---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 03/18/04: 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 07:05 AM - Re: Coax related (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 2. 07:05 AM - Re: Preflight check of SD-8? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 3. 07:05 AM - Re: Aeroelectric Digest (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 07:05 AM - Re: Preflight check of SD-8? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 07:05 AM - Re: Preflight check of SD-8? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 07:09 AM - Re: Control Stick Switch Overrides (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 07:38 AM - Re: Re: bench checking, what to watch out (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 09:07 AM - Re: Preflight check of SD-8? (Kevin Horton) 9. 09:53 AM - Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOPPING THE PROP (kempthornes) 10. 04:54 PM - Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOPPING THE PROP IN (Kevin Horton) 11. 05:21 PM - Re: Aeroelectric Digest (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 05:58 PM - Re: Preflight check of SD-8? (C J Heitman) 13. 07:30 PM - Re: Preflight check of SD-8? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 14. 07:52 PM - Re: breakers? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 15. 08:06 PM - Re: low battery price that Spruce won't (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 16. 09:42 PM - Off line until Monday (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 11:26 PM - Re: Preflight check of SD-8? (James E. Clark) 18. 11:28 PM - EL lighting. (Rob W M Shipley) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 07:05:43 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Coax related --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:40 AM 3/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com > >In a message dated 3/17/04 8:43:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, >bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes: > > > > > > RG-400 (stranded center conductor) or RG-142 (solid) would be an > > excellent > > substitute for RG-58 (WWII vintage stuff). These modern coaxes will > > present 20 db/hundred feet at DME frequencies so 10 feet will > > be 2.0 dB and 7.5 feet would be 1.5 dB. RG-58 would be about 26 dB > > per hundred so you couldn't make the 1.5 dB requirement in 6' of > > coax. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > Bob, Related subject......How much loss will be experienced by > putting >in a right angle BNC adapter at the antenna? I have RG-400 coax. Would you >discourage the use of the adapter? No, losses across connector joints are insignificant. We try to minimize connections from a reliability perspective but if you need the connector, by all means install it. When I was supplying ready-built coax assemblies and the customer wanted a right-angle connector on one end, it was MUCH less expensive to install a straight connector, add a right angle adapter and then secure the joint with sealing heat shrink. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:05:43 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Preflight check of SD-8? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:51 AM 3/17/2004 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" > >Hi Kevin, > >Good question. Comments below... > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > > > > > I'm working on the checklists for my RV-8, and am wondering whether > > there are any potential issues around checking an SD-8 standby > > alternator right after engine start. I was considering starting the > > engine, then selecting the SD-8 ON to confirm a voltage rise, then > > selecting the SD-8 OFF and selecting the main alternator ON. > > > >I think checking the SD-8 at start up will work just fine > > > Will the SD-8 have enough output to bring the voltage up even though > > the battery needs to be recharged? > >Once the starter load is removed from the battery, it won't take much >current capacity to recover the battery voltage. Turning the SD-8 will >definitely bring the battery voltage above the required charging value. There is a minimum speed for useful output which I have not measured but is most certainly higher than ramp idle. >Are there any concerns about load > > dump issues when I select the SD-8 OFF while it is trying to charge the > >I don't think any of the PM alternators are cause for concern with regard >to battery dump. Partly because they don't have enough snort to worry >about it, and partly because the regulators don't use field current to >control output. True Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:05:43 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroelectric Digest --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:05 PM 3/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hebeard2@aol.com > >Matt, > >I continue to receive the Aeroelectric-list Digest in spite of several >attempts to unsubscribe, the latest was yesterday March 16, 2004. The >return message >was that I was not a subscriber to this list. > >However today, March 17, 2004, I received three more messages from the >Aeroelectric-list Digest. How do I stop these unnecessary messages? I >guess one way >would to unsubscribe to everything and start over. > >Harley E. Beard Give that a try. Failing that, drop a note directly to Bob . . . ----------------------------------------- ( Experience and common sense cannot be ) ( replaced with policy and procedures. ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:05:43 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Preflight check of SD-8? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:28 AM 3/17/2004 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" > >A good point about needing more RPM to get the SD-8 to put >out useful power. Ken, do you get zero output below 1500RPM, >or just less than the total regulated output? The reason I ask >is that I think the B&C 200G on my Continental starts raising >bus voltage by about 1000RPM. The 200G is gear driven at much higher speeds than the SD-9 on the vacuum pump pad. The higher operating speed is why the 200G is rated at 12 AMPS as opposed to 8 AMPS for the SD-8. Electrically and magnetically, they are identical machines. This is another reason why resolving the current rating issues for this product line are so important. It's more than a matter of whether the SD-8 is "over rated" due to heat rejection capabilities of its regulator. The same suite of electro-goodies are used in the 200G which would be in more trouble yet. It would be interesting if someone flying the SD-8 would give us the minimum RPM to "wiggle" the loadmeter. This is the minimum speed for ANY useable output. A handy number to know. If you don't have a loadmeter, slowly increase rpm and not where the first noticeable increase in bus voltage occurs. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:05:43 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Preflight check of SD-8? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 06:56 AM 3/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > >I'm working on the checklists for my RV-8, and am wondering whether >there are any potential issues around checking an SD-8 standby >alternator right after engine start. I was considering starting the >engine, then selecting the SD-8 ON to confirm a voltage rise, then >selecting the SD-8 OFF and selecting the main alternator ON. > >Will the SD-8 have enough output to bring the voltage up even though >the battery needs to be recharge? Are there any concerns about load >dump issues when I select the SD-8 OFF while it is trying to charge >the battery? It seems like the only other opportunity to check the >SD-8 preflight would be to select the main alternator OFF during the >runup, and check the SD-8 then. But that seems like it could trigger >the load dump problems, unless the battery has been charged by then. Do you have an internally regulated alternator installed per Z-24? If so, it's unlikely that you'll have a "battery dump" event by turning the alternator off at ramp idle (unless your battery was very low on charge when you started the engine). If you have an internally regulated alternator, you can shut it off at any time with little risk . . . but still, there's no need to cycle it at anything other than ramp idle speeds during preflight. >I'll need the SD-8 as backup when I fly IFR, so I want a way to do a >preflight check on it. What is the best way to do this? At the run up pad, shut the main alternator OFF and the SD-8 ON before you increase rpm for mag/governor checks. During engine checks, just note that the alternator is putting out current as viewed on loadmeter . . . low volts warning should be dark too unless you have a lot of stuff turned on. After engine checks and back at ramp idle, swap the alternators back. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:09:57 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick Switch Overrides --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:10 PM 3/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum > > >Hi Pete; > >I'm a different "Bob" but in response to your question, without the >diodes you do not necessarily acquire complete override of the >co-pilots' controls. When you turn off the co-pilots' controls you >prevent him from operating anything UNTIL you, the pilot, operate one of >your switches. Now if the co-pilot pushes his switch for the same >function and one for another function all at the same time, ground for >his "second" switch feeds back from your ground through the first switch >duplicating yours and he is able to operate that second system. The >diodes prevent this possibility. Sounds very complicated but look at the >schematic and visualize both pilot and copilot "down trim" pushed while >co-pilots' controls are supposedly "off." You have now re-established a >ground for all of the copilots buttons and so during the time that this >situation is valid all of the other copilot buttons will work also. >Maybe grasping at remote possibilities, but none the less electrically >it's possible. The diodes make it impossible. Bob, thanks for stepping in to field this question. My service provider's SMTP server has been on the fritz since yesterday morning and I've not been able to launch outgoing mail until now. Appreciate your willingness and ability to support. Hey Peter, haven't heard from you in quite awhile. How's the RV project going? Got it out of the living room yet? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:38:25 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" for Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: bench checking, what to watch out for --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" for At 08:06 PM 3/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CardinalNSB@aol.com > >Well, in large part due to reading Bob's book and this list, I have decided >to do some of my own avionics install of an audio panel/intercom with marker >beacon (pse 7000), gps/com (300xl), kns-80, and probably an ICOM 200. > >I want to get everything "hooked up" and powered up on the work bench, test >the intercom, do a basic "does it power up test" etc. before bolting >everything >in the airplane. > >I assume I can use a 12 volt car battery for power with appropriate breaker >or fuse. sure >I understand I need to have an antenna on each comm output or I will blow >something. Only on transmitters . . .and only if you plan to push the talk button. You can "dummy load" a tranceiver's output jack to the antenna with a combination of resistors wired to an appropriate connector. Depending on power output of your transmitter (and how long you hold the button down) your array of dummy load resistors can be rather small. Here's one example of a DIY dummy load that will probably do what you need done: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/DummyLoad.jpg >Do I need the other antennas hooked up for a basic power on test, such as the >dme, marker beacon, or nav? no >Is there anything else I need to have hooked into the system so I don't >damage any of the equipment? no Bob . . . ----------------------------------------- ( Experience and common sense cannot be ) ( replaced with policy and procedures. ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:07:40 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Preflight check of SD-8? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >At 06:56 AM 3/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >> >>I'm working on the checklists for my RV-8, and am wondering whether >>there are any potential issues around checking an SD-8 standby >>alternator right after engine start. I was considering starting the >>engine, then selecting the SD-8 ON to confirm a voltage rise, then >>selecting the SD-8 OFF and selecting the main alternator ON. >> >>Will the SD-8 have enough output to bring the voltage up even though >>the battery needs to be recharge? Are there any concerns about load >>dump issues when I select the SD-8 OFF while it is trying to charge >>the battery? It seems like the only other opportunity to check the >>SD-8 preflight would be to select the main alternator OFF during the >>runup, and check the SD-8 then. But that seems like it could trigger >>the load dump problems, unless the battery has been charged by then. > > Do you have an internally regulated alternator installed per > Z-24? If so, it's unlikely that you'll have a "battery dump" > event by turning the alternator off at ramp idle (unless your > battery was very low on charge when you started the engine). > If you have an internally regulated alternator, you can shut > it off at any time with little risk . . . but still, there's > no need to cycle it at anything other than ramp idle speeds during > preflight. I've got a Ford external regulator (VR66, or 166, IIRC), wired as per one of your drawings from a few years ago. > >>I'll need the SD-8 as backup when I fly IFR, so I want a way to do a >>preflight check on it. What is the best way to do this? > > At the run up pad, shut the main alternator OFF and the SD-8 > ON before you increase rpm for mag/governor checks. During > engine checks, just note that the alternator is putting out > current as viewed on loadmeter . . . low volts warning should > be dark too unless you have a lot of stuff turned on. After > engine checks and back at ramp idle, swap the alternators > back. I currently don't have a loadmeter for either alternator, although I am reconsidering that. I'm not sure yet whether my EIS 4000 could be configured to support two loadmeters, or if I could only have one. I'm running out of panel space for a separate loadmeter. -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:53:23 AM PST US From: kempthornes IN AN RV Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOPPING THE PROP IN AN RV --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: kempthornes IN AN RV Who is going to test this at altitude, of course? Go up high, stop the prop, slow to below 60kts and see if there is adequate elevator authority to flare. Is it that simple to answer this important issue? Probably ought to bring this up to Van too. hal do annual and panel upgrade or I'd do the test. At 06:19 PM 3/17/2004, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > AN RV > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Francis, David CMDR" > > > > > >Folks, > >Alex Peterson correctly points out that in an RV the prop can stop below > >60kts. > > > >Not electrical, but this is an important safety issue for RV pilots. In > >Australia there have been two fatal accidents related to stopped props. One > >was an RV4, the other an RV6 with tip up canopy, the significance is that > >both have the rollover bars behind the pilot. Both accidents were nearly > >identical as follows: > > > >a. both had engine failures after takeoff (one caused by an insecure fuel > >line, cant remember the other). > >b. both made dead stick approaches to quite reasonable paddocks upwind of > >the runways. > >c. late in both approaches, speed bled below 60kts and the prop stopped. In > >RVs this is aerodynamically significant. > >d. at the inboard trailing edge of the wings the fuselage starts to curve > >away from the wing. At high angles of attack airflow separation starts at > >this point, and flows aft, over the inboard part of the elevators. This > >reduces elevator authority, with the prop stopped only. Its fine with engine > >running. > >e. when flaring both aircraft to land the reduced elevator authority was > >insufficient to arrest the rate of descent to normal levels. So both > >aircraft landed heavy enough to crush the undercarriage. > >f. without undercarriage the aircraft decelerated at an estimated 4G. This > >is a very survivable deceleration, but > >g. the longerons at the cockpit buckled outwards, allowing the rear fuselage > >to move forward and to bend upwards nearly 90 degrees. > >h. the rear fuselage moving forward relaxes the shoulder harness, allowing > >both pilots to flail forward and receive injuries to the forehead. > >i. as the rear fuselage continued forward the rollover bars crushed the > >pilots head against the instrument panel. So both died from injuries to the > >front and back of the head. > > > >Moral of the story, in an RV forced landing you MUST stay over 60kts to keep > >the prop going to avoid loss of elevator authority. > > > >Sorry for long post, its all as described at recent safety seminars here in > >Australia. The pictures of the wreckage were depressing. > > > >David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra, Australia > >Interesting accidents, but I think you have drawn the wrong >conclusion. If the prop is windmilling (i.e. the engine has failed, >but the air is keeping the prop turning), the drag is much higher >than if the prop is stopped. The air actually slows down as it goes >through a windmilling prop. So the inboard wing is likely to stall a >bit earlier than if the prop was stopped, or if the engine was >running. The lower air velocity in the prop wash will also reduce >elevator effectiveness. > >This is the reverse of what happens if the engine is producing power >and it is spinning the prop. In that case the air speeds up as it >goes through the prop, and this increased air velocity helps keep the >inboard wing from stalling, and it increases elevator effectiveness. > >So, the real problem was that the pilots allowed the speed to get too >slow. The fact that the prop stopped actually would have helped >them, but it was not enough of a help to make up for the too slow >speed. > >The real lesson to draw from these accidents is to not let the speed >bleed off below a normal approach speed. Faster is even better. >-- >Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) >Ottawa, Canada >http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 04:54:04 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton AN RV Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOPPING THE PROP IN AN RV --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton AN RV It's not quite that easy, unfortunately. First off, ground effect comes into play, and it affects the amount of lift the wing produces (a bit more lift for the same angle of attack if you are in ground effect) and the angle of attack at the stall (the wing will stall at a bit lower angle of attack in ground effect than out of ground effect). The flow over the tail is also affected, so that affects the amount of pitching moment generated for any given elevator deflection. And to make things even more difficult, each RV has its own airspeed errors. So 60 kt IAS on your RV may be quite a different speed than 60 kt IAS on someone else's RV. This is one reason why you see such large differences in the approach speeds that people report using. And to cap it all off, you have to ask your self how you determine at altitude whether you have managed to demonstrate satisfactory pitch authority to flare. Are you going to look at the altimeter or VSI to see if you manage to level the aircraft? If so, you could be mislead, because as you approach the stall there is likely a large change in the static source position error, and this will affect the altimeter error. So, simulated flares at altitude are really only a good test in cases where the aircraft obviously has way more than enough flare capability, or where there is almost zero flare capability. A simulated flare at altitude is not a very good test if the real capability is somewhere in between zero and huge. Kevin Horton >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: kempthornes > IN AN RV > >Who is going to test this at altitude, of course? > >Go up high, stop the prop, slow to below 60kts and see if there is adequate >elevator authority to flare. Is it that simple to answer this >important issue? >Probably ought to bring this up to Van too. > >hal >do annual and panel upgrade or I'd do the test. > >At 06:19 PM 3/17/2004, you wrote: >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >> AN RV >> >> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Francis, David CMDR" >> > >> > >> >Folks, >> >Alex Peterson correctly points out that in an RV the prop can stop below >> >60kts. >> > >> >Not electrical, but this is an important safety issue for RV pilots. In >> >Australia there have been two fatal accidents related to stopped props. One >> >was an RV4, the other an RV6 with tip up canopy, the significance is that >> >both have the rollover bars behind the pilot. Both accidents were nearly >> >identical as follows: >> > >> >a. both had engine failures after takeoff (one caused by an insecure fuel >> >line, cant remember the other). >> >b. both made dead stick approaches to quite reasonable paddocks upwind of >> >the runways. >> >c. late in both approaches, speed bled below 60kts and the prop stopped. In >> >RVs this is aerodynamically significant. >> >d. at the inboard trailing edge of the wings the fuselage starts to curve >> >away from the wing. At high angles of attack airflow separation starts at >> >this point, and flows aft, over the inboard part of the elevators. This >> >reduces elevator authority, with the prop stopped only. Its fine >>with engine >> >running. >> >e. when flaring both aircraft to land the reduced elevator authority was >> >insufficient to arrest the rate of descent to normal levels. So both >> >aircraft landed heavy enough to crush the undercarriage. >> >f. without undercarriage the aircraft decelerated at an estimated 4G. This >> >is a very survivable deceleration, but >> >g. the longerons at the cockpit buckled outwards, allowing the >>rear fuselage >> >to move forward and to bend upwards nearly 90 degrees. >> >h. the rear fuselage moving forward relaxes the shoulder harness, allowing >> >both pilots to flail forward and receive injuries to the forehead. >> >i. as the rear fuselage continued forward the rollover bars crushed the >> >pilots head against the instrument panel. So both died from injuries to the > > >front and back of the head. >> > >> >Moral of the story, in an RV forced landing you MUST stay over >>60kts to keep >> >the prop going to avoid loss of elevator authority. >> > >> >Sorry for long post, its all as described at recent safety seminars here in >> >Australia. The pictures of the wreckage were depressing. >> > >> >David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra, Australia >> >>Interesting accidents, but I think you have drawn the wrong >>conclusion. If the prop is windmilling (i.e. the engine has failed, >>but the air is keeping the prop turning), the drag is much higher >>than if the prop is stopped. The air actually slows down as it goes >>through a windmilling prop. So the inboard wing is likely to stall a >>bit earlier than if the prop was stopped, or if the engine was >>running. The lower air velocity in the prop wash will also reduce >>elevator effectiveness. >> >>This is the reverse of what happens if the engine is producing power >>and it is spinning the prop. In that case the air speeds up as it >>goes through the prop, and this increased air velocity helps keep the >>inboard wing from stalling, and it increases elevator effectiveness. >> >>So, the real problem was that the pilots allowed the speed to get too >>slow. The fact that the prop stopped actually would have helped >>them, but it was not enough of a help to make up for the too slow >>speed. >> >>The real lesson to draw from these accidents is to not let the speed >>bleed off below a normal approach speed. Faster is even better. >>-- >>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) >>Ottawa, Canada > >http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ >> > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 05:21:17 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroelectric Digest --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:19 PM 3/17/2004 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >At 02:05 PM 3/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hebeard2@aol.com > > > >Matt, > > > >I continue to receive the Aeroelectric-list Digest in spite of several > >attempts to unsubscribe, the latest was yesterday March 16, 2004. The > >return message > >was that I was not a subscriber to this list. > > > >However today, March 17, 2004, I received three more messages from the > >Aeroelectric-list Digest. How do I stop these unnecessary messages? I > >guess one way > >would to unsubscribe to everything and start over. > > > >Harley E. Beard >Give that a try. Failing that, drop a note directly to Matt Dralle Give that a try. Failing that, drop a not directly to Matt Dralle at Matronics . . . if there's some glitch preventing you from editing your subscription through normal procedures, he can probably edit your subscription manually. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 05:58:15 PM PST US From: "C J Heitman" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Preflight check of SD-8? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "C J Heitman" Kevin Horton wrote: I'm not sure yet whether my EIS 4000 could be configured to support two loadmeters, or if I could only have one. <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>> Kevin: You don't need 2 load meters. Just get the hall-effect current sensor for the EIS4000 and run the B-leads from both alternators through the sensor toroid. Works great! If I recall correctly, I did see 1 or 2 amps from the SD-8 during the only run-up that I did with the SD-8 online and the main alternator shut down (at about 1,700rpm). I'll check again to confirm this and will post an update if I see anything different. Chris Heitman Dousman WI RV-9A N94ME (flying!) http://my.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html --- ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:30:29 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Preflight check of SD-8? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > Do you have an internally regulated alternator installed per > > Z-24? If so, it's unlikely that you'll have a "battery dump" > > event by turning the alternator off at ramp idle (unless your > > battery was very low on charge when you started the engine). > > If you have an internally regulated alternator, you can shut > > it off at any time with little risk . . . but still, there's > > no need to cycle it at anything other than ramp idle speeds during > > preflight. > >I've got a Ford external regulator (VR66, or 166, IIRC), wired as per >one of your drawings from a few years ago. Okay, this alternator is not subject to "battery dump" spiking by turning it on/off while loaded. > > > >>I'll need the SD-8 as backup when I fly IFR, so I want a way to do a > >>preflight check on it. What is the best way to do this? > > > > At the run up pad, shut the main alternator OFF and the SD-8 > > ON before you increase rpm for mag/governor checks. During > > engine checks, just note that the alternator is putting out > > current as viewed on loadmeter . . . low volts warning should > > be dark too unless you have a lot of stuff turned on. After > > engine checks and back at ramp idle, swap the alternators > > back. > >I currently don't have a loadmeter for either alternator, although I >am reconsidering that. I'm not sure yet whether my EIS 4000 could be >configured to support two loadmeters, or if I could only have one. >I'm running out of panel space for a separate loadmeter. You can install two hall effect sensors and switch between them. If no loadmeter on SD-8, just turn it on/off while watching the voltmeter. If the voltmeter rises with the alternator ON, it is most likely functional. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:52:52 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: breakers? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:10 AM 3/17/2004 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Troy Scott" > > >Gentlemen, > >This may sound like an ignorant question. I hope not.... I plan to build >up the electrical system in my IFR Glasair using as many fuses (as opposed >to all breakers) as is reasonable. I want to use the minimum number of >breakers or switch/breakers. I've studied all the Z drawings, and the rest >of the book too. I believe the two electronic ignitions, the (single) >alternator output and the alternator field should have breakers..., agreed? >So what else needs breakers? Just the alternator field. Everything else can go on fuses. Run the ignition system directly from its own battery bus fuse block. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------- ( Experience and common sense cannot be ) ( replaced with policy and procedures. ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:13 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" match Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: low battery price that Spruce won't match --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" match At 11:31 PM 3/16/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Chad Robinson > > >Robert L. Nuckolls, III match wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > match > > > > At 05:00 PM 3/16/2004 -0800, you wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joa Harrison > >> > >> > >> > >>Found http://www.gotbatteries.com/Productpage.asp?ProductNum=35L105S3 for > >>$29 which is significantly less than the $68 price that Spruce > >>wants. They wouldn't match the price. Makes you wonder why they have a > >>low price policy. > >> > >>Is this a RG battery? Anybody have experience with this battery or the > >>supplier that's selling it for the low price? > >> > >>Joa > > > > > > It is an RG battery. PowerSonic isn't one of the big-name manufacturers > > and doesn't have to support a big advertising budget. Give them a try. > > If you plan to do battery-a-year preventative maintenance, this may > > well be the ideal candidate. > >Bob, in the past you've mentioned some capacity-testing procedures. Can you >shed any insight on stress-testing procedures? Simply running the battery >through a few charge-discharge cycles doesn't seem very thorough to me. I can >envision some cycle tests at different (low to very high) discharge rates >followed by charges at different rates as well, but if there's anything >pre-existing that's a bit more formal I'd appreciate your input. My favorite load tester is the Autometer SB-5. That's what we have here and at B&C. We stress test a battery by loading it to 9 volts for 15 seconds and reading the end-point current. A good, 17 a.h. battery is good for 300A plus. 200 plus would probably get an engine started. A new Walmart battery I just put in my van was good for 480A. See: http://www.autoelectricdirect.com/_auto.htm >When working with a relatively unknown/new battery vendor it'd be nice to >have >some testing procedures. Given the low cost of this battery I wouldn't think >twice to even destroy one in a destructive test to see how it would perform >under all sorts of conditions. Take it to any battery shop or automotive shop . . . these battery testers are quite common. They should be able to test it with a similar device. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:38 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off line until Monday --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" We're all packed up and going to hit the road for a 13 hour drive to Kalamazoo tomorrow. We'll be back in Wichita on Monday. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------- ( Experience and common sense cannot be ) ( replaced with policy and procedures. ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:26:07 PM PST US From: "James E. Clark" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Preflight check of SD-8? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" [snip] > > I currently don't have a loadmeter for either alternator, although I > am reconsidering that. I'm not sure yet whether my EIS 4000 could be > configured to support two loadmeters, or if I could only have one. Kevin, I have been looking at the GRT Horizon, which uses the EIS 4000 for engine data collection. In speaking with Greg and crew I discussed monitoring dual currents and dual voltages as I am implementing Z-14 (dual alt/dual batt). I have been informed that this can be done. Now, I do NOT know if it is all done by the EIS 4000 or not but I should be able to look it up. Contact me offline if you cannot reach GRT as I have some info I can review. James > I'm running out of panel space for a separate loadmeter. > -- > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) > Ottawa, Canada > http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:28:41 PM PST US From: "Rob W M Shipley" Subject: AeroElectric-List: EL lighting. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" I've just received a strip of EL tape and an inverter. Can anyone tell me how I cut this, (scissors?), and then connect the cut piece to the inverter in addition to the main section with its pigtail? Rob Rob W M Shipley N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!