---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 10/24/04: 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:14 AM - electric fuel valve (Brian Lloyd) 2. 06:58 AM - Inrange check/downwind check etc. (Fergus Kyle) 3. 10:34 AM - EMags (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 02:44 PM - Airworthiness Directives () 5. 03:20 PM - Re: Airworthiness Directives (Mickey Coggins) 6. 04:29 PM - Re: Airworthiness Directives (Joel Harding) 7. 06:43 PM - Re: electric fuel valve (Charlie England) 8. 07:01 PM - Re: Airworthiness Directives (cgalley) 9. 07:27 PM - Re: Airworthiness Directives (Bobby Hester) 10. 09:07 PM - Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc. (Brian Lloyd) 11. 09:26 PM - Re: EMags (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 09:30 PM - Re: Re: Crimpers - lead rod for testing (Guy Buchanan) 13. 09:31 PM - Advance release of new Rev 11 Z-figure. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 14. 10:43 PM - Re: Re: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery (kurt schrader) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:14:23 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: AeroElectric-List: electric fuel valve --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Oct 23, 2004, at 6:58 PM, Rick Girard wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard > > > The RV (the kind that roll not the kind that fly) industry has > electrically operated fuel valves. Here are two from JC Whitney: > > http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/s-10101/p-1103/c > -10107 Thanks. Interesting but I was looking for a two-port on/off type valve. Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201 +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802 I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:58:45 AM PST US From: "Fergus Kyle" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" Brian, Quite right. I realise there are several versions of the 'universal catch-all' type of check, but recently have run into instructors so hung up on Cessnas that any other check is 'illegal', even when errors are pointed out. So I reverted to nostalgia. As Senior Course, we cadets patrolled the barracks at Lights Out, and 30 minutes later. I strolled quietly thriugh a Junior ward when the floorboard creaked. The nearest tad sat up, eyes wide open, and sang, "Harness, Hood, Hydraulics, Trim, Tension, Temps, Mixture, Pitch, Fuel, Flaps, Gills, Gyros, Switches!" and promptly lay down again. No one else stirred. Ferg ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 10:34:45 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: EMags 0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:13 PM 10/23/2004 -0500, you wrote: Looked at them but no experience. Do you have any ideas about the quality, design, etc. Are you suggesting using one of them with the Lasar system or two of them. Since they're bolt on replacements for mags, how about running one mag and one EMag? Once you have a track record on the EMag, run the mag until it craps and replace it with an EMag too. If using two, I read it to say they generate enough power to run the airplane and the alt becomes the backup at xxx rpm. No, built in power is for electronics in the ignition. How can they be getting enough power out of the PM generators to power the rest of the panel? They don't. Internally generated power is for ignition only. Is the failure mode on these just to revert to normal mag function? No, these always operated in the electronic mode. If you use the self powered versions, they generate enough power to function while the engine is running . . . NOT enough provide ignition for STARTING an engine. Above all else I was looking for a safe reliable system with a failure mode that would still leave me flying. My engine is a month or two off so I could still switch and I like the system but wonder about it's "newness". You opinion would be appreciated. I've talked with these folks at length. I plan to visit their facility next spring. Based on what I know of them right now, I would have no problem replacing one mag with them right now . . . and I'm confident that by the time I need to replace the mag, there will be enough of a field history on them to justify using a pair of EMags. Going the EMag route lets you completely separate engine ignition issues from the rest of your system design. EMags are the elegant companions to a Figure Z-13 airplane. There's no way I'd put a Lasar system on an OBAM aircraft. The value is just not there. Electro-Air and Lightspeed systems offer much more value than Lasar but they are multiple boxes, extra wiring, external timing sensors, etc. The EMag is, except for power and manifold pressure connections, a drop-in replacement for a magneto . . . further, the price is about the same as for a magneto. These are about the greatest thing since sliced bread. Bob . . . --- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 02:44:43 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 10/24/2004 Hello Fellow Builders, The issue of whether or not Airworthiness Directives apply to amateur built experimental aircraft came up again recently. Kent Pyle sent me a copy of a memorandum written by some FAA legal type in the New England Region that said ADs most certainly did apply to type certificated engines and propellers installed on amateur built aircraft. I sent a copy of that memo to my contact at the EAA and got the following response. OC, Charlie passed your letter over to me for a response. Thank you for the copy of the New England Region Acting Counsel statement, you never know what surprises you may get from a government office. However, in this case EAA is aware of this statement and it is our understanding that the statement was officially withdrawn. I will follow up again to verify that this memorandum was officially withdrawn. In discussion with the FAA Chief Council last year he agreed that EAA's interpretations of the applicability of AD's is correct and that the referenced memorandum would be withdrawn. (The EAA position statement is on the members only web site under advocacy http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp) As further evidence that AD's do not apply the FAA published an AD applicability chart with the release of the Sport Pilot Light Sport Aircraft rule which clearly states AD's do not apply to amateur-built aircraft, see attached file. I will follow up though to make sure the FAA did withdraw the memorandum. Earl I made an extract of the applicability chart that Earl referred to and if anyone would like a copy of that extract just email me direct and I will sent you a copy attached to an email. Attachments will not go through the list system. OC PS: If we dont guard our freedoms the bureaucratic weenies will surely take them away one by one. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 03:20:25 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > PS: If we dont guard our freedoms the bureaucratic weenies will surely take them away one by one. I couldn't agree more. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 QB Wings/Fuselage do not archive ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 04:29:48 PM PST US From: Joel Harding Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joel Harding OC, please send me a copy of the chart. When I had my inspection done a few weeks ago the guy said that if my engine had been certified instead of experimental, because of the high compression pistons, that the AD"s would have applied. It looks like he was wrong. Thanks, Joel Harding On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:40 PM, wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > 10/24/2004 > > Hello Fellow Builders, The issue of whether or not Airworthiness > Directives apply to amateur built experimental aircraft came up again > recently. Kent Pyle sent me a copy of a memorandum written by some FAA > legal type in the New England Region that said ADs most certainly did > apply to type certificated engines and propellers installed on amateur > built aircraft. > > I sent a copy of that memo to my contact at the EAA and got the > following response. > > OC, Charlie passed your letter over to me for a response. Thank you > for the copy of the New England Region Acting Counsel statement, you > never know what surprises you may get from a government office. > However, in this case EAA is aware of this statement and it is our > understanding that the statement was officially withdrawn. I will > follow up again to verify that this memorandum was officially > withdrawn. In discussion with the FAA Chief Council last year he > agreed that EAA's interpretations of the applicability of AD's is > correct and that the referenced memorandum would be withdrawn. (The > EAA position statement is on the members only web site under advocacy > http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp) > As further evidence that AD's do not apply the FAA published an AD > applicability chart with the release of the Sport Pilot Light Sport > Aircraft rule which clearly states AD's do not apply to amateur-built > aircraft, see attached file. I will follow up though to make sure the > FAA did withdraw the memorandum. Earl > > I made an extract of the applicability chart that Earl referred to and > if anyone would like a copy of that extract just email me direct and I > will sent you a copy attached to an email. Attachments will not go > through the list system. > > OC > > PS: If we dont guard our freedoms the bureaucratic weenies will surely > take them away one by one. > > > _- > ======================================================================= > _- > ======================================================================= > _- > ======================================================================= > _- > ======================================================================= > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:00 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: electric fuel valve --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England Brian Lloyd wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > >On Oct 23, 2004, at 6:58 PM, Rick Girard wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard >> >> >>The RV (the kind that roll not the kind that fly) industry has >>electrically operated fuel valves. Here are two from JC Whitney: >> >>http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/s-10101/p-1103/c >>-10107 >> >> > >Thanks. Interesting but I was looking for a two-port on/off type valve. > >Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza >brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201 >+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802 > There's always the option to cap the 3rd port, but what does it weigh? Also, I believe that an award winning plane went down a few years ago & the crash was attributed to the failure of an electrically actuated fuel valve. I wouldn't write off using one based on one failure, but I would like to know more about why it failed. I'm considering fuel injection that requires a return line. Does anyone know how difficult it would be to remove the motor & actuate these valves manually? Charlie ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:01:38 PM PST US From: "cgalley" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" This is from the FAA http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/rulemaking/SportPilotRule7_19.doc page 28 You can easily fill in the type airplane - First column is ultralights Last two are certified. Middle yes column is factory built LSA Airworth-iness Directives None None issued against ELSA Yes Type certificated TC/STC/PMA/TSO-approved products, if installed None issued against amateur-built aircraft Yes Yes Cy Galley EAA Safety Programs Editor Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel Harding" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joel Harding > > OC, please send me a copy of the chart. When I had my inspection done > a few weeks ago the guy said that if my engine had been certified > instead of experimental, because of the high compression pistons, that > the AD"s would have applied. It looks like he was wrong. > > Thanks, > > Joel Harding > > > On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:40 PM, wrote: > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > > 10/24/2004 > > > > Hello Fellow Builders, The issue of whether or not Airworthiness > > Directives apply to amateur built experimental aircraft came up again > > recently. Kent Pyle sent me a copy of a memorandum written by some FAA > > legal type in the New England Region that said ADs most certainly did > > apply to type certificated engines and propellers installed on amateur > > built aircraft. > > > > I sent a copy of that memo to my contact at the EAA and got the > > following response. > > > > OC, Charlie passed your letter over to me for a response. Thank you > > for the copy of the New England Region Acting Counsel statement, you > > never know what surprises you may get from a government office. > > However, in this case EAA is aware of this statement and it is our > > understanding that the statement was officially withdrawn. I will > > follow up again to verify that this memorandum was officially > > withdrawn. In discussion with the FAA Chief Council last year he > > agreed that EAA's interpretations of the applicability of AD's is > > correct and that the referenced memorandum would be withdrawn. (The > > EAA position statement is on the members only web site under advocacy > > http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp) > > As further evidence that AD's do not apply the FAA published an AD > > applicability chart with the release of the Sport Pilot Light Sport > > Aircraft rule which clearly states AD's do not apply to amateur-built > > aircraft, see attached file. I will follow up though to make sure the > > FAA did withdraw the memorandum. Earl > > > > I made an extract of the applicability chart that Earl referred to and > > if anyone would like a copy of that extract just email me direct and I > > will sent you a copy attached to an email. Attachments will not go > > through the list system. > > > > OC > > > > PS: If we dont guard our freedoms the bureaucratic weenies will surely > > take them away one by one. > > > > > > _- > > ======================================================================= > > _- > > ======================================================================= > > _- > > ======================================================================= > > _- > > ======================================================================= > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:27:33 PM PST US From: Bobby Hester Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bobby Hester Joel Harding wrote: > <>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joel Harding > > > OC, please send me a copy of the chart. When I had my inspection done > a few weeks ago the guy said that if my engine had been certified > instead of experimental, because of the high compression pistons, that > the AD"s would have applied. It looks like he was wrong. > > Thanks, > > Joel Harding > If your engine was certified and an AD came out on it and you did not comply with the AD then won't that now make your engine uncertified - experimental? -- Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/ RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-) ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:07:25 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Oct 24, 2004, at 9:57 AM, Fergus Kyle wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" > > Brian, > Quite right. I realise there are several versions of the > 'universal > catch-all' type of check, but recently have run into instructors so > hung up > on Cessnas that any other check is 'illegal', even when errors are > pointed > out. So I reverted to nostalgia. Oh, horse hockey. I suggest that my students make up their own checklists since we often find things that are not on the "official" check list, mostly having to do with installed equipment and how the student thinks about things. It doesn't matter which one you use so long as you use one and it covers everything. > As Senior Course, we cadets patrolled the barracks at Lights > Out, > and 30 minutes later. I strolled quietly thriugh a Junior ward when the > floorboard creaked. The nearest tad sat up, eyes wide open, and sang, > "Harness, Hood, Hydraulics, Trim, Tension, Temps, Mixture, Pitch, Fuel, > Flaps, Gills, Gyros, Switches!" and promptly lay down again. No one > else > stirred. I like that. Gills, eh? I got used to that term when flying and instructing in the CJ6A and Yak-52. 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 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:26:12 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: EMags > 0.00 LOW_PRICE BODY: Lowest Price 0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 04:31 PM 10/24/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks for the reply, I obviously didn't understand enough but no surprise. >I am actually putting on a Lightspeed Plasma III with the continuous shower >spark system and I feel pretty good about getting the benefits of the >variable advance and keeping the straight mag as a backup. I understand >that the EMag runs in normal mag mode which does not vary timing if you are >running it alongside a normal mag which is switch adjustable to electronic >on the ground but not in the air. Not sure why one would want to run it in the "traditional mag mode" with fixed timing. Hundreds if not thousands of OBAM aircraft are flying with one fully featured, advanced timing, electronic ignition system along side a traditional magneto. When operating at high altitude (low manifold pressures) the electronic ignition advances while the magneto does not. You get most of the benefits of better fuel consumption from the electronic ignition in spite of the fact that the magneto is firing the same cylinders "late". > Other that a more consistent firing mode >and hotter longer spark, is there any other advantage if it just fires at 25 >like the other mag. I am not sure if it has to be in normal mag mode but >the web site will lead you this way. I think I will try to call them >Monday. Please do that . . . and let me know what they say. >As Klaus explained his system to me, the continuous spark system fires >before and through the mag firing point thus increasing both the intensity >and duration of the firing cycle. I am thinking that I will get better fuel >and efficiency at cruise, better starting ability on the ground, and better >ignition and reliability down low even though the advance doesn't happen >except at nearly full power cruise at altitude. That's what I've come to understand about both Lightspeed and Electro-Air systems over the years. There may be some marketing hype differences between them concerning length of spark, multi-sparks, etc. etc. but I suspect the benefits derived from these features are small compared to the benefit of having a hotter, single spark that rivals a magneto -AND- advances to compensate for low manifold pressures too -AND- is hotter for cranking -AND- runs self powered after the engine is running -AND- won't barf during starter motor brownout -AND- costs about the same as a "first generation" system. >Assuming that I run the Lightspeed P III and one mag, would your >recommendation for dual alt versus dual battery change and would you do it >different with a pair of E-Mags? No, figure Z-13 is quite adequate for one magneto and one electronic ignition irrespective of the brand of electronic ignition. E-Mag Ignitions offers the self powered P-Mag which makes it unnecessary to add any kind of redundancy to the electrical system. If you get a P-mag, then you can run any electrical system architecture you like without regard to engine operations. >I found the Z-13 diagram, are you suggesting that I replace the one shown as >electronic with an E-Mag and run it as a normal mag or electronic mag. If you want a low cost, failure tolerant system to run an all-electric panel, then Figure Z-13 should be considered. P-Mags teamed with Figure Z-13 is a very robust architecture. >Do you think the technology is more sound than Klaus Plasma III system, more >reliable, or just a cleaner implementation? Parts count is lower. Installed weight is probably lower. Prices are comparable. Ordering a P-Mag first crack out of the box eliminates any concerns for electrical system faults affecting engine operation. Note further that the E-Mag/P-Mag series of products are advertised to gracefully recover from starter-motor, brown-out. Last, I'm hearing from several builders about power transistors in Lightspeed's system that bridge a mechanical gap between an etched circuit board and the housing. Vibration has been known to break transistor leads and fail the system. I have two builders who have re-mounted transistors in their Lightspeed boxes to work around failures they've experienced. I think the E-Mag/P-Mag series devices are an excellent value if they live up to their claim as true "second generation" electronic ignition systems for OBAM aircraft. If it were my airplane, I'd have to figure out a good reason for NOT installing E-Mag Ignition's products before opting out to a "first generation" product. >Again, your counsel is greatly appreciated. My pleasure sir. Bob . . . --- ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:30:24 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Crimpers - lead rod for testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan Thanks Keith. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:31:26 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Advance release of new Rev 11 Z-figure. 0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" I have a builder who wants to use the SD-20 as the vacuum pump driven alternator in a single battery airplane. Figure Z-12 is the contemporary approach for an airplane already flying . . . Z-12 mirrors the STC'ed installation on many single-engine ariplanes. Figure Z-10 was crafted to support the main-bus/e-bus architecture of Z-13 and other published drawings. One may download this drawing for review at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10A.pdf The AutoCAD version is posted there also at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10A.dwg Bob . . . -------------------------------------------------------- < Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition > < of man. Advances which permit this norm to be > < exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the > < work of an extremely small minority, frequently > < despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed > < by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny > < minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes > < happens) is driven out of a society, the people > < then slip back into abject poverty. > < > < This is known as "bad luck". > < -Lazarus Long- > <------------------------------------------------------> --- ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:43:57 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: kurt schrader Hi Folks, My name is Kurt Schrader. I have a KitFox 5 that I just finished building and flight testing. I am primarily a member of the KitFox matronics list, but I wonder if anyone here can help me with an electronics problem. I have a Bendix/King Skymap IIIC moving map GPS and the internal battery went dead just before my first cross country flight. King wants $135 and 2 weeks just to change this battery. I went to their web site and they have the battery changing instructions, but you have to be a dealer to get access. Does anyone here have experience with this GPS unit, or access to Bendix King info to pass on about replacing this battery? You are supposed to change the battery every 3 years. I would like to remove the battery and install leads to an external battery holder, if that is feasable. This would seem a far better solution than a $135 battery change and 2 weeks down time every 3 years. Thanks in advance, Kurt S. __________________________________