Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:57 AM - Re: KY-97A Wiring (Brian Lloyd)
2. 06:54 AM - Re: Crimpers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:03 AM - Re: VOR Antenna Challenged (Kevin Horton)
4. 08:09 AM - Starter Wiring? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:19 AM - Re: VOR Antenna Challenged (SportAV8R@aol.com)
6. 08:35 AM - Avg Power Consumption III ()
7. 08:35 AM - Re: VOR Antenna Challenged (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 12:22 PM - KX170B Problems (Matt Prather)
9. 01:22 PM - Re: KX170B Problems (Scott Jackson)
10. 01:36 PM - Re: KX170B Problems (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 02:21 PM - Re: Crimpers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 03:46 PM - Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display (Lighthardware@aol.com)
13. 04:01 PM - Re: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display (Joemotis@aol.com)
14. 04:37 PM - Re: Avg Power Consumption III (Tinne maha)
15. 05:02 PM - Re: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display (John Fulp)
16. 05:47 PM - Re: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display (Lighthardware@aol.com)
17. 05:58 PM - Re: Avg Power Consumption III (Paul McAllister)
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: KY-97A Wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 14, 2004, at 10:49 PM, Jerry Isler wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Isler"
> <jlisler@alltel.net>
>
> In studying the pin out / wiring diagram for a King KY-97A Comm radio
> I am
> confused about the power connections to the radio. Pins R and 14 go to
> the
> aircraft power via a 10 amp breaker and is simple enough. However pins
> P and
> 13 are switched aircraft power and pins M and 11 are 13.75V power. A
> note
> says the following: " Switched A/C power, pins P and 13 and 13.75V
> power
> pins M and 11 must be jumpered together with #20 AWG minimum." Am I
> correct
> to assume that the switched A/C power is coming out of the radio on
> pins P
> and 13 and is the 13.75V source for pins M and 11?
Yes. They do that so that you can have a source of switched power to
drive external devices like your audio panel, intercom, etc. The
reason that they make the 13.7V input to the KY-97A separate is that
your loads might exceed the capacity of the internal switch so you can
use the switch power to control a relay which will handle the larger
load.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:33 PM 10/14/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>Hi Bob;
>
>No, actually just a cardboard and plastic "blister pack". There is a
>note on the back describing the various different models available and
>what the various dies fit, but no explanation of any difference side to
>side. Looks exactly like the photo on the web site and in your articles.
Interesting. Todd sent me a sample tool yesterday and I should have
it today.
>There is still no adjustment for varying insulation thickness but still
>seems a step in the right direction.
Don't look for this to show up in any tool costing less than
several hundreds of dollars.
> Another interesting observation;
>the larger yellow opening is toward the tip, while the smaller red
>opening is toward the pivot, which would seem to be reversed from what
>the physics of the forces able to be developed would dictate. The
>difference is probably too small to matter, but just the same it seemed
>odd. (The jaws are reversible in the frame so this could easily be
>corrected)
Hmmmm . . . wonder if they simply got assembled backwards.
Appreciate your interest in this. We'll see what the tool
looks like and if necessary/useful, we'll do a shop notes
publication on the tool (or expand the one I already have).
Bob . . .
---
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna Challenged |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>Good point, I have 2 GPS's,the chance of them both going out is next to
>nil. I think I will move on to other items that need work.
>
But, it is theoretically possible for the GPS to become unusable in a
local area due to interference from something. This has happened
several times in the last few years, and it will happen again. It
shouldn't be a big deal if you are VFR, but if you are IFR it might
be smart to have another means of navigation available.
--
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Hello Bob,
A customer brought something to my attention and I'm curious as to your
opinion. The Vans electrical wiring system drawing says to remove the
jumper wire from the starter motor power input stud to the solenoid input,
and instead add a wire from the starter relay "I" terminal to the starter
motor solenoid. The reason is supposed to be that when the engine starts,
the starter motor momentarily generates enough voltage to energize the
starter relay and keep the starter engaged for a few seconds, thereby
overspeeding the starter.
I can think of about a dozen reasons why this is a bunch of fertilizer, and
would sure like to be shown how this could actually be the case. Am I
missing something or is this "internet electrics 101"?
Regards,
David
-------------------------------------------------------
Dave, your instincts are not far off. There's a grain of
truth to Van's caveat but for the wrong reasons . . .
First, one needs to be aware of the special nature of
modern starter engagement solenoids. I'll refer you
to an article on my website at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
also download and print this diagram at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/StarterWiring.pdf
Given the very inductive, high inrush nature of the
solenoid control circuit, the automotive conventional
wiring depicted in Figure 1 has a demonstrated history
of eating starter control switches.
When B&C brought the first, production light-weight
starter to the marketplace nearly 20 years ago, the
unfriendly nature of the control circuit was well understood.
B&C shipped their starters with jumpers installed and
recommended the use of an EXTERNAL control contactor as
shown in Figure 2.
Some years later, other manufacturers brought permanent
magnet motor starters to the market. The B&C wiring
convention was NOT suitable for these starters because
a PM motor generates substantial "back EMF" during
armature spin-down. This voltage DELAYS dropout of the
starter engagement solenoid by several seconds.
However, this does NOT present a hazard to the starter
by "over-speeding" . . . Every time you start the engine,
the first time a cylinder fires the engine accelerates
markedly. If the starter were not fitted with some type
of over-run clutch, the engine would strip the gears in
the starter before you could release the starter button.
Therefore, delayed disengagement, while a tad noisy, does
not represent an automatic hazard due to "over-speeding" or
any other stress. The noise is generated by the fast but
free-wheeling pinion gear. For starters that use the so-called
"Bendix" pinion engagement system, delayed engagement may
be harder on the starter and ring gear. I'd have to noodle
through the operation in a bit more detail.
The builder has several choices to eliminate this phenomenon:
(1) Go back to the automotive conventional wiring shown
in Figure 1 of the diagrams cited above There are robust
starter push buttons that will work well in this configuration.
(2) Add a "boost relay" to take the hits from the starter
contactor engagement solenoid An example is shown in Figure Z-22
of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
(3) Use the "I" terminal of the external contactor as shown in
Figure 3 of the diagrams cited above and recommended by Van's.
(4) Use a wound-field, B&C starter that does not suffer from
this phenomenon.
For the reasons cited above, I don't think the PM motor folks
are shipping their starters with the jumper installed.
Anyone recommending removal of the factory-installed jumper on
a B&C starter simply doesn't understand the nature
of the product they're working with . . . so what's new?
Bob . . .
---
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: VOR Antenna Challenged |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
But, it is theoretically possible for the GPS to become unusable in a
local area due to interference from something. This has happened
several times in the last few years, and it will happen again. It
shouldn't be a big deal if you are VFR, but if you are IFR it might
be smart to have another means of navigation available.
Yeah, the briefers often advise me regarding GPS jamming in the vicinity of Patuxent
River NAS (gee, as if the TSA.gov isn't doing enough to unleash the dogs
of war on US civilians since 9/11) SO far, it has been a non-ossue, as I have
never once seen the GPS hesitate or hiccup on x/c inthat neighborhood, but it
does give one pause to wonder, when GPS and pilotage are your sole means of
VFR navigation. Add to that the lousy ground visibility in an RV and you've got
you hands full just to stay oriented as to position.
-BB
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: | Avg Power Consumption III |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
<<.skip..Seeing as how I don't plan on using position lights strobes together very
often skip>>
10/15/2004
Hello Grant, This statement puzzles me a bit.
1) Presuming that you are flying in the USA the US FAR Sec 91.209 (b) requires
you to have your anticollision light (strobe light) on at all times, day or night,
when flying unless the PIC determines that it should be turned off in the
interest of safety. This is usually interpreted to mean avoiding reflections
from clouds when flying in IMC.
2) FAR Sec 91.209 (a) requires that the position lights be on from sunset to sunrise.
These two sections together mean that both position lights and strobe lights will
normally be on together whenever flying between sunset and sunrise in VMC.
Were you implying that you dont plan on night flying very often?
OC
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: VOR Antenna Challenged |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:02 AM 10/15/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> ><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> >Good point, I have 2 GPS's,the chance of them both going out is next to
> >nil. I think I will move on to other items that need work.
> >
>
>But, it is theoretically possible for the GPS to become unusable in a
>local area due to interference from something. This has happened
>several times in the last few years, and it will happen again. It
>shouldn't be a big deal if you are VFR, but if you are IFR it might
>be smart to have another means of navigation available.
The ordinary risks to GPS are quite remote. Unless an unfriendly entity
has a space-based radiator designed to blanket wide areas of turf
on the surface, one can expect localized interference sources to
have limited effectiveness with durations measured in minutes.
I worked an unmanned air vehicle project about 15 years ago where
we studied the likelihood of deliberate GPS jamming having much
influence on our mission. The risks were low in spite of a deliberate
ground-based effort to upset our mission. The risks of accidental
upset are lower still.
Even if your one-and-only GPS receiver craps, there's no good reason
you cannot navigate "blind" well enough to get into range of the hand-held,
rubber ducky VOR to allow you to comfortably terminate the flight (not
"approved" of course . . . but in a tense situation, who's worrying about
approvals). If one plans to routinely fly IFR, then a panel mounted VOR
with a real antenna is called for. There are just too many areas of
controlled
airspace where the VOR is truly useful and still less expensive than
TSO'd, IFR approved GPS receivers.
Airplanes I rent all have VOR receivers . . . usually two of them.
Most have a non-IFR approved GPS. I'd have to file citing VOR
capability even tho the VOR displays would be used to verify/legalize
GPS displays whether panel mounted or hand-held. Bottom line is
that multiple GPS receivers offer an extremely low probability of
leaving you GPS-deficient.
Bob . . .
---
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hello listers...
I have a KX170B in my C150 that is giving me a couple of headaches,
and I was hoping someone here might have some ideas on how to
fix it.
First, I notice that the reception and transmission intermittently gets
scratchy or cuts out when I am on the local approach frequency. Both
transmit and receive seem to be affected. Other frequencies have not
shown this problem. It has been suggested to me that I need to get
some contact cleaner and spray out the frequency selection hardware.
Does that sound right? Does anyone have a favorite product for taking
care of this?
The other problem with the radio is that the power switch for the nav
section intermittent. Is this likely a similar problem to the frequency
selection issue? The nav section seems most likely to work before
the switch actually reaches the 'nav' detent, and doesn't seem to
power up when in the ident position. Any ideas?
Thanks and regards,
Matt Prather
C150 N714BK, VE N34RD
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: | Re: KX170B Problems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott@telus.net>
My local avionics shop advised me that the KX-170 series has a known issue
with the power switches failing, and that replacements are no longer
available.
However, a common work-around is to bypass the switch inside and provide an
external on-off somewhere on the panel.
Scott in VAncouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX170B Problems
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> <mprather@spro.net>
>
> Hello listers...
>
> I have a KX170B in my C150 that is giving me a couple of headaches,
> and I was hoping someone here might have some ideas on how to
> fix it.
>
> First, I notice that the reception and transmission intermittently gets
> scratchy or cuts out when I am on the local approach frequency. Both
> transmit and receive seem to be affected. Other frequencies have not
> shown this problem. It has been suggested to me that I need to get
> some contact cleaner and spray out the frequency selection hardware.
> Does that sound right? Does anyone have a favorite product for taking
> care of this?
>
> The other problem with the radio is that the power switch for the nav
> section intermittent. Is this likely a similar problem to the frequency
> selection issue? The nav section seems most likely to work before
> the switch actually reaches the 'nav' detent, and doesn't seem to
> power up when in the ident position. Any ideas?
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Matt Prather
> C150 N714BK, VE N34RD
>
>
>
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: KX170B Problems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:19 PM 10/15/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Jackson"
><jayeandscott@telus.net>
>
>My local avionics shop advised me that the KX-170 series has a known issue
>with the power switches failing, and that replacements are no longer
>available.
>However, a common work-around is to bypass the switch inside and provide an
>external on-off somewhere on the panel.
One of the rentals I used to fly simply shorted around the switch
and let the radio run all the time. We simply turned the volume
down when it wasn't needed.
Bob . . .
---
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:53 AM 10/15/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 08:33 PM 10/14/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
> ><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
> >
> >Hi Bob;
> >
> >No, actually just a cardboard and plastic "blister pack". There is a
> >note on the back describing the various different models available and
> >what the various dies fit, but no explanation of any difference side to
> >side. Looks exactly like the photo on the web site and in your articles.
>
> Interesting. Todd sent me a sample tool yesterday and I should have
> it today.
Just received the new tool. The die-set does a nicer job on the
insulation grip for the larger insulations like automotive PVC
but is loose on 22AWG Tefzel. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P255.jpg
The wire grip side closes fine and has about the right
cross section. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P256.jpg
The biggest problem I have is the gap between the two
crimps. When one centers the terminal in the tool, the
wire grip and insulation grips are formed on the ends
of the insulator as opposed to being centered on the
end thirds. The wire grip went gas-tight on the last
50% of its length as opposed to being centered. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P257.jpg
Terminals installed with this tool are probably
going to be okay but I think the original tool
does a better job. I'm going to return this tool to
B&C with a recommendation that they seek out a
product that works better on the Tefzel/PIDG
combination of wire/terminals.
The die set was reversed in the tool as-received.
Instructions on the back showed the larger-yellow
die away from the end of tool. I turned the die
set around to do the tests and photos.
Bob . . .
---
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: | Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lighthardware@aol.com
Greetings List,
I have a Stormscope WX1000 system with a bad display. I have traced the
problem, at least in part to a bad resistor, however I haven't been able to find
a
parts or service manual for this display, and the resister is charred so I
can't read the value.
Can anyone on the list provide me with the correct value for R-127 on the
display board?
Any help is greatly appriciated.
Thanks,
John
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: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joemotis@aol.com
Cannot help with the resistor value but what charred the resistor? sometimes
the catastrophic failure of a part is indicitive of something upline that
has gone south.
Joe Motis
Do not archive
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: | Avg Power Consumption III |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
OC,
Thanks for the response. Yes, that was the implication (I said it directly in an
earlier thread): I only <EM>plan </EM>on flying at 'night' for the first or
last half hour of a flight, but would still like to have the option of flying
at night. Even with both strobe position lights on, my theoretical load will
be 14-18 amps with a 20 amp alternator. My original question was two-fold: Mainly,
what are actual average loads for particular instruments secondly, how much
overhead capacity(alt output - actual continuousload) is sufficient, per the
experience of the list.
Thank You too for pointing out the FARs: I'm a little embarrased to admit I didn't
know strobes are required to be onduring the day. I've heard that it's over
rated as a safety practice, but didn't realize it was a requirement.
As I ordered the 20 amp alternator this morning from BC I'm pretty much committed.
The weight CG advantages it offers me are tremendous. Obviously I'm convinced
it will work fine good power management on the ground (i.e. keeping electrical
loads to a minimum until just before takeoff 'cuz low RPM = Low output
with a vacuum pad driven alternator) will only help. However, I'm still inviting
dissenting ( concurring) opinions that are based on experience.
Thanks again,
Grant
From: bakerocb@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avg Power Consumption III
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: bakerocb@cox.net
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Tinne maha" tinnemaha@hotmail.com
.skip..Seeing as how I don't plan on using position lights strobes together very
often skip
10/15/2004
Hello Grant, This statement puzzles me a bit.
1) Presuming that you are flying in the USA the US FAR Sec 91.209 (b)requires you
to have your anticollision light (strobe light) on at all times, day or night,
when flying unless the PIC determines that it should be turned off in the
interest of safety. This is usually interpreted to mean avoiding reflections from
clouds when flying in IMC.
2) FAR Sec 91.209 (a) requires that the position lights be on from sunset to sunrise.
These two sections together mean that both position lights and strobe lights will
normally be on together whenever flying between sunset and sunrise in VMC.
Were you implying that you dont plan on night flying very often?
OC
Find the music you love on MSN Music. Start downloading now!
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: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Fulp" <jrfulp@ncia.net>
Hi John,
It takes over current to burn a resister (which means other components went
south). Unless you have the knowledge and equipment, it's best to have it
repaired by a pro.
B/R John
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lighthardware@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lighthardware@aol.com
Greetings List,
I have a Stormscope WX1000 system with a bad display. I have traced the
problem, at least in part to a bad resistor, however I haven't been able to
find a
parts or service manual for this display, and the resister is charred so I
can't read the value.
Can anyone on the list provide me with the correct value for R-127 on the
display board?
Any help is greatly appriciated.
Thanks,
John
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: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lighthardware@aol.com
John and Joe,
Thanks for the suggestions and I agree.
The indicator came out of another system with a shorted processor. The
processor that I have and am basing my system around is in good shape and yellow
tagged.
I have gone through the indicator and tested the componants to the best of my
ability and this resister is the only damage that I can find (that's not
saying that I didn't miss something else). BFG wants 700 bucks to go through the
display which is rediculous.
I would like to try replacing the one resister and seeing if that gets things
going. If not, I'll buy another yellow tagged display.
Thanks again.
John
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avg Power Consumption III |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all,
I have been watching this thread for a while and wanted to offer up my
experience. I have a Europa that is powered by a Rotax 914. I had the same
concern because the PM alternator was only good for 18 ~ 20 amps. To make
sure I could power everything I was proactive with the design of the
electrical load. I did the following:
Single strobe on top of the fin. 2 A
LED Position lights. ~1.6 A
LED tail light ~ .75A
Low hold in contactor. ~ .03A
I have a load analysis spreadsheet that breaks out the load for 6 phases of
flight from preflight through to cruise and the highest theoretical load is
with the landing light on giving a load of 16 amps, with a cruise load of
8.6 amps.
For anyone who would like a copy of this spreadsheet please contact me
offlist and I will forward it to you. The LED position lights were obtained
from Eric at http://www.periheliondesign.com/
Paul
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! --
|