Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:03 AM - Re: Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to OZ (echristley@nc.rr.com)
2. 06:24 AM - Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. (echristley@nc.rr.com)
3. 06:53 AM - A panel full of displays . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:16 AM - Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:21 AM - Re: Roll your own crowbar OV module (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:40 AM - Electronic Ignition (Ron Triano)
7. 07:51 AM - Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:12 AM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Matt Prather)
9. 08:12 AM - TC vs,Attitude Gyro (Fergus Kyle)
10. 08:26 AM - Re: Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - (Dave Morris)
11. 09:32 AM - Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. (echristley@nc.rr.com)
12. 09:35 AM - Re: Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to OZ (echristley@nc.rr.com)
13. 09:56 AM - Re: A panel full of displays . . . (Walter Tondu)
14. 10:24 AM - Re: Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to OZ (James E. Clark)
15. 10:26 AM - Re: A panel full of displays . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 10:33 AM - Re: A panel full of displays . . . (F1Rocket@comcast.net)
17. 10:33 AM - Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. (Rob Housman)
18. 10:34 AM - Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro (James E. Clark)
19. 10:47 AM - Re: A panel full of displays . . . (Neil McLeod)
20. 11:57 AM - Re: A panel full of displays . . . (Walter Tondu)
21. 12:11 PM - Re: A panel full of displays . . . (Walter Tondu)
22. 12:52 PM - Re: A panel full of displays . . . (echristley@nc.rr.com)
23. 01:27 PM - MAC trim troubles (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
24. 02:19 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Ron Triano)
25. 02:51 PM - Re: Copper Clad Aluminum (Eric M. Jones)
26. 08:13 PM - Re: Re: Copper Clad Aluminum (Ernest Christley)
27. 08:57 PM - electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed timing. (Scott, Ian)
28. 10:53 PM - Re: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed timing. (George Braly)
29. 11:51 PM - Re: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed timing. (Scott, Ian)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to OZ |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
> Say
> goodbye to scanning 9 instruments to figure out
what your airplane
> is
> doing, and take a look at this:
>
> Here is a new U.S. patent 6,486,799 that may
revolutionize the
> whole cockpit:
>
> <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
>
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,799>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/\
>
netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,\
> 799
>
> Short synopsis here:
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/projects/oz/
>
> And to find some screen shots, try this Google search:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> 8&q=oz+human+centered+cockpit
> Dave Morris
>
Heh, Dave. I'm not trying to rain on your parade,
but I wouldn't look to see anything out of this
effort for several years. You see, it's being
worked on by 'researchers'. They don't get paid to
develope products that help people in the real
world. They get paid to hype possibilities and play
with new technologies in laboratories. If they do
the boring work of developing an actual product to
sell that will save peoples lives, then they are
'sellouts' to 'commercialism'.
No, even though this technology could be on the
market in 6 months with the help of a few machine
vision engineers, it'll stay in the lab for years as
the 'researchers' milk it for all the grant money
they can get. I'm not knocking researchers.
They're just doing what they do. It's just that
they don't develope products, they investigate.
For an example of why I feel this way, consider the
rotary and diesel engines that have been in
'development' for over a decade.
I believe it was Tracey Crook who said that perfect
is the enemy of good enough.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
> The Super-2-CCA is finally for sale (3-4 weeks
delivery), the new
> Website is
> up, God is in Her heaven, the sheep are in the
meadow and all is
> right with
> the world.
>
I started asking about this, and then never finished
up on it. But I still had a few questions.
My reservation with the copper clad is in the
connector. The problem with aluminum in connectors
meant for copper is the different expansion
coefficients. Correct? So we clad the aluminum in
copper and then clamp down on it.
-Will the connector cut through the copper and into
the aluminum?
-Since the Al still expands and contracts at a
different rate, won't the wire eventually deform
become loose in the connector?
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | A panel full of displays . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:50 AM 4/13/2004 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Francis, David CMDR"
><David.Francis@defence.gov.au>
>
>Chad,
>The main difference between a TC and attitude gyro is not technical or cost,
>its the skill required to stay safe.
>
>A TC and turn and bank have no vertical guidance so the skill required to
>stay upright is much higher than using a artificial horizon. Considering
>that the average private pilot flies something like 50 hrs a year, mostly by
>day, then low skills in limited panel flying is to be expected of most of
>us.
>
>So my IFR RV7 will have two attitude gyros. The price difference is small
>for the reduced risk that I get in return.
At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
I've oft suggested that DUAL wing levelers could replace
ALL panel gyros. The major question for dual systems is
a means for determining if and which one has failed . . .
but that task is no more difficult and/or hazardous than
figuring out which gyro display has failed. By the way,
gyros can crap WITHOUT dropping the warning flag.
However, given the the mechanical and electronic simplicity
of modern designs, they are quite reliable compared to a
gyro and they offer powerfully attractive opportunities to
take the weakest (human) factor out of the equation.
Whenever someone cites a list of "redundant", "standby"
"emergency", etc. equipment that's being added to the
panel, I cannot help but recall the demise of my
good friend Terry Chapman. He had one of the most
"redundant" airplanes one could ask for. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/All_Electric/N79NL.pdf
For all the $thousands$ tied up in hardware on the
panel of that airplane, what he REALLY needed was
one killobuck wing leveler that would keep the
airplane right-side-up while his adrenalin levels
returned to normal. Of course, his was a CERTIFIED
airplane and adding an el-cheapy wing leveler to
that machine would have cost tons of no-value-added
dollars.
The most useful redundancy has to be features that
DO NOT depend on pilot skill or physical condition
for successful implementation. Gyro panel displays
DO NOT fall into this category while often having
a higher cost of ownership and lower reliability
than equipment most likely to save the day when
things are going sour.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>I started asking about this, and then never finished
>up on it. But I still had a few questions.
>
>My reservation with the copper clad is in the
>connector. The problem with aluminum in connectors
>meant for copper is the different expansion
>coefficients. Correct? So we clad the aluminum in
> copper and then clamp down on it.
>
>
>-Will the connector cut through the copper and into
>the aluminum?
>
>-Since the Al still expands and contracts at a
>different rate, won't the wire eventually deform
>become loose in the connector?
The gas-tight crimping technology is not affected
by various expansion coefficients. Further, the
copper clad aluminum can also be soldered.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Roll your own crowbar OV module |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:35 PM 4/12/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jane Ketter <arizonahikers@juno.com>
>
>I build my own OV crowbar module and it functions correctly except that
>it operated in the 10-11 volt range. I triple checked the components and
>wiring. I tested the 1N4742A diode and it regulates at 12V. I changed
>the 1.62K ohm resistor specified for a 14 volt system to 6.04K and the
>circuit operates in the correct voltage range of 15.5-17 volts. Has
>anyone else found this?
With the 1.62K resistor in place, adjust the potentiometer to
approximately mid range. Adjust the power supply to a point just
below the trip point and then measure voltage at (1) + end of
capacitor and (2) junction of zener diode and the 392 ohm
resistor and tell us what you get.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Triano" <rondefly@rtriano.com>
I am trying to decide what to do about electronic ignition. There are
several on the market I have found. Are there any schematic's available to
build your own. I prefer to use single coil at each cylinder using auto
parts and at a later date to be able to expand to a throttle body with
injector at each cylinder. My installation is for a 0200 continental on a
Q200.
Thanks
Ron Triano
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main |
Buss??
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:21 AM 4/8/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
>
>would the ELECTRIC attitude indicator go on the e-buss or main?
>if on the e-buss and I don't have a switch for it - then if in VFR with
>failed alternator - I would not need it yet it would be running and so
>draining the battery?
Do you have a vacuum system? If not, do you plan to have
a second alternator on the vacuum pump pad? Have you
done a load analysis on your proposed installed hardware?
>How about the electric booster pump - main buss or e-buss??
>
>should the comm/gps/transponder all go on the e-buss- they all have
>indipendend on/off switches on them - so if not needed, I could shut them off.
>
>Would it also be a good idea not to put the attitude indicator and turn
>coordinator on the same fuse?? - I would think one would want both on
>the e-buss??
>I'd like NOT to have another switch - how can I avoid one for the attitude
>indicator.
>
>I'm of the understanding that I ask myself "is it essential for the
>completion of the flight" if so I put it on the e-buss. Well then I
>would think instrument lights, radios, gps,electric booster pump, attitude
>indicator, would all go on the e-buss - am I right here??
Instead of "essential" lets use the word "endurance".
Which of the z-figures are you considering?
>I'm having troubles located B&C Electrical - the company Bob used to own -
>what's their website
>thanks
I've never owned B&C . . . B&C now has the parts catalog items
I used to feature on my website. You can find them at
http://www.bandc.biz or 316-283-8000
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
You might look at the following site:
http://www.megasquirt.info/
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Triano"
> <rondefly@rtriano.com>
>
> I am trying to decide what to do about electronic ignition. There are
> several on the market I have found. Are there any schematic's available
> to build your own. I prefer to use single coil at each cylinder using
> auto parts and at a later date to be able to expand to a throttle body
> with injector at each cylinder. My installation is for a 0200
> continental on a Q200.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Triano
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | TC vs,Attitude Gyro |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
" If the price of an attitude gyro isn't driving the decision, why
not have a second wing leveler with its own gyros (like TruTrak and
others) as the "backup" gyro? For my money, I'd install dual GPS
aided wing levelers with redundant power supplies and ditch all
the gyros. Cheaper and much more reliable than any scenario
that puts the pilot in the loop. Bob . . ."
Couldn't agree more. On several occasions, the answer has been "let George
do it" (for the tyros "george" was the autopilot and 'let george do it' was
a wellknown phrase - I forget where).
Many DC-9s were equipped with a marvellous A/H which included an OFF flag,
sensing the loss of power - so we all sat Fat, Dumb and Happy. Of course
that ain't the lone cause of failure. So when the bearings began to go
(usually on takeoff after a prolonged layover) it slowly rolled over and the
FDaH pilot took the 'plane with it.
The rapid answer (while two guys argued) was to apply the A/P and let P3
decide what to do. It gave 30 seconds.
Ferg
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - |
Welcome to OZ
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
Ah, that's the great thing about experimental aviation and
computers. Anybody can do whatever the heck he wants to do. I designed
and sold artificial intelligence software products for 10 years that the
"researchers" said couldn't be done. Microsoft even gave up on it. That's
the thing about the "little guy" who is doing something for himself and
doesn't have to be constrained by marketability and liability. But I do
understand your point. Just one look at the design of current certified
aircraft shows just how difficult it is to introduce innovation.
Regards,
Dave Morris
At 08:59 AM 4/13/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
>
> > Say
> > goodbye to scanning 9 instruments to figure out
>what your airplane
> > is
> > doing, and take a look at this:
> >
> > Here is a new U.S. patent 6,486,799 that may
>revolutionize the
> > whole cockpit:
> >
> > <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph->
>Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,799>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/\
> >
>netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,\
> > 799
> >
> > Short synopsis here:
>http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/projects/oz/
> >
> > And to find some screen shots, try this Google search:
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> > 8&q=oz+human+centered+cockpit
> > Dave Morris
> >
>
>Heh, Dave. I'm not trying to rain on your parade,
>but I wouldn't look to see anything out of this
>effort for several years. You see, it's being
>worked on by 'researchers'. They don't get paid to
>develope products that help people in the real
>world. They get paid to hype possibilities and play
>with new technologies in laboratories. If they do
>the boring work of developing an actual product to
>sell that will save peoples lives, then they are
>'sellouts' to 'commercialism'.
>
>No, even though this technology could be on the
>market in 6 months with the help of a few machine
>vision engineers, it'll stay in the lab for years as
>the 'researchers' milk it for all the grant money
>they can get. I'm not knocking researchers.
>They're just doing what they do. It's just that
>they don't develope products, they investigate.
>
>For an example of why I feel this way, consider the
>rotary and diesel engines that have been in
>'development' for over a decade.
>
>I believe it was Tracey Crook who said that perfect
>is the enemy of good enough.
>
>
Dave Morris
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> >-Since the Al still expands and contracts at a
> >different rate, won't the wire eventually deform
> >become loose in the connector?
>
> The gas-tight crimping technology is not affected
> by various expansion coefficients. Further, the
> copper clad aluminum can also be soldered.
>
> Bob . . .
>
That, I don't understand. How could it not be
affected? I mean, it's just that if two objects
with a mechanical connection are changing shape at
different rates, something has to give...either the
connection or the objects. Once either gives while
hot, and then shrinks when cold, the connection
starts to loosen, oxygen is introduce and the
connection eventually fails. From what I have read,
this was the failure mode of aluminum wire being
used with connectors designed for copper. The fact
that aluminum oxides are resitive is just a
byproduct that makes the root failure painfully obvious.
With the greatest respect, how can a connection
between two dissimilar metals not eventually fail?
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to OZ |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: "Pictorial Turn
Indicator" - Welcome to OZ
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris
> <dave@davemorris.com>
> Ah, that's the great thing about experimental
aviation and
> computers. Anybody can do whatever the heck he
wants to do. I
> designed
> and sold artificial intelligence software products
for 10 years
> that the
> "researchers" said couldn't be done. Microsoft
even gave up on it.
> That's
> the thing about the "little guy" who is doing
something for himself
> and
> doesn't have to be constrained by marketability
and liability. But
> I do
> understand your point. Just one look at the
design of current
> certified
> aircraft shows just how difficult it is to
introduce innovation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Morris
>
Aah, a man after my own heart. One of the things I
look forward to most is stringing sensors all over
my airplane and running it to a copy of LabView on
a laptop, or even just the motherboard of a PC
hidden under the back seat. Even a 386 will be way
more than enough MIPs to fully instrument an OBAM
aircraft and provide feedback.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
people, here goes;
Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
what would you change.
(Go easy on me, please)
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to OZ |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Hmmmm ....
Seems to me I saw/chatted with a guy who had a "product" based on this (or
similar) technology at either the last Sun-N-Fun or Oshkosh.
I recall thinking that it would take some time for me to get my "head
around" the new approach, even though the person doing the demo was
espousing how easy it was to interpret. It was obvious that he was into it
(the concept) and had spent quite a bit of time making it work.
Actually you need the "researchers" just as you need the "product
developers". Sometines it is embodied in the same person. Most times at
larger companies and with the larger (major) breakthroughs, they are
separate.
James
... experience with both
p.s. More food for thought (ramblings on my part) below ...
[snip]
> Heh, Dave. I'm not trying to rain on your parade,
> but I wouldn't look to see anything out of this
> effort for several years. You see, it's being
> worked on by 'researchers'. They don't get paid to
> develope products that help people in the real
Typically they are not paid to *develop* any products per se. More so
further understanding and "discover" new concepts that *might* lead to
products being developed.
> world. They get paid to hype possibilities and play
> with new technologies in laboratories. If they do
"Hyping possibilities" is not such a bad notion when it gets others to think
about what is possible. One thing I like about this particular list is that
Bob encourages people to think out loud on "possibilities". He does not push
for the "product" to be developed without the exploratory (and challenging)
dialog.
> the boring work of developing an actual product to
"Boring" is in the eye of the beholder. To some, research is boring.
> sell that will save peoples lives, then they are
> 'sellouts' to 'commercialism'.
Don't know of many people that would be called "sellouts" if they help
develop something that "... will save peoples lives...". This is a bit over
the top don't you think?
>
> No, even though this technology could be on the
> market in 6 months with the help of a few machine
> vision engineers, it'll stay in the lab for years as
> the 'researchers' milk it for all the grant money
If the market for "grant money" is say $1M and the market for "product
money" is $100M, don't you think some of these "researchers" would be
rushing to make a product happen? This assumes they are motivated by money,
grant or otherwise.
Good ideas come to market when there is an intersection of "fit for
purpose", demand and possibility of delivery. I suspect that at least one of
the above is missing for some reason if it is not on the market yet.
> they can get. I'm not knocking researchers.
> They're just doing what they do. It's just that
> they don't develope products, they investigate.
True.
>
> For an example of why I feel this way, consider the
> rotary and diesel engines that have been in
> 'development' for over a decade.
Maybe ... just maybe, there are competitive alternatives that keep the
market demand lower than what is needed for them to be a financial success.
Maybe ... just maybe, there are still a few things to be worked out to
insure "fit for purpose".
Maybe .... just maybe, they cannot be built and delivered yet at a
cost-effective price.
Building one (demonstration) prototype is sometimes MUCH easier than getting
geared up to deliver a product that must withstand the rigors of the
marketplace ... including liability issues.
>
> I believe it was Tracey Crook who said that perfect
> is the enemy of good enough.
Yup. And I think maybe some of the items you reference are not yet "good
enough" in the minds of those working on them.
James
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:56 PM 4/13/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
>
>On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> > be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> > cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> > than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> > BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
>
>I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
>have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
>Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
>independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
>multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
>attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
>
>Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
>and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
Okay, with two alternators, your endurance is essentially
unlimited, even with the main bus powered up.
>I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
>No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
>
>Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
>in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
>
>I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
>people, here goes;
>
>Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
>what would you change.
I'd configure the endurance bus with minimum equipment
for continued flight to intended destination sans BOTH
alternators just as described in chapter 17. Put everything
else on the main bus.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net
Walter,
My set up for my F1 Rocket is the same as yours except I added an airspeed indicator
and an electric artificial horizon. I added the AH because I got a good
deal on a used one. The airspeed was cheap.
The worst case scenario is a total electrical failure at the bus. This is not
a very likely event but it's the only thing that knocks out all the gyroscopic
instruments at once. In that event, the battery backup to the EFIS should get
you on the ground, unless the EFIS is cooked. Are you using an endurance bus
with an alternate feed path from the battery? If not, I think a single point
of failure is the master solenoid. That's the problem I currently have and
I'm changing my wiring plan accordingly.
In looking at all the certified setups using an EFIS, they all have a altimeter,
AH, and airspeed as backup. Since I'm not IFR rated, I'd be interested in the
comments of others more qualified than me.
Randy
http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
>
> On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> > be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> > cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> > than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> > BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
>
> I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
> have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
> Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
> independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
> multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
> attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
>
> Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
> and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
>
> I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
> No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
>
> Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
> in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
>
> I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
> people, here goes;
>
> Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
> what would you change.
>
> (Go easy on me, please)
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.tondu.com/rv7
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
It's really quite simple. Thermal expansion and contraction of a wire
within a crimped connection is not sufficient to exceed the elastic limit of
the surrounding metal (meaning that there is no permanent deformation).
Because there is no permanent change in size of the metal surrounding the
wire the connection between the two remains air tight at all times. The
same applies to the copper cladding over aluminum.
The original problem with aluminum wire being used in household wiring was
that the installers were not instructed to apply sufficient force, or the
connections used were *by design* inadequate to do so, thus permitting
exactly what you have assumed to happen.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
echristley@nc.rr.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Copper Clad Aluminum etc.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> >-Since the Al still expands and contracts at a
> >different rate, won't the wire eventually deform
> >become loose in the connector?
>
> The gas-tight crimping technology is not affected
> by various expansion coefficients. Further, the
> copper clad aluminum can also be soldered.
>
> Bob . . .
>
That, I don't understand. How could it not be
affected? I mean, it's just that if two objects
with a mechanical connection are changing shape at
different rates, something has to give...either the
connection or the objects. Once either gives while
hot, and then shrinks when cold, the connection
starts to loosen, oxygen is introduce and the
connection eventually fails. From what I have read,
this was the failure mode of aluminum wire being
used with connectors designed for copper. The fact
that aluminum oxides are resitive is just a
byproduct that makes the root failure painfully obvious.
With the greatest respect, how can a connection
between two dissimilar metals not eventually fail?
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Alex,
I agree with your comments but a little note on an incident I experienced.
I too have the BIG RED LIGHT for low vacuum.
Flying along in marginal weather with THREE pilots (at least two of us IRF
rated and current) in the plane, it took way longer than I wish to admit to
discover (and accept??) that I had a vacuum failure.
The slow rate of error introduction was such that I was gently
turning/banking to accomodate. Finally got this feeling that something was
not right and that the AH was really NOT agreeing with my TC. Took a while
then BAM(!!) I noticed the big red light.
I was not in IMC ... just marginal so I *could* look outside and (barely)
see the ground.
My point in this is that it is **very easy** for certain failures to creep
up on you.
We made it safely to our destination once the failure was acknowledged and
returned home with it covered up.
James
[snip]
>
> I believe it is necessary to install some sort of indicator to tell you
> exactly when a gyro croaks. Mine are vacuum driven, and I have a red
> warning light which illuminates whenever the suction is below about 4.5.
> Gyro covers are always at hand, and I'm convinced they must be covered
> in the event of a failure. My aircraft is uniquely equipped to be able
> to shut off the vacuum to the AH or HSI independantly, and I can tell
> you that the AH's death is slow, and would be very hard to detect, and
> more importantly, to accept that it has failed. I'm no psychologist and
> only an IFR student, but if one knows that an instrument failed before
> it gives erroneous readings (the vacuum alarm in this example, I know
> there are other failure modes), it can be covered and cause a minimum of
> distraction. After all, every IFR pilot has demonstrated partial panel
> flight and maneuvering. The trouble is the identification of the need
> and transition to partial panel which gets people.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 455 hours
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | A panel full of displays . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neil McLeod" <bedrock@theriver.com>
Lighting strike? I was flying into London last summer when the airliner
we were on got struck by lightning descending through clouds that were
less than 4000' thick and definitely did not look like thunderstorms.
The flight crew came on the intercom and said they were very surprised
to get struck in those conditions.
Neil Mcleod
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Walter Tondu
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
people, here goes;
Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
what would you change.
(Go easy on me, please)
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
==
==
==
==
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 04/13 5:32, F1Rocket@comcast.net wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net
>
> Walter,
>
> My set up for my F1 Rocket is the same as yours except I added an airspeed
> indicator and an electric artificial horizon. I added the AH because I got
> a good deal on a used one. The airspeed was cheap.
>
> The worst case scenario is a total electrical failure at the bus. This is
> not a very likely event but it's the only thing that knocks out all
> the gyroscopic instruments at once. In that event, the battery backup to
> the EFIS should get you on the ground, unless the EFIS is cooked. Are you
> using an endurance bus with an alternate feed path from the battery?
That is the plan. Have enough direct battery juice to get down. Actually
the EFIS can handle three power inputs (if I remember correctly) and it
will draw power from the one with the highest voltage. So it will
get wired a bit differently.
> If not, I think a single point of failure is the master solenoid. That's
> the problem I currently have and I'm changing my wiring plan accordingly.
>
> In looking at all the certified setups using an EFIS, they all have a
> altimeter, AH, and airspeed as backup. Since I'm not IFR rated, I'd be
> interested in the comments of others more qualified than me.
What's curious is I wonder if those are there because of the way the
electrical layout is on those 'certicated' planes, or, are they there
because of a long standing thought process that says the 'need' to be
there, when they might not. Anyway, those are cheap instruments
and being non powered, except for lighting, they might get you home
safely.
Plus, there is the issue of transitioning from round guages, which
almost every pilot flying learned with, to glass cockpit. Might be
safer in the beginning. You can always take them out later and sell
them on ebay. :0
> Randy
> http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
> >
> > On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> > > At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> > > be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> > > cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> > > than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> > > BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
> >
> > I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
> > have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
> > Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
> > independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
> > multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
> > attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
> >
> > Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
> > and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
> >
> > I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
> > No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
> >
> > Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
> > in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
> >
> > I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
> > people, here goes;
> >
> > Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
> > what would you change.
> >
> > (Go easy on me, please)
> > --
> > Walter Tondu
> > http://www.tondu.com/rv7
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 04/13 12:26, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
> >have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
> >Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
> >independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
> >multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
> >attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
> >
> >Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
> >and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
>
> Okay, with two alternators, your endurance is essentially
> unlimited, even with the main bus powered up.
>
>
> >I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
> >No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
> >
> >Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
> >in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
> >
> >I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
> >people, here goes;
> >
> >Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
> >what would you change.
>
> I'd configure the endurance bus with minimum equipment
> for continued flight to intended destination sans BOTH
> alternators just as described in chapter 17. Put everything
> else on the main bus.
I would consider the EFIS and AP as belonging on the Endurance bus.
Everything else, including the GPS/NAV/COM goes on the main bus.
If you do lose the EFIS, and now assuming I've lost everything else
and I'm on the E-bus, I need something to give me time to get sorted
out (AP). I'm assuming IFR in the soup for all the worst case
scenarios.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
> >
> > Can you make a case where this would not work?
And if so
> > what would you change.
> >
> > (Go easy on me, please)
> > --
Lightening strikes? Literally.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | MAC trim troubles |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Bob and List...
We have an RV6a with dual mac grips, pitch and aileron trim servos. Pitch
servo says "MAC 8a" on it. It works fine when wired direct at the servo to 12V
both up and down. When operated off stick switches, either side, "down" works
fine, "up" is intermittent at best, inop at worst. This one has the "relay
deck" from MAC also. It appears to have good power to the realay deck with stick
switches activated. Tried to call Ray Allen Co., but they are all busy at S&F
this week. I believe we have isolated the problem to either the relay deck
itself or a bad connection somewhere between the deck and the el trim servo. Has
anyone had a bad relay deck? We'd sure a lot rather just replace that for $35
than have to dig around under the flooring or back in the tail cone. Any and
all comments, suggestions, hints, much appreciated.
Jerry Cochran
Cliff Gerber
Wilsonville, OR
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Triano" <rondefly@rtriano.com>
Thanks Matt, Interesting site, looks like they will have one in the future
with separate coils on each plug, I will keep them in mind.
Thanks
Ron Triano
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
--> <mprather@spro.net>
You might look at the following site:
http://www.megasquirt.info/
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Triano"
> <rondefly@rtriano.com>
>
> I am trying to decide what to do about electronic ignition. There are
> several on the market I have found. Are there any schematic's
> available to build your own. I prefer to use single coil at each
> cylinder using auto parts and at a later date to be able to expand to
> a throttle body with injector at each cylinder. My installation is for
> a 0200 continental on a Q200.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Triano
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
COYLE INSPECTION ENGINEERS, Inc. "Copper clad aluminum wiring has no known
history of the types of problems of aluminum wire."
Indeed there does not seem to have been a problem with copper-clad aluminum
EVER. A Google search shows that this seems to be true.
The reason aluminum is so difficult to use as wiring is that the bare
aluminum oxidizes and this oxide layer does not conduct electricity (copper
oxides DO conduct well). Furthermore, the oxide tends to break up and absorb
water and swell. There are technical solutions to this but why bother?
This "Super-2-CCA" copper-clad aluminum wire is a good replacement for the
2/0 battery cable and saves about 40-50% weight per foot. This is hard to
visualize, but this is about the same as getting AWG 2 battery cable that
weighs about what AWG 6 weighs.
Some people grimace at the price ($6.75 per foot), but you'd smile if you
held a length in your hands. It looks like copper, works like copper, and
weighs pretty much what aluminum weighs. Cool.......!
And by the way...there's lots of this stuff in commercial airplanes.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Eric M. Jones wrote:
> Some people grimace at the price ($6.75 per foot), but you'd smile if you
> held a length in your hands. It looks like copper, works like copper, and
> weighs pretty much what aluminum weighs. Cool.......!
>
15ft would cost, what?, about $90 more than the welding cable? I was
thinking that switching to the aluminum would shave off 3lbs, but from
your website the savings would be closer to 1.5lbs. That puts the
weight savings at $60/lb. That's near the top of what I consider
reasonable, but still within range. I'd want to run the battery lead
all the way out to the starter, but then I'd have to have another lead
for the avionics.
The other option, as someone else pointed out, is to use the cheap
aluminum wire with the connectors design for Al-to-Cu service. With
this option, I'd run the battery lead up to the panel and have a jumper
of welding cable run to the starter solenoid and have another jumper to
a bus bar for all the avionics.
I think the second option sound more elegant, but I have to investigate
what sort of connectors are available.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed timing. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott@commander.com>
Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am considddering
changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for my 6 Cyl Jabiru,
has anyone done this before, and if so with what ignition module and what type
of pickup?
thanks
Ian
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed |
timing.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Ian,
Why are the coils failing?
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Scott, Ian
Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
fixed timing.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian"
<ian_scott@commander.com>
Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am
considddering changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for
my 6 Cyl Jabiru, has anyone done this before, and if so with what
ignition module and what type of pickup?
thanks
Ian
==
==
==
==
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed |
timing.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott@commander.com>
I am not sure whether they are failit because they are overdriven for the rating,
(i.e. they are off a 2 Cyl engine that only does 5000rpm and they are being
used on a 6 cyl with lost spark (12 sparks per rev) at 3300 RPM) i.e. they are
doing 4 times the duty cycle that they usually do,
or it is temperature related, I have not instrumented them up however they are
supposed to be good to 100C and they are supposed to sit about 50-60 degrees
c in cruise, though the under cowl temp is possible up around the 70 or so.
Funny thing is that I had no failures during the 25hour test phase, and 3 failures
n 5 hours on the first long cross country. Man the wife was impressed.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of George
Braly
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6
cyl fixed timing.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Ian,
Why are the coils failing?
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Scott, Ian
Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
fixed timing.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian"
<ian_scott@commander.com>
Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am
considddering changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for
my 6 Cyl Jabiru, has anyone done this before, and if so with what
ignition module and what type of pickup?
thanks
Ian
==
==
==
==
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|