a long time. (He is specific that only standard points that have a phenolic - not plastic- rubbing block are to be used. The springs on the competition points are too stiff and unnecessary at a max of around 3300 rpm). One person flying a Corvair (with a single point system), changed the points at the 25 hour mark, and noticed that there was no wear. Since then, he's got something like 800 hours on the same set of points. He performs regular maintenance on them, and has been inspecting and dressing, and re-gapping them as necessary. William is not advocating that, just illustrating how long-lived points can be with proper care. William claims that since he's never seen lead fouling of the plugs on a Corvair airplane powerplant, he now uses a single plug per cylinder. (The engine was designed when high lead, high octane gasoline were common). The thing that impresses me about William is that if he advocates something, he's either flown it, run it on a test stand, or closely monitored someone else's use of it. For example, he has found by experimentation that the 9.25:1 heads are actually less prone to detonation than the 8.25:1 heads. The reason? The quench area of the 9.25:1 heads is much larger, and produces much more swirling of the mixture during compression. Dan Branstrom Do not archive. ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:20 PM PST US From: "James E. Clark" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" Comments below. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of > Benford2@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:42 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > It will never blow another fuse... . Jus kiddin.. Your Another **out of the box** thing to look at is if there is any wire anywhere in the circuit that may be "exposed". If so, the "bounce" could have made it move just enough to short whe power was applied. If this was the case it would have nothing to do with your load and would probably always work on the ground. > extensive testing is > what homebuilding is all about, If it worked every time, woman > and children > would be constructing these things. My best guess would be the Ben I must assume you are kidding with the comment (looking for the smileys), but just in case, there **ARE** women constructing these things ... and doing a mighty fine job of it. I hear that there are some young people that some of *would* call childern that are about building as well. James ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 09:50:37 PM PST US From: "Colt Seavers" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430, where to purchase --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Colt Seavers" Listers, Where is the best place to purchase a garmin 430? Local avionics shop, internet shop, mail order? Are there any warrantee issues to contend with if you install it yourself? -Ross Schlotthauer www.experimentalair.com RV-7 finishing >From: "David Schaefer" >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual >Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:17:37 -0600 > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" > > >If you don't find it I can email you a copy. > >David >RV6-A > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey >W. Skiba >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" > > >I seem to remember that there was somewhere to download the install manual >for garmin products in particular the 430? But I can not find it on there >site, Anybody know where I can download this ?? > >Thanks >Jeff. > > ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:25 PM PST US From: richard@riley.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430, where to purchase --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net If you buy it from an avionics shop they are required by their dealership agreement to install it in your airplane. If you want to install it yourself, you have to buy it from a private party. Then there's as much warrantee on it as there is warrantee left since it was new - maybe a lot, maybe none. At 09:43 PM 2/24/04 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Colt Seavers" > >Listers, > >Where is the best place to purchase a garmin 430? Local avionics shop, >internet shop, mail order? Are there any warrantee issues to contend with >if you install it yourself? > >-Ross Schlotthauer >www.experimentalair.com >RV-7 finishing > > > >From: "David Schaefer" > >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > >To: > >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual > >Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:17:37 -0600 > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" > > > > > >If you don't find it I can email you a copy. > > > >David > >RV6-A > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey > >W. Skiba > >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" > > > > > >I seem to remember that there was somewhere to download the install manual > >for garmin products in particular the 430? But I can not find it on there > >site, Anybody know where I can download this ?? > > > >Thanks > >Jeff. > > > > > >