Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:50 AM - Load Dump ()
2. 05:22 AM - Re: Load Dump (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 05:23 AM - Re: Modified Z-12 comments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 05:45 AM - Aircraft Development Expense OT (Eric M. Jones)
5. 06:01 AM - Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures (David E. Nelson)
6. 06:55 AM - Re: Load Dump (Maureen & Bob Christensen)
7. 08:08 AM - Re: Modified Z-12 comments (James Redmon)
8. 08:19 AM - Re: Load Dump (Ken)
9. 09:37 AM - Re: Seatbelts In Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft ()
10. 09:37 AM - Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures (Paul Messinger)
11. 09:37 AM - Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures (Paul Messinger)
12. 10:07 AM - Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures 01/12/2005 08:01:11 AM, Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.1|January 21, 2004) at 01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM, Serialize complete at 01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM (Paul Messinger)
13. 10:17 AM - Re: Load Dump (Paul Messinger)
14. 10:44 AM - Re: Load Dump (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
15. 01:21 PM - Re: Load Dump (Paul Messinger)
16. 01:33 PM - MB splitter (Glen Matejcek)
17. 02:43 PM - Re: Load Dump (glaesers)
18. 03:27 PM - Re: Load Dump (Ken)
19. 03:48 PM - Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures (Kingsley Hurst)
20. 04:02 PM - Re: Re: Load Dump (Leo J. Corbalis)
21. 06:19 PM - Re: Modified Z-12 comments (Scott Winn (Matronics List))
22. 07:20 PM - Annunciators (Wayne Berg)
23. 07:20 PM - Instrument panels (Fergus Kyle)
24. 07:30 PM - Re: Instrument panels (BobsV35B@aol.com)
25. 07:33 PM - Re: Annunciators (Wayne Sweet)
26. 07:47 PM - TIS vs ADS-B (Dj Merrill)
27. 08:39 PM - Re: Load Dump (David Carter)
28. 08:40 PM - Re: TIS vs ADS-B (Tom Brusehaver)
29. 08:56 PM - Re: TIS vs ADS-B (Dj Merrill)
30. 09:51 PM - Re: Annunciators (CSMALE)
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
<<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
1/12/2005
Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or desirability to have
the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it create to
turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear driven
alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch, single battery
feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty contactor.
Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight until after
engine shut down.
Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
OC
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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 07:44 AM 1/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
><<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
>leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
>is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
>system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
>
>1/12/2005
>
>Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or desirability to have
>the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it create to
>turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
>
>System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear driven
>alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch, single battery
>feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty contactor.
>
>Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight until after
>engine shut down.
Define "problem" . . . in the spare intervals between battles
with my Beechjet dragon, I've been noticing lots of worries about
the effects of the "old crowbar ov system" etc (see chapter 6
of the 'Connection . . . crowbar ov systems have a rather young
evolutionary history in aircraft and there are rational
reasons for its adoption). Just the fact that ordinary and
expected transients occur in the operation of various system
accessories becomes a new problem or worry for some folks.
My recommendations for architecture using internally regulated
alternators ASSUMED that folks would pretty much operate their
alternators like I do in the spam cans I fly . . . there's no
reason to be flipping switches with the alternator loaded and
the engine spooled up except to watch the ammeters and voltmeters
work. None the less, folks have done this and it uncovered (or
created) a new "problem" that has simmered for some time on
the various discussion groups.
We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
"problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
your regulator/alternator combination.
>Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
You're most welcome sir.
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: Modified Z-12 comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:27 PM 1/10/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
>
>Is no one going to take a stab at this?
Yes . . . but it's going to have to wait a little bit.
I'm up to my ass in alligators and unable to swing all
the bailing buckets.
Bob . . .
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon"
> > <james@berkut13.com>
> >
> > I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of wiring his
> > plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux battery
> > wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
> > "modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a "I
> > would
> > not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda thing.
> >
> > The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second
> > battery
> > and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was in the
> > switching
> > of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is run off
> > the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
> >
> > For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously
> > activates
> > the main battery and main alternator together, and the second activates
> > the
> > aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single "master"
> > switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
> > alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to send
> > power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and the
> > e-bus
> > can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch.
> > However,
> > there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's respective
> > battery.
> >
> > Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable design
> > modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs 4 switch
> > holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than me" crowd's
> > opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches together.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > James Redmon
> > Berkut #013 N97TX
> > http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
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- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
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: | Aircraft Development Expense OT |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>Those aircraft only have to meet their original type certification, as
>modified, and it is astounding the extent to which the manufacturers have
>been able to take the original certification and grandfather it into "new"
>airplanes. Look at the Piper PA-28 line for example.
>The reason behind this situation is that it takes a huge dollar investment
>to obtain FAA certification of a truly new aircraft. ...........OC
When I started designing products for the medical market as a young
engineer, I got a taste of poor management and bureaucratic inertia and all
the other Dilbert dramas of corporate life. I wanted to immediately start on
incremental improvements so the product would not become obsolete in a few
years. This would ensure that the product development cycle would be as
smooth and orderly as possible, and we would continuously have the best
products on the market.
The management wanted none of it. They insisted on policies that guaranteed
that the old product would become shabbily obsolete and ultimately crash in
a panic-project-cycle that made no sense and continued for years. Who do you
think got the big bonuses?
When I hear that designs are fixed due to the HUGE cost of FAA
certification, I don't believe it. The FAA is a bureaucracy but they respond
to standard engineering documents. Many kitplane companies certify their
aircraft...and the reason Cessna et al didn't introduce truly up-to-date
designs is just their Dilbert management. No forward vision there bubela.
Reminds me of Detroit in 1974.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
The beginning of the end is marked by
replacement of experience and common
sense 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: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
01/12/2005 08:01:11 AM,
Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.1|January 21,
2004) at
01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM,
Serialize complete at 01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson@pobox.com>
Hi Paul,
A couple of weeks ago I stumbled across some text inferring that the alternator
on my truck (2001 Dodge Dakota 4.7L) was externally regulated but I didn't
follow it up w/ any kind of research.
I just found a WWW tech article that states that the PCM (ie the truck's
computer) now has a built-in regulator. Last night I pulled out the factory
maint manual and did some reading up. Apparently, the PCM controls the field
by grounding the field using anywhere from a straight short to 100Hz. I don't
know if the alternator will stop producing power if the field is disconnected
once it's running as the alternator's schematic was rather generic looking (two
external connections for the field leads, a set of bridge rectifiers,
windings). I don't know if this will help any but thought I'd pass it on.
I'd be happy to do simple tests if you'd think it's help out.
Regards,
/\/elson
Austin, TX
RV-7A
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Paul Messinger wrote:
> Sure for external regulated alternators.
>
> However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal regulators
> including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with the
> "FIELD" switch.
>
> There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to the
> regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
> stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
> toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The only
> way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
> turning.
>
> This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller and
> popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far beyond
> the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn it
> off once started.
>
> Final point is the alternator supplies power to the internal regulator all
> the time it is connected to a battery. In once case on one of my autos its
> 80ma. The dealer says to avoid a dead battery the auto needs to be run at
> least once every 7-10 days to recharge the battery. We in Acft, have a
> battery contactor so that is not a problem.
>
> In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
> regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
> suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to make
> them safe to use.
>
> Paul
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
I've read more on this subject than I wanted to know!
I have an internally regulated 55A alternator . . . I plan to turn the
master switch on and leave it on! What additional "protection" do I need to
operate safely? . . . I am considering the addition of a second small
battery or a B&C 8A Dynamo for back-up.
Thanks,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:44 AM 1/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> >
> >
> >AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> ><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> ><<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
> >leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
> >is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
> >system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
> >
> >1/12/2005
> >
> >Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or desirability to
have
> >the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it create
to
> >turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
> >
> >System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear driven
> >alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch, single battery
> >feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty contactor.
> >
> >Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight until
after
> >engine shut down.
>
> Define "problem" . . . in the spare intervals between battles
> with my Beechjet dragon, I've been noticing lots of worries about
> the effects of the "old crowbar ov system" etc (see chapter 6
> of the 'Connection . . . crowbar ov systems have a rather young
> evolutionary history in aircraft and there are rational
> reasons for its adoption). Just the fact that ordinary and
> expected transients occur in the operation of various system
> accessories becomes a new problem or worry for some folks.
>
> My recommendations for architecture using internally regulated
> alternators ASSUMED that folks would pretty much operate their
> alternators like I do in the spam cans I fly . . . there's no
> reason to be flipping switches with the alternator loaded and
> the engine spooled up except to watch the ammeters and voltmeters
> work. None the less, folks have done this and it uncovered (or
> created) a new "problem" that has simmered for some time on
> the various discussion groups.
>
> We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
> that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
> consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
> while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
> "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
> before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
> shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
> your regulator/alternator combination.
>
> >Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
>
> You're most welcome sir.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: Modified Z-12 comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
Thanks Bob, I understand. I had to ask as I have not received a single
reply...which is very odd for this list.
I want to add one other point now that I have looked the panel over again.
He does also have pullable circuit breakers for each alternator (feed to the
regulators) right next to the combo (batt/alt) master switches. Therefore,
there IS a way to isolate the alternators from the individual batteries and
allow a battery/alternator "crossfeed" to take place. This adds a
different spin to the architecture that seems to have squelched my personal
concerns.
However, I'd still like to have a second opinion if you are willing.
Thanks again,
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 05:27 PM 1/10/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon"
>><james@berkut13.com>
>>
>>Is no one going to take a stab at this?
>
> Yes . . . but it's going to have to wait a little bit.
> I'm up to my ass in alligators and unable to swing all
> the bailing buckets.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon"
>> > <james@berkut13.com>
>> >
>> > I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of wiring
>> > his
>> > plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux
>> > battery
>> > wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
>> > "modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a "I
>> > would
>> > not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda thing.
>> >
>> > The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second
>> > battery
>> > and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was in the
>> > switching
>> > of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is run
>> > off
>> > the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
>> >
>> > For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously
>> > activates
>> > the main battery and main alternator together, and the second activates
>> > the
>> > aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single
>> > "master"
>> > switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
>> > alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to
>> > send
>> > power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and the
>> > e-bus
>> > can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch.
>> > However,
>> > there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's respective
>> > battery.
>> >
>> > Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable design
>> > modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs 4 switch
>> > holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than me" crowd's
>> > opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches together.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > James Redmon
>> > Berkut #013 N97TX
>> > http://www.berkut13.com
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 |
|
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
If you think the risk of your alternator failing wide open warrants it,
then you might add the OV (overvoltage) contactor. Then you would make
or purchase a crowbar OV module from B&C to operate it. See the BOOK for
wiring diagrams. My cost including contactor was about cdn$30. as I had
a 2 amp circuit breaker already. I am comfortable with that. You could
also try a fuse instead of a circuit breaker I suppose but after adding
up my circuit resistances and the SCR characteristics, I have not done
that. Alternately Eric's products seem to do the same thing with a
different kind of OV module.
Now you may want to add the 3 transorbs (1.5KE18A I believe at just over
a $1. ea) to the alternator terminal. They won't help if the alternator
is already failed and toasted but if the OV protection operated when
there was no real problem or if you accidently turned off the OV
contactor or the battery switch in flight, it should insure that the
alternator is not damaged. For $3. why not? Or Eric sells a prepackaged
part if you prefer.
I think that answers your question as I see it.
Depending upon the mission though I'll bet there are other approaches
such as perhaps adding enough transorb capacity to blow the main
alternator fuse in the event of an OV ;) An OV is rare with these
alternators. Transorbs after the individual fuses should protect most
electonic devices. And maybe wire the alternator (through a fuse)
directly to the battery so it can't be accidently disconnected
(parasitic alternator load for a healthy alternator is not significant IMO).
Ken
Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
>
>I've read more on this subject than I wanted to know!
>
>I have an internally regulated 55A alternator . . . I plan to turn the
>master switch on and leave it on! What additional "protection" do I need to
>operate safely? . . . I am considering the addition of a second small
>battery or a B&C 8A Dynamo for back-up.
>
>Thanks,
>Bob
>
>
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: Seatbelts In Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
<<Hi OC,
Sorry for the blank reply previously. Had trouble with my mouse and ended
up clicking at the wrong time.
Now, as to your question, you need to read the first line of 91.205(a),
which contains the following statement:
"...no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category
U.S. airworthiness certificate..."
Note that it specifically states "STANDARD CATEGORY US airworthiness
certificate". An amateur-built aircraft does not have a standard category
airworthiness certificate, so 91.205 does not directly apply. This means
that, if the homebuilt is a day/VFR airplane, there is no regulatory
requirement to have a seatbelt in the aircraft. Now, I'm not saying that a
seatbelt isn't a good idea. I'm just saying that there's no regulatory
requirement to have one. But there is more to the story...
If the aircraft is to be operated at night, or under IFR, then one must
check the operating limitations issued to the aircraft to see what is
necessary. In the operating limitations you will find the following
statement:
"After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped
for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this
aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only."
This means that, for night or IFR flight, the operating limitations now
require that the aircraft be equipped in accordance with 91.205. NOW a
seatbelt, as well as all the other minimum equipment called out in 91.205,
would be required. Not by regulation directly, but by operating limitation.
Also note that this statement would still allow day/VFR flight without the
minimum equipment listed in 91.205. So even during phase 2 operations, a
day/VFR aircraft would not be required to have a seatbelt. Again, seatbelts
are a darned good idea, but not required by regulation for a day/VFR
aircraft that does not hold a standard category airworthiness certificate.
Hope this helps! Joe Norris>>
1/12/2005
Hello Joe, Thanks for your prompt reply and very interesting interpretation.
I am not in agreement with your position -- let me explain.
1) On the Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for my amateur built
experimental airplane (and similarly for all other amateur built
experimental aircraft) are the words "Operating Limitations Dated 10/31/2003
Are A Part Of This Certificate."
2) In the first paragraph of my Operating Limitations (and similarly for all
other amateur built experimental aircraft) is this sentence "In addition,
this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable air traffic and
general operating rules of Part 91 and all additional limitations herein
prescribed under theprovisions of Part 91.319 (e)."
3) The title of FAR Part 91 is "General Operating and Flight Rules" so
everything in Part 91 must be considered either a General Operating Rule or
a Flight Rule.
4) FAR Sec 91.1 Applicability (a) reads "Except as provided in paragraph (b)
of this section and Sec 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the
operation of aircraft ( other than .....skip....) within the United States,
including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U. S. coast."
5) FAR 91.205 (b) Visual Flight Rules (day) ... (13) and (14) require
aircraft to be equipped with approved safety belts (lap restraints) and
shoulder harnesses.
My reading of the logic trail provided in the 5 paragraphs above does not
lead to a conclusion that amateur built experimental aircraft are excused
from complying with FAR Sec. 91.205 (b) (13) and (14) during day VFR flight.
Instead the wording found in the Operating Limitations regarding "in
accordance with .... general operating rules of Part 91" is specific to the
point for the amateur built aircraft being certificated and takes precedence
over the "only applies to aircraft with standard category certificates"
interpretation that you have chosen.**
A somewhat gray area, in my opinion, is how amateur built experimental
aircraft are to come by the approval for their safety belt (lap restraint)
and shoulder harnesses. I maintain that the approval is granted by the
initial airworthiness inspector at the time of that inspection as a
representative of the FAA Administrator (see FAR Sec. 1.1 for a definition
of Approved). The inspector has wide latitude in making his inspection and
should use his FAA guidance, his training, and his experience in granting
approval for the belts.
If the inspector falls back on a crutch of demanding some particular
markings on the belts for amateur built experimental aircraft because he
believes those markings are required by FAR's then he is mistaken and should
be educated otherwise. As you state there are no specific certification
reqirements in this regard for amateur built experimental aircraft. When
requested by me FAA Headquaters has been willing to undertake that education
of inspectors who were mistakenly insisting on TSO markings on a fellow
builder's belts.
OC
**PS: Carrying your interpretation to the remainder of FAR Sec. 91.205 (b)
then an amateur built experimental aircraft could be certified for day VFR
flight without any of the items listed in 91.205 (b) (1) through (11). Do
you believe this is possible?
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: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I wrote that article. I also covered how to convert the ND alternator.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerzy Krasinski" <krasinski@provalue.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski
<krasinski@provalue.net>
>
> Paul Messinger wrote:
>
> >
> >Sure for external regulated alternators.
> >
> >However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal
regulators
> >including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with
the
> >"FIELD" switch.
> >
> >There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to
the
> >regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
> >stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
> >toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The
only
> >way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
> >turning.
> >
> >This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller
and
> >popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far
beyond
> >the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn it
> >off once started................
> >
> >In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
> >regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
> >suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to
make
> >them safe to use.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> Contact magazine a few years ago described a very simple modification
> for Mitsubishi and some other Japanese alternator - one wire bridge
> inside the alternator must be cut, and one wire connected. This allows
> to feed the controller of the field coils from outside. I have done
> that modification to a Mitsubishi alternator and it seems to work
> perfect. I can switch it on, or off, on demand.
>
> Jerzy
>
>
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: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I totally agree. The auto alternator was designed to NEVER be disconnected
from the battery. Once you add the variable of battery on/off you open
another can of worms. Its not that it cannot be done just it was never a
design requirement for autos.
As with another device you have developed I sure wish you would market both
to the experimental world.
Paul
Still sick but slowly getting better
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
> >>In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to make
them safe to use.<<
>
> Your comments are well placed. But the problem is not "internally
regulated" per se . . . just internally regulated by a device that was
designed for a vehicle that could be pulled over and parked on the side of
the road.
>
> We have developed an internal regulator that has none of the problems you
describe and is designed to avoid the single point failure modes, etc, that
are inherent in the automotive incarnation of the integrated
alternator/regulator.
>
> Regards, George
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Messinger
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
> >
> > On Jan 8, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Paul Messinger wrote:
> SNIP
>
> > > Recently I have seem and observed first hand cases where the ammeter
> > > was
> > > checked during runup by turning the alternator off.
> >
> > I don't see how this causes a load dump. If you remove the field
> > excitation the output of the alternator ramps to zero as the existing
> > B-field in the field collapses. No load dump. Do you get a big
> > overshoot when you turn it back on?
>
> Sure for external regulated alternators.
>
> However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal
regulators
> including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with
the
> "FIELD" switch.
>
> There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to
the
> regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
> stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
> toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The
only
> way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
> turning.
>
> This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller and
> popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far
beyond
> the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn it
> off once started.
>
> Final point is the alternator supplies power to the internal regulator all
> the time it is connected to a battery. In once case on one of my autos its
> 80ma. The dealer says to avoid a dead battery the auto needs to be run at
> least once every 7-10 days to recharge the battery. We in Acft, have a
> battery contactor so that is not a problem.
>
> In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
> regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
> suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to
make
> them safe to use.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ---
>
>
> ---
>
>
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: Load dump and shutdown procedures 01/12/2005 08:01:11 |
AM, Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.1|January
21, 2004) at 01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM, Serialize complete at 01/12/2005
08:01:12 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Interesting but not widespread need I think.
I would not fool with it as too many things can go wrong.
The main issue has been opn the older ND alternators popular with Vans RV's
Thanks for the info as it would appear that the later Post 2000 autos have
different approaches.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures 01/12/2005
08:01:11 AM, Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release
6.5.1|January 21, 2004) at 01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM, Serialize complete at
01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David E. Nelson"
<david.nelson@pobox.com>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> A couple of weeks ago I stumbled across some text inferring that the
alternator
> on my truck (2001 Dodge Dakota 4.7L) was externally regulated but I didn't
> follow it up w/ any kind of research.
>
> I just found a WWW tech article that states that the PCM (ie the truck's
> computer) now has a built-in regulator. Last night I pulled out the
factory
> maint manual and did some reading up. Apparently, the PCM controls the
field
> by grounding the field using anywhere from a straight short to 100Hz. I
don't
> know if the alternator will stop producing power if the field is
disconnected
> once it's running as the alternator's schematic was rather generic looking
(two
> external connections for the field leads, a set of bridge rectifiers,
> windings). I don't know if this will help any but thought I'd pass it on.
>
> I'd be happy to do simple tests if you'd think it's help out.
>
> Regards,
> /\/elson
> Austin, TX
> RV-7A
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Paul Messinger wrote:
>
> > Sure for external regulated alternators.
> >
> > However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal
regulators
> > including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with
the
> > "FIELD" switch.
> >
> > There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to
the
> > regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
> > stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
> > toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The
only
> > way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
> > turning.
> >
> > This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller
and
> > popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far
beyond
> > the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn
it
> > off once started.
> >
> > Final point is the alternator supplies power to the internal regulator
all
> > the time it is connected to a battery. In once case on one of my autos
its
> > 80ma. The dealer says to avoid a dead battery the auto needs to be run
at
> > least once every 7-10 days to recharge the battery. We in Acft, have a
> > battery contactor so that is not a problem.
> >
> > In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
> > regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
> > suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to
make
> > them safe to use.
> >
> > Paul
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I agree 100%
In the typical auto the alternator is turned on with the ign key and stays
on until the ign is turned off. This includes being on during the starting
process. This is what the alternator regulator was designed for and has
proven to be safe etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
> that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
> consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
> while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
> "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
> before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
> shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
> your regulator/alternator combination.
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Isn't the alt and other loads off during start, then on once the key is
released to the on position. Effectively doing what we do in the planes?
Meaning turning the alt field on after engine is running?
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Messinger
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
I agree 100%
In the typical auto the alternator is turned on with the ign key and
stays
on until the ign is turned off. This includes being on during the
starting
process. This is what the alternator regulator was designed for and has
proven to be safe etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
> that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
> consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
> while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
> "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
> before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
> shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
> your regulator/alternator combination.
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
It might seem so but as I earlier posted the internal regulator latches 'on'
when its first turned on. Thus as you turn the key the first thing is the
normal 'on' position. Yes most accessories are turned off during starting
but once the alternator is turned on its kept on by the battery thru the "B"
lead to the internal connection. BUT
You may have a point as I do not think the regulator latched on unless the
alternator is producing voltage above the battery alone voltage.
Never really looked at that condition. Just when the engine is running you
can turn the alt 'on' switch to 'off' and the alternator is still 'on'.
Paul
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
>
> Isn't the alt and other loads off during start, then on once the key is
> released to the on position. Effectively doing what we do in the planes?
> Meaning turning the alt field on after engine is running?
>
> Mike
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Messinger
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> <paulm@olypen.com>
>
> I agree 100%
>
> In the typical auto the alternator is turned on with the ign key and
> stays
> on until the ign is turned off. This includes being on during the
> starting
> process. This is what the alternator regulator was designed for and has
> proven to be safe etc.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
> > We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
> > that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
> > consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
> > while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
> > "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
> > before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
> > shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
> > your regulator/alternator combination.
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Guys-
It turns out that Narco did indeed produce a triplexer for their all in one
nav unit. It is the VRP-48, and it does split both GS and MB off of the
nav antenna feedline. I believe that it does in fact mate up physically
with the rear of the nav unit. I haven't found one yet that is cheap
enough to buy on the speculation that it would work in my application, so
it looks like I'm back to plan A.
Thanks for the help-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Where might one find these articles - particularly the one on making the
Field connection a true on/off item?
Dennis Glaeser
> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>I wrote that article. I also covered how to convert the ND alternator.
>Paul
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 |
|
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
I don't think it matters in practice. I've heard the theory that the
alternator is only turned on after start but the vehicles that I've
looked at keep the alternator IG terminal hot during cranking. Not that
it makes much difference during cranking either way.
Ken
Paul Messinger wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>It might seem so but as I earlier posted the internal regulator latches 'on'
>when its first turned on. Thus as you turn the key the first thing is the
>normal 'on' position. Yes most accessories are turned off during starting
>but once the alternator is turned on its kept on by the battery thru the "B"
>lead to the internal connection. BUT
>
>You may have a point as I do not think the regulator latched on unless the
>alternator is producing voltage above the battery alone voltage.
>
>Never really looked at that condition. Just when the engine is running you
>can turn the alt 'on' switch to 'off' and the alternator is still 'on'.
>
>Paul
>
>From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
>>
>>
><mstewart@iss.net>
>
>
>>Isn't the alt and other loads off during start, then on once the key is
>>released to the on position. Effectively doing what we do in the planes?
>>Meaning turning the alt field on after engine is running?
>>
>>Mike
>>Do not archive
>>
>>
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: | Load dump and shutdown procedures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
Dear Bob N
You said:
"If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
system's wiring or one of its components."
Given that we have used your alternate buss feed architecture, if the
battery and alternator should BOTH be turned ON before starting and BOTH
be turned OFF after shutdown, logic would indicate to me that they both
should be controlled by one double pole switch instead of the
progressive type switch unless there are scenarios where it would be
necessary to switch off the 'alternator only' in flight.
SO, my question is, under what conditions would it be necessary to
switch off the alternator only during flight? I'm sorry, but my simple
enquiring mind does not have the ability to work this out with any
degree of certainty.
Thanks as always
Kingsley Hurst
Europa Mono Classic in Oz.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
this is an ulcer test on my new computer
Leo Corbalis
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers"
<glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
>
> Where might one find these articles - particularly the one on making the
> Field connection a true on/off item?
>
> Dennis Glaeser
>
>
> > AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
> >I wrote that article. I also covered how to convert the ND alternator.
>
> >Paul
>
>
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: | Modified Z-12 comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat@cox.net>
I had a similar response to a very similar question a few weeks back. I
wanted to know if my method if integrating the Z-30 dual battery with
the Z-13 'All Electric Airplane on a Budget' would work well or not.
See:
AeroElectric-List: RE: Schematic Review
It's message number 21455.
I don't know how to link to it.
I got one response from another list user but it seemed pretty clear
that 'battery failure' has been discussed before and isn't a topic that
needs to be rehashed. The batteries are infallible and failure is as
likely as the prop coming off. Your question isn basically the same how
is it best to integrage Z-30 with the various diagrams?
I'm still curious why Z-30 exists if properly maintained RG batteries
never fail. A dual alternator, single battery system should be just as
reliable as a dual battery dual alternator system. With the exception
of a twin engine which could use dual batteries for cabling reasons, I
don't know what reasons could be construed for a dual battery
installation.
In the particular aircraft configuration I am working with, we have dual
electronic ignitions and limited weight carrying capability aft of the
firewall (canard). I can't slap an SD-20 on there as a backup, it's
simply getting too heavy. An SD-8 is the lightest backup I can get, but
it doesn't meet the current requirements to power both ignitions (6A)
plus the essential bus. I need a large battery up front to supplement
current to provide electrical power for the long range the aircraft is
capable of. I would also like to add 'Replace and Rotate batteries' to
the annual maintenance task list. This will simplify maintenance for
myself or whoever else may own the aircraft.
If the aircraft was ever sold, and had one battery, it would be much
easier for a third party to later rationalize not replacing a large
battery after only 1 year. It also seems likely to me that even though
I would stress how important proper battery maintenance is, that the
battery would might not be properly maintained with bi-annual capacity
checks and timely replacement. I see two batteries as a simplification
of maintenance. Two, smaller batteries also provide protection in the
event that some future user replaces them with some other type of
battery that is more prone to failure.
In the configuration that you are describing James I think that having
to use the circuit breakers as switches to perform battery isolation
complicates things from a usability point of view. When I integrated
Z-30 with Z-13 I didn't eliminate any switches, and it is a very simple
system to use, although it does take a bit more panel space.
--Scott Winn
San Diego, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Redmon
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Modified Z-12 comments
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon"
--> <james@berkut13.com>
Thanks Bob, I understand. I had to ask as I have not received a single
reply...which is very odd for this list.
I want to add one other point now that I have looked the panel over
again.
He does also have pullable circuit breakers for each alternator (feed to
the
regulators) right next to the combo (batt/alt) master switches.
Therefore,
there IS a way to isolate the alternators from the individual batteries
and
allow a battery/alternator "crossfeed" to take place. This adds a
different spin to the architecture that seems to have squelched my
personal
concerns.
However, I'd still like to have a second opinion if you are willing.
Thanks again,
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 05:27 PM 1/10/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon"
>><james@berkut13.com>
>>
>>Is no one going to take a stab at this?
>
> Yes . . . but it's going to have to wait a little bit.
> I'm up to my ass in alligators and unable to swing all
> the bailing buckets.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon"
>> > <james@berkut13.com>
>> >
>> > I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of
>> > wiring
>> > his
>> > plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux
>> > battery
>> > wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
>> > "modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a
"I
>> > would
>> > not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda
thing.
>> >
>> > The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second
>> > battery and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was
>> > in the switching
>> > of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is
run
>> > off
>> > the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
>> >
>> > For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously
>> > activates the main battery and main alternator together, and the
>> > second activates the
>> > aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single
>> > "master"
>> > switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
>> > alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to
>> > send
>> > power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and
the
>> > e-bus
>> > can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch.
>> > However,
>> > there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's
respective
>> > battery.
>> >
>> > Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable
>> > design modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs
>> > 4 switch holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than
>> > me" crowd's opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches
>> > together.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > James Redmon
>> > Berkut #013 N97TX
>> > http://www.berkut13.com
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 |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:18:07 -0800
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Berg" <wfberg@msn.com>
I am building an RV-8 and have designed my own annunciator panel. I am using LED
light bars as indicators. I have dual Lightspeed Plasma III ignitions that I
would like to wire up to the panel to indicate a failure of the ignition. They
are interconnected to automatically compensate for a failure of either and it
is not noticeable in engine sound or performance when one fails or is turned
off. The only available output from the Lightspeed box is the tach output which
is around 100mv/100rpm. I would appreciate any suggestions as to adapting the
tach signal to the LED on the panel. Klaus said that the tach output dropping
to zero would indicate a system failure or shutdown. Thanks for any help.
Wayne Berg
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: | Instrument panels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
I think "old Bob" will agree to this:
When we were flying the Adcock range [listening to a series of
buried tones] in DC3s at night an article was presented by an expert in
Mesmerisation [hypnosis] which mentioned the five conditions especially
required for success:
(a) a small enclosed room insulated against outside activity;
(b) a tone of high frequency, with
(c) a low frequency tone;
(d) darkness with bright points of light; and
(e) a condition of concentration of the mind.
What better site for all five than a cockpit (a), the Adcock range
tones (b), the growl of the radials (c), the lighted instruments of
ultraviolet excitement in a darkened panel (d) and trying to stay on course
on the right side of the aural beam (e).
So what did six months of lobbying with givvermint and company
produce?
Extra small panel floodlights and an uplifting tract imploring us to watch
each other carefully.
Ferg
Europa A064
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: | Re: Instrument panels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/12/2005 9:22:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
VE3LVO@rac.ca writes:
When we were flying the Adcock range [listening to a series of
buried tones] in DC3s at night an article was presented by an expert in
Mesmerisation [hypnosis] which mentioned the five conditions especially
required for success:
I remember it well! Both the research and the difficulties presented.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: Annunciators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
LSE has an option for a digital readout of timing advance as well as MP and
RPM. There are switch selectable and are a great asset to checking the
timing on every flight.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Berg" <wfberg@msn.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Annunciators
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Berg" <wfberg@msn.com>
>
> I am building an RV-8 and have designed my own annunciator panel. I am
> using LED light bars as indicators. I have dual Lightspeed Plasma III
> ignitions that I would like to wire up to the panel to indicate a failure
> of the ignition. They are interconnected to automatically compensate for a
> failure of either and it is not noticeable in engine sound or performance
> when one fails or is turned off. The only available output from the
> Lightspeed box is the tach output which is around 100mv/100rpm. I would
> appreciate any suggestions as to adapting the tach signal to the LED on
> the panel. Klaus said that the tach output dropping to zero would indicate
> a system failure or shutdown. Thanks for any help.
>
> Wayne Berg
>
>
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 676 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Hi all,
Could someone explain to me, in simple terms,
what is the difference between TIS and ADS-B?
Are both of these currently available?
Are there any "experiemental" (non-certified) products that will
do either of these?
Thanks,
-Dj
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
I've been scanning these "load dump" things and have recently seen some
folks postulate some scenarios and also discuss internally regulated auto
alternators and auto wiring/electrical system architecture as they might
relate (or not) to aircraft ops.
Someone mentioned that some folks have wanted to assure their alternators
are functioning properly before taking off and want something other than
absence of a "low voltage" light - so they turn off the alternator and check
the voltmeter? Actually, if they had a voltmeter, then they should only
need to see "13.4" or more and say "Alternator - OK". If it went
over-voltage, the OVM would kill the B-lead and he'd get a "low voltage
light". If it was putting out 13.0 v, that wouldn't charge a depleted
battery - the "low voltage light" should be on.
Since some folks prefer not to have a voltmeter and use a loadmeter, I guess
you'd have to rely on the OVM and Low Voltage annuciator to tell you the
alternator voltage was fine., like above.
The only reason I can think of to turn off the alternator would be in
conjunction with turning off the battery (contactor) prior to an emergency
landing off field where sparks might be undesirable if parts of the engine
compartment, fuel tanks, etc were damaged/leaked and/or mashed
together/shorted.
Is there a non-emergency scenario I've missed that would justify turning off
the alternator with the engine running with normal electrical loads "on"?
If not, then wouldn't a "switch guard" be cheaper and lower parts count than
adding transorbs and other gizmos to take care of accidental or "mind fart"
events? (Those events do occur - I was in the back seat of an F-100F as IP
with a senior leader in front - we touched down at the end of a mission and
instead of "flaps up" the "gear handle" came up!! Fortunately, the complete
landing gear system was fully functional and a safety switch kept the gear
from retracting.)
I think 'Lectric Bob's response at the bottom of this thread says it all.
Turn it on, leave it on until normal shutdown. Again, is there a scenario
someone is really fond of that this won't work for?
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen"
<mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
>
> I've read more on this subject than I wanted to know!
>
> I have an internally regulated 55A alternator . . . I plan to turn the
> master switch on and leave it on! What additional "protection" do I need
to
> operate safely? . . . I am considering the addition of a second small
> battery or a B&C 8A Dynamo for back-up.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> > At 07:44 AM 1/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> > >
> > >
> > >AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
III"
> > ><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> > >
> > ><<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting
and
> > >leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
> > >is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
> > >system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
> > >
> > >1/12/2005
> > >
> > >Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or desirability to
> have
> > >the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it
create
> to
> > >turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
> > >
> > >System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear driven
> > >alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch, single
battery
> > >feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty contactor.
> > >
> > >Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight until
> after
> > >engine shut down.
> >
> > Define "problem" . . . in the spare intervals between battles
> > with my Beechjet dragon, I've been noticing lots of worries about
> > the effects of the "old crowbar ov system" etc (see chapter 6
> > of the 'Connection . . . crowbar ov systems have a rather young
> > evolutionary history in aircraft and there are rational
> > reasons for its adoption). Just the fact that ordinary and
> > expected transients occur in the operation of various system
> > accessories becomes a new problem or worry for some folks.
> >
> > My recommendations for architecture using internally regulated
> > alternators ASSUMED that folks would pretty much operate their
> > alternators like I do in the spam cans I fly . . . there's no
> > reason to be flipping switches with the alternator loaded and
> > the engine spooled up except to watch the ammeters and voltmeters
> > work. None the less, folks have done this and it uncovered (or
> > created) a new "problem" that has simmered for some time on
> > the various discussion groups.
> >
> > We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
> > that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
> > consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
> > while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
> > "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
> > before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
> > shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
> > your regulator/alternator combination.
> >
> > >Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
> >
> > You're most welcome sir.
> >
> > Bob . . .
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: | Re: TIS vs ADS-B |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Brusehaver" <cozytom@mn.rr.com>
ADS-b will send your aircraft position to any other
ADS-B equipment, including ground stations.
TIS-B will allow your aircraft to see what the
ground stations see, including non-ADS-b equipped
aircraft. It will display radar tracks and ADS-B
tracks (and mode-c tracks) all correlated (as best
it can).
TIS-B is available in certain areas in the contental
US, and parts (most?) of Alaska. ADS-B ground stations
havn't been deployed in all parts of the country yet.
To take advantage of either ADS-B or TIS-B you need
a mode-S transponder, and the equipment to display
and/or send data. Theoretically it wouldn't be too
difficult to use a laptop/palmtop display for the
output from the mode-S transponder.
Charts are available really cheap on DVD (check e-bay,
sometimes about $10).
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:47:25 -0500, Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill
> <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
>
> Hi all,
> Could someone explain to me, in simple terms,
> what is the difference between TIS and ADS-B?
>
> Are both of these currently available?
> Are there any "experiemental" (non-certified) products that will
> do either of these?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
>
>
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: | Re: TIS vs ADS-B |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Tom Brusehaver wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Brusehaver" <cozytom@mn.rr.com>
>
>
> ADS-b will send your aircraft position to any other
> ADS-B equipment, including ground stations.
>
> TIS-B will allow your aircraft to see what the
> ground stations see, including non-ADS-b equipped
> aircraft. It will display radar tracks and ADS-B
> tracks (and mode-c tracks) all correlated (as best
> it can).
>
> TIS-B is available in certain areas in the contental
> US, and parts (most?) of Alaska. ADS-B ground stations
> havn't been deployed in all parts of the country yet.
>
> To take advantage of either ADS-B or TIS-B you need
> a mode-S transponder, and the equipment to display
> and/or send data. Theoretically it wouldn't be too
> difficult to use a laptop/palmtop display for the
> output from the mode-S transponder.
>
> Charts are available really cheap on DVD (check e-bay,
> sometimes about $10).
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the excellent explanation!
Is ADS-B a "superset" of TIS? In other words, does
it display all of the TIS data, plus send your
aircraft position, or does it see only other ADS-B
traffic, and not include the radar info?
Which one is better overall for seeing more traffic?
What type of charts are you referring to in your last
paragraph?
Thanks,
-Dj
Message 30
| 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: Annunciators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CSMALE <smale@ncinternet.net>
Wayne Sweet wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
> LSE has an option for a digital readout of timing advance as well as MP and
> RPM. There are switch selectable and are a great asset to checking the
> timing on every flight.
> Wayne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne Berg" <wfberg@msn.com>
> To: "aeroelectric-list" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Annunciators
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Berg" <wfberg@msn.com>
>>
>>I am building an RV-8 and have designed my own annunciator panel. I am
>>using LED light bars as indicators. I have dual Lightspeed Plasma III
>>ignitions that I would like to wire up to the panel to indicate a failure
>>of the ignition. They are interconnected to automatically compensate for a
>>failure of either and it is not noticeable in engine sound or performance
>>when one fails or is turned off. The only available output from the
>>Lightspeed box is the tach output which is around 100mv/100rpm. I would
>>appreciate any suggestions as to adapting the tach signal to the LED on
>>the panel. Klaus said that the tach output dropping to zero would indicate
>>a system failure or shutdown. Thanks for any help.
>>
>>Wayne Berg
>>
>>Look up a lm 2917 chip from national semiconductors should fill the bill.
smale@ncinternet.net
>>
>
>
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 676 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|