Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:26 AM - cat 5 (Glen Matejcek)
2. 05:28 AM - Re: Fuse-link (Ken)
3. 05:38 AM - Re: WAAS or not (Brian Lloyd)
4. 08:10 AM - Re: WAAS or Not (Rob Logan)
5. 08:11 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (Rob Logan)
6. 09:03 AM - Re: Encoder test (Leo J. Corbalis)
7. 10:16 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (D Fritz)
8. 11:35 AM - Re: Encoder test (DWENSING@aol.com)
9. 12:42 PM - Re: Encoder test (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 12:58 PM - Re: Type I Contactor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 12:59 PM - Re: Fuse-link (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 01:05 PM - Re: Re: Fix for radio noise (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 01:19 PM - Re: Z13a Pre-flight alt test procedure? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 01:28 PM - Re: Installing a DAVTRON Outside Air Temp instrument. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 01:44 PM - Re: Aircraft Development Expense (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 02:34 PM - Re: Modified Z-12 comments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 02:38 PM - Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 02:39 PM - Re: Load dump and PM alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 03:16 PM - P-Mag Wiring (dsvs@comcast.net)
20. 03:30 PM - Re: Aircraft Development Expense (Eric M. Jones)
21. 03:34 PM - Re: LOAD dump comments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 03:58 PM - Re: Load Dump (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 04:02 PM - Re: Re: Aircraft Development Expense (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
24. 04:02 PM - Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 04:44 PM - Re: Re: Digital Photos (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 05:17 PM - Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 05:26 PM - Aircraft Theft Protection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 06:23 PM - Re: Re: Fix for radio noise (Dj Merrill)
29. 06:24 PM - GPS wiring? (earl_schroeder@juno.com)
30. 06:32 PM - Re: Aircraft Theft Protection (cgalley)
31. 06:55 PM - Re: GPS wiring? (David E. Nelson)
32. 06:55 PM - Re: GPS wiring? (Brian Kraut)
33. 07:06 PM - Re: Dynon Efis (Rob Logan)
34. 07:08 PM - Re: WAAS or Not (Rob Logan)
35. 07:16 PM - Re: GPS wiring? (Rob Logan)
36. 10:24 PM - Re: Re: Fix for radio noise (Werner Schneider)
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: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Thanks Jay, that was just what I was looking for!
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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 |
|
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hi John
Good question. Basically the answer is that fuse are fast acting and
circuit breakers are very slow acting. If you put a fuse in there (even
a large one) it will pop before the downstream Alt Field circuit breaker
can open in an OV (overvoltage) situation. I don't think that is a major
problem but then you might as well not install the CB, and after an OV
occurrence, you'd have to install a new fuse if you wanted to restart
the alternator to check that it was a real OV. Since real OV's are
pretty rare I think either approach might be reasonable....
Ken
Bikcrzy@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bikcrzy@aol.com
>
>Hello List,
>
>I need an explanation why the wire coming off the master switch connecting
>to the main power bus on the Z-11 generic light aircraft system drawing needs
>a fuse-link instead of a standard fuse? Is it because the fuse-link will
>handle spikes better than a fuse? I don't see any special path that would require
>a break before a fuse? There probably is an easy answer but this stuff is
>somewhat new to me. Thanks in advance. John Robinson RV-7A.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 17, 2005, at 9:41 PM, Wayne Sweet wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
> <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
> I fly regularly with other pilots with GPS equipped aircraft and have
> not
> heard a single complaint about GPS signal loss. BTW, I was flying the
> LORAN
> (Apollo 618) when all the chains were up. Still lost track one night
> going
> into Columbia Airport in the Sierra foothills and departing Arlington,
> WA.
> The latter was the last straw. Lost track frequently in the southwest.
> Have flown across the U.S., down to the southwest and the northwest,
> never
> lost track with the GPS.
I put almost 3000 hours on my Arnav R-40 IFR-certifed LORAN in my
Comanche before replacing it with an Apollo GX-60. I flew a lot of hard
IFR using that LORAN. I overlaid the LORAN data atop of every VOR and
NDB approach I flew. The LORAN was much more accurate than either of
those and made shooting those approaches safer.
LORAN wasn't a panacea tho'. I found it had a geometry problem at the
colorado river E of Los Angeles no matter what I did and I lost it once
in severe p-static in a snowstorm over the Atlantic. That p-static also
took out my HF transceiver and my VHF transceiver.
There was a multi-chain receiver that was built for heavy iron. It
would navigate using all the chains (GRIs) and all the secondaries it
could hear, not just the single primary and two secondaries that most
aviation LORAN receivers used. It did not suffer from the availability
problems because it worked around the problems of geometry and
propagation. Think of it as the LORAN equivalent of the 12-channel
parallel GPS receiver. If someone started building LORAN again you can
bet that they would build a multi-chain receiver since the processing
power needed to make it work is now cheap.
I am not arguing the advantages of LORAN vs. GPS. I am arguing that
LORAN can be used to deliver WAAS data to your GPS receiver AND if the
GPS system goes down, your LORAN can be used as an area navigation
system to get you to your destination safely.
The GPS system right now depends on the same technology to deliver the
WAAS data as it does to deliver position information and the WAAS
channel delivers only WAAS data and nothing else. Through minor
modifications the Europeans are going to take their existing LORAN
system and have it transmit the WAAS data at a cost much, much lower
than we paid for a satellite-based WAAS that provides no other backup.
So the sort version is, the European system will provide all the
advantages of our system at a lower cost AND their WAAS channel will
provide backup navigation. That sounds a whole hell of a lot better
system analysis and design to me.
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 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 |
|
|July 24, 2002) at 01/18/2005 11:07:54 AM,
Serialize by Router on mtasmtp1-clev/P/SERVER/PHILIPS-CLE(Release 5.0.11
|July
24, 2002) at 01/18/2005 11:08:20 AM,
Serialize complete at 01/18/2005 11:08:20 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Logan <Rob@Logan.com>
> At airports located in high obstacle fields, the lowest minima
> will almost always be via a non precision level flight segment
while this is true, a CNX80 loaded with 2.0 software or any Chelton
will provide vertical guidance below MDA from FAF to MAP via a perfect
to hit dirt (yea its shallow) GS. with a Chelton one
can do a "VFR" approach with any angle GS (all the way to dirt) but
I'd prefer to take the surveyed path up high.
For those that have actually pushed mins, ground lighting is
extremely important.. heck, I've gone missed on an ILS twice
and then went to an airport with centerline lighting and made
it.. Lighting is extremely important. This and another experience
makes me note the type of lighting (RAIL) before any approach.
The point the original author of the thread was trying to make
before it was hijacked was: Does the shutdown of your
entire navigator if one very hard to receive SV signal is lost,
increase safety? wouldn't some information be better than none?
Bob's been waiving the MDA, LPV minima flag for 3+ years to keep
us legal, and that's *very* important. but these navigators
offer real life advantages, and lets hope that can be
improved too.
Rob
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 |
|
|July 24, 2002) at 01/18/2005 11:09:17 AM,
Serialize by Router on mtasmtp1-clev/P/SERVER/PHILIPS-CLE(Release 5.0.11
|July
24, 2002) at 01/18/2005 11:09:39 AM,
Serialize complete at 01/18/2005 11:09:39 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Logan <Rob@Logan.com>
> on initial takeoff and chandelle type maneuvers (such as a closed
> pull-up, or first turn out of traffic), the unit had significant
> acceleration errors and frequently showed erroneous bank angles.
The $15k certified xbow 500 in a lancair will do the same.
Its better than any spinning tungsten because the kalman filter
level it soon after. (no caging) enough so I take mine IMC with
a backup T&B. the trick is to fly GPS barring and track (or
Chelton velocity vector) for the first min.
Rob
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
If you enjoy drilling out rivets carry on. The tech doesn't have
contortionist as part of his job skills. If it's inaccible it will break.
MURPHY'S LAWS RULE !!!!
Leo Corbalis
archive
Original Message -----
From: "Richard Suffoletto" <rsuffoletto@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto"
<rsuffoletto@hotmail.com>
>
>
> This may be a dumb question... Is there any way to test an encoder to see
if
> it is working? Other than making sure all wiring is correct and votages
are
> where they should be and proper. My encoder will be difficult to reach
(not
> impossible) when I put the top skin on so I wanted to check it before
> closing it in.
>
>
> I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a bit
> difficult due to my location...
>
> thanks
>
> richard
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
Werner,
All information I have about the BMA units is gleaned from the discussion pages
on their web site - I recall their acceleration/attitude problems as having been
well earlier than a year ago, but they've apparently solved them nevertheless.
I did some research and the most recent software I flew with my Dynon was
1.09. Also, I had the original, D-10, hardware; they have since improved their
hardware to a D-10A unit and I've not seen it in action yet.
Dan Fritz
---------------------------------
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com
In a message dated 1/18/05 12:02:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
> I use a pint mason jar with a couple of hose fittings soldered
> to the lid for a vacuum accumulator. A brass needle valve from
> an aquarium supplies store provides a precision leak-down valve
> to control rate of descent.
A needle valve from a model airplane carburetor also works well.
>
> Plumb a calibrated altimeter into this system and you can
> do your own static system checks with the same degree of
> precision as the $high$ guys.
>
>
Yes, we but can't certify it and make the log book entry. Correct?
Dale Ensing
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: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:33 PM 1/18/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 1/18/05 12:02:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
>
> > I use a pint mason jar with a couple of hose fittings soldered
> > to the lid for a vacuum accumulator. A brass needle valve from
> > an aquarium supplies store provides a precision leak-down valve
> > to control rate of descent.
>
> A needle valve from a model airplane carburetor also works well.
>
> >
> > Plumb a calibrated altimeter into this system and you can
> > do your own static system checks with the same degree of
> > precision as the $high$ guys.
> >
> >
> Yes, we but can't certify it and make the log book entry. Correct?
Of course not . . .
Bob . . .
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: Type I Contactor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:56 AM 1/18/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
><mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>I think this was discussed recently, but I can't find
>it in the archives. Does anyone have a good source
>for the type II battery contactors?
>
>Thanks,
>Mickey
No "good" ones. These are expensive. I used to handle
them for Lancair IVP builders. See data sheet
for 6041H105 contactor at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Eaton
Last time I sold one (about 5 years ago) it was
about $175.
Bob . . .
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Good explanation Ken. The fusible link is a VERY slow acting
fuse that protects wire from fuseblock/bus up to the circuit
breaker. If one elects to run a 700-2-3 battery master, then
a pullable breaker is still indicated for doing battery only
ground maintenance and disabling the alternator.
Bob . . .
>Hi John
>
>Good question. Basically the answer is that fuse are fast acting and
>circuit breakers are very slow acting. If you put a fuse in there (even
>a large one) it will pop before the downstream Alt Field circuit breaker
>can open in an OV (overvoltage) situation. I don't think that is a major
>problem but then you might as well not install the CB, and after an OV
>occurrence, you'd have to install a new fuse if you wanted to restart
>the alternator to check that it was a real OV. Since real OV's are
>pretty rare I think either approach might be reasonable....
>
>Ken
>
>Bikcrzy@aol.com wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bikcrzy@aol.com
> >
> >Hello List,
> >
> >I need an explanation why the wire coming off the master switch connecting
> >to the main power bus on the Z-11 generic light aircraft system drawing
> needs
> >a fuse-link instead of a standard fuse? Is it because the fuse-link will
> >handle spikes better than a fuse? I don't see any special path that
> would require
> >a break before a fuse? There probably is an easy answer but this stuff is
> >somewhat new to me. Thanks in advance. John Robinson RV-7A.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265 - Release Date: 1/17/2005
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 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: Fix for radio noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:56 PM 1/14/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
><cheathco@comcast.net>
>
>I thought I would post the results of noise fix. I installed both mag
>filters. (tedious) and fixed the noise. charlie heathco ATL.
Thank you Charlie. For other folks on the list, Charlie called a couple
of weeks ago complaining of magneto noise in radio. He had already
wired per Z-figures and was reasonably sure spark plug harnesses
were okay. I suggested magneto p-lead noise filters. He's now reporting
success with the noise problem.
This is the first time since I've been publishing the 'Connection
that I've become aware of a mag noise problem so intractable as
to require the p-lead filters in addition to ordinary shielding.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Z13a Pre-flight alt test procedure? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:17 PM 1/13/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Bob, using Z13A, what would the approved pre-flight check for the Primary
>Alt and SD8 be? It's normally off, with the primary alt normally on. Bus
>voltage over 13+ would indicate that the primary is working so would you
>shut it off and turn the SD8 on and check the battery bus voltage again. If
>so, there is that Alt off while running load dump thing again. (?)
>
>What would the approved preflight sequence look like?
If you have an EXTERNALLY regulated alternator, you can turn this
puppy ON or OFF at any time without risk to alternator or other
components in the aircraft. So, during magneto/ignition run-up,
turn the aux alternator ON and main alternator OFF to observe that
the alternator output loadmeter comes up. At the usual
mag/ign run up speeds (1800 rpm) you're going to get an alternator
speed of about 2500 rpm. According to B&C data at:
http://bandc.biz/Sd-8.pdf
. . . one can expect only 4 to 5 amps from the alternator which
means it may not support present system loads. The bus voltage
may sag but ignore this. If the alternator comes up at all,
it's probably fine.
Then turn the main alternator ON and aux alternator OFF and
continue with the rest of the pre-flight check.
If you have an internally regulated alternator, I would wait
until you've taxied out to approach end of runway and before
you advance the throttle for magneto/ignition check, turn aux
alternator ON and main alternator OFF with engine at idle
RPM. I presume also that you've installed the recommended
b-lead protection transorb.
Run rpm up and see that aux alternator loadmeter shows some
activity. Reduce rpm to idle before bringing main alternator
back ON and turning aux alternator OFF.
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Installing a DAVTRON Outside Air Temp instrument. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:16 PM 1/13/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ernest Kells"
><ernest.kells@sympatico.ca>
>
>I have installed a Davtron OAT gauge 307FC - on the instrument panel. See
>A.C.S. catalogue, page 353. I would like to wire it now for mounting just
>inside the inner inspection plate of the right wing (RV-9A). I would like
>to cut the red/black wires for an AMP terminal block in the wing root, as
>well as one additional knife/disconnect connection.
>
>My question. Would the two connections compromise the capability of the
>instrument as well as the accuracy of the gauge? I live in Northern
>Ontario. OAT is a significant question. Thanks.
I believe the Davtron temp sensor is a solid state
10mv/degreeK device that tolerates long wires and
connectors very nicely. Just for warm fuzzies, check
your installation with an ice cube. The OAT should read
very close to 32F/0C as installed using an ice cube to
cool the installed sensor.
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Development Expense |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:04 AM 1/13/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Jackson"
><jayeandscott@telus.net>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
>I disagree: check out this month's Aviation Consumer on page 20 to see just
>how this mindset is holding us back..
>SCott in VAncover
I can personally attest to the differences in today's certification
efforts as compared to 30 years ago. The differences are HUGE.
It can take as long as 2 years to get a TSO'd part on a type
certificated airplane. The quantity of no-value-added paperwork
is aggravated by the fact that step by step approvals can have
up to 90 days of turn-around time to get document submissions
back from your FAA handler.
As engineers, we spend about as much time in communion with
our FAA watchdogs as we do in real design work. Further, it's
so difficult to get a product to market that once certification
is achieved, any progressive product improvements are all but
impossible to incorporate. We've learned a lot in the past
30 years . . . things that could save weight and dollars in
for our customers but just won't happen because of poor
return on investment for the effort.
Type certificated aircraft are frozen in time, OBAM aircraft
evolve with the marketplace. I can't imagine why anyone would
buy a new C-172 when an RV runs circles around it for both
performance and price for half the dollars. Further, if you
want/need to modify it, the task is done with a tiny fraction
of $time$ compared to the certified ship.
Bob . . .
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Modified Z-12 comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:35 AM 1/8/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> 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.
First, Z-12 was never intended as a solution for a new design. It's
a snap-shot of what the certified world is doing to add the SD-20
alternator to an existing airplane that doesn't have an e-bus nor
does the owner/operator have the option of making changes with out
expending a lot of time and dollars.
If one is going to have dual batteries with two very capable alternators,
then Z-14 is the ticket.
>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.
Did he explain why he departed from the recommended switch
configuration? As shown, Z-12 allows the pilot to shut off
the main alternator while leaving the battery on line (S700-2-10
progressive transfer switch). Except for the e-bus replacing
an "avionics bus" this is the way the C-210 is wired.
>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.
I'm also mystified why he installed two batteries when there are
two robust alternators. If he's using B&C hardware throughout,
he already has the most reliable alternators on the market so
it's VERY unlikely that he'll find himself in a battery-only
modus operandi.
There are no "acceptable" or "unacceptable" modifications. The
"best" modifications are accomplished with rational attention
to failure mode effects analysis, parts count reduction and
operational simplicity. If you would ask him to detail the
reasons for whatever changes he made, only then can I or
any one else on the List offer analysis of the reasoning.
Several times a month I get drawings in the mail where
a builder says, "Did everything you recommended in
Figure Z-xx with just a few changes." The builder almost
never states what the changes were and what perceived
failure mode drove the changes. I simply don't have time
to second guess the builder's desires or intentions.
Ask your friend to tell us why two batteries and then,
given that there are two robust alternators, why not
Figure Z-14?
Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:18 PM 1/8/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>With all the discussion on load dump ever wondered why now and not 50 years
>ago?
Except for Bonanza/Baron style architecture (separate switches
for alternator and battery-master, there's no great risk of
generating a load-dump event by manipulation of controls.
>One reason is then (and now) I have learned and then taught that the
>alternator was turned on only after the engine was started and both the
>battery and the alternator was only turned off AFTER the engine was
>completely stopped.
>
>Recently I have seem and observed first hand cases where the ammeter was
>checked during runup by turning the alternator off. Also the alternator and
>master were turned off before shutting down the engine.
>
>The latter procedure assures load dump and the former prevents load dump.
>
>Any one know when the latter procedure became popular in some circles???
>
>The above does not include emergency or failure conditions.
For the most part, it doesn't matter on certified ships. None
that I know of have alternators with built in regulators.
There's no overpowering reason for either of the techniques
cited to take presidence over the other.
Bob . . .
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and PM alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:40 PM 1/8/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Thesee"
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Eric and all,
>
>Please pardon me for having followed the load dump thread with a casual eye.
>
> > Load dump is an issue with any source of power that uses a rotating
> > conductor in a magnetic field. By the way, overvoltage and load dump are
> > related in that they both have associated overvoltages. Load dump is a
> > strictly transient OV condition caused by disconnecting a load, but an
> > overvoltage condition can be caused by a failed regulator or other causes
> > and may be long term. Both need to be addressed.
> >
>
>Question : is the load dump issue the same for permanent magnet alternators
>? At first glance I would say there are differences, but would one of you
>experts tell me if I have to reconsider my "ordinary" crowbar OV module
>setup ?
No, only the internally regulated alternators with Figure Z-24
wiring. There are no special concerns for alternators with external
regulators or permanent magnet alternators.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
0.50 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
0.01 RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE Received: by and from look like IP addresses
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Bob,
I am in the process of setting up my electrical system and have a "Switch" question.
The P-mag needs a P-lead type switch and a power switch. To save space
I would like to use one switch for both operations. A three position switch
could be used for this if one with the needed configuration is available. do
you know of such a switch? Thanks. Don
Bob,
I am in the process of setting up my electrical system and have a "Switch" question.
The P-mag needs a P-lead type switch and a power switch. To save space I
would like to use one switch for both operations. A three position switch could
be used for this if one with the needed configuration is available. do you
know of such a switch? Thanks. Don
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Development Expense |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >> 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.
Call me hopelessly optimistic.
I have dealt a bit with the FAA and have found them reasonable. But I have
dealt a whole lot more with the FDA--and they can't be so very different in
terms of paperwork and complications. I have dealt with UL, ETL, and a dozen
test labs. I have also dealt with corporate bureaucrats who would have been
ratted out to the FBI and shot as saboteurs in WWII....
But I digress....Here's the plan: Since the economic well-being of ...oh,
pick a name out of the air...Raytheon, depends greatly on an efficient FAA
certification process, it would behoove Raytheon management to get their
state representatives to wake up and smell the av-gas. Or else.
But apparently it does not interest anybody in management enough to speed up
the process. For that matter you could organize to vote the FAA out of
existence if they are really holding up the process. Keep the lawyers and
anyone else who benefits from lengthening the process out of it.
Okay, so I'm much too optimistic---but I think this is a solvable problem. I
knew a young Chinese engineer who remarked that gourmet chefs usually failed
in trying to run Chinese restaurants. But he and his other engineer friends
looked upon it as input-process-and-output. And they hire gourmet chefs.
Okay--Hopelessly Naive....
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOAD dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:33 PM 1/7/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bobby Hester"
><bhester@hopkinsville.net>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
> > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:04 (CDT)
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: LOAD dump comments
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> >
> > Eric has a packaged assy that is easier to
> > install but a few more $$.
> >
> >
> > Its worse if you have the standalone OVP and an internally regulated
> > alternator IF the OVP trips during flight; here is what happens. (This
> combo
> > is not recommended as I understand by Vans. And I agree! at least with any
> > type of crowbar OVP device.)
>
>Ok, so let me get this right.
>
>If I add the "Whackjack" http://www.periheliondesign.com/whackjack18.htm
>to my currently installed Vans 60amp internally regulated alternator and
>Bob Nuckolls OV protection setup which includes a crowbar, then I will be
>ok and I won't fry my alternator.
>
>I don't mind paying a little extra for a part, if I know it is going to do
>the job, because somebody has done the test and knows that it will do the
>job. You guys spent some time working on this.
>
>What about it Bob Nuckolls, is this going to do what we need it do? Does
>it have your blessings?
You can do anything on your OBAM aircraft that you wish
and certainly without my blessings. Van's hasn't a clue
as to why any particular ov protection system should
or should not be incorporated. In fact, I don't believe
any of the factory ships have ov protection of any kind.
Crowbar ov protection has been flying for over 15
years in what must no be 2000-3000 airplanes carrying
B&C's LR series regulators. Last time I talked with
Femi (Zeftronics guy) at OSH about ten years ago,
he was impressed with the low parts count and improved
performance of crowbar over then popular ov relays. I
believe several of his certified after-market regulators
now feature crowbar ov protection. Crowbar ov protection
is included in B&C's SD-20 installations on certified
ships. I'll bet there's over 1000 of those installations
flying by now.
It still amuses me that some folks are happy to have
circuit breakers interrupt current to a faulted
wire but get their shorts in a bunch when we
deliberately fault a wire downstream of a breaker
to corral a runaway alternator. The SAME fault currents
flow in both instances. Yes, it's certainly hundreds
of amps. But irrespective of WHY the breaker or fuse
opens, the event terminates in milliseconds, effects
on the rest of the system are the same and of no
particular significance.
The Beechjet I've been working on for the last month
experiences a 1000+ amp inrush when the a/c
motor is switched on. Yes, there are trashy little
gremlins launched into the system every time . . . but
none exceed DO-160 expectations and 750+ Beechjets
have been living happily with this condition for over
30 years. So when folks start tossing around
gawd-awful current numbers and attributing high-risk
consequences, please be both skeptical and calm.
Probability is that these conditions have been
considered as part an parcel of the system design
and do not represent a reason to start ripping things
out of your airplane.
It isn't the crowbar ov module that causes the
load-dump event on an internally regulated alternator.
Note that Van's customers reported the problem after
turning the system OFF and ON while the alternator was
loaded. Results would have been the same whether or not
a crowbar ov module or ANY OTHER ov protection
system were installed.
The simple-ideas underlying this discussion are
concerned with a narrow range of instances where
an internally regulated alternator wired for
aircraft service per Figure Z-24 and IS NOT CAPABLE
of standing off its own load-dumps.
Let's focus on that issue and deduce the elegant
solution for risk mitigation to the alternator.
Figure Z-24 has been in print for many years and
I'll suggest that most alternators incorporated in that
configuration ARE capable of standing off their
own load-dumps. I suspect this includes the
population of alternators that are OEM configuration
junk-yard take-offs with original regulators
installed.
There's been a boat-load of wild-eyed traffic
on this topic on the list, and directly to B&C
and myself over the past several weeks. This is
not a big deal folks. Just a little clear air
turbulence. The risks are low, the solution is
simple and not worthy of great concerns.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:52 AM 1/13/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>
>Bob
>
>I have some procedure questions.
>
>I have my plane wired per Z14. In the event of a low volt warning. Do I just
>turn on the crossfeed contactor? or do I pull the circuit breaker going to
>the B&C regulator and then turn on the crossfeed contactor.
If your master switches are 2-10 then simply turn off the alternator
on the 'dead' side and close the crossfeed contactor. If the main
alternator fails, then your COMBINED bus loads must be reduced to
20A or less. Optionally, you could simply shut down the 'dead' side
and treat the working side as an endurance mode operation thus saving
all battery energies for approach to landing.
>Is there any problem if the crossfeed contactor is accidentally turned on
>with both system working properly?
It doesn't hurt anything. If the SD-20 voltage is set higher than
the main alternator, it might cause the loadmeter on the SD-20 to
peg but this isn't a big deal if you catch it in a few minutes.
I presume you have a CROSSFEED ON indicator light?
Bob . . .
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: | Re: Aircraft Development Expense |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 01/18/2005 5:32:21 PM Central Standard Time,
emjones@charter.net writes:
I knew a young Chinese engineer who remarked that gourmet chefs usually failed
in trying to run Chinese restaurants. But he and his other engineer friends
looked upon it as input-process-and-output. And they hire gourmet chefs.
>>>
They should learn to cook. Which reminds me of one of Bobs great signatures
attributed to TAE: "Hell, there are no rules here- we're trying to accomplish
something"
US bureaucracy + US business vs. OBAM = No contest- WE WIN!
Mark Phillips
do not archive
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: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:26 AM 1/12/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> 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.
I'm not sure this is true. The load-dump phenomenon is not new. It's
been around since day-one with all alternators but particularly the
internally regulated devices. The automotive industry is far more
cognizant of design induced failures than the aircraft industry. Little
glitches can generate recall and/or maintenance events numbering in
the MILLIONS where we produce perhaps 50 or 75 of any one airplane every
year.
I'd bet a dollar to a donut that most internally regulated alternators
are designed to withstand their own load-dump events.
Bob . . .
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: RE: Digital Photos |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:26 PM 1/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>What do you use for camera/lense and any special settings for the photos you
>provide. We (at least me) would appreciate some clues on how to get
>digitals with the same sharpness and fine detail.
I use a Cannon C-5050 at the present time. This is the third digital
camera I've owned. The C-5050 is a technically great machine but not
ready for prime time. On a ferry trip from Puerto Rico to Culebra
last winter, two or three little drops of salt water got through the
zipper on my camera case when a wave broke over the bow. After a couple
of hours, I could see signs of moisture on the inside surface of the
LCD screen cover.
Ever since, it acts up in humid conditions. I keep it stored in
a plastic canister loaded with silica-gel and it always works
for a few hours after I take it out on the road. But during
a trip to San Antonio last spring, it started fussing after
a few days. I could still shoot in the viewfinder mode
without flash or LCD screen but all the really nice features
were hosed.
This camera will shoot through my binocular microscope to
produce images like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HiRes1.jpg
Would you belive this is a "failed" switch contact?
Event without the microscope, it offers excellent
close focus capability like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/sm_switch_cutaway.jpg
This switch is about .6" long and suffered the
"failed" contact illustrated above.
Except for the vulnerability to moisture ingress,
I've been very satisfied with this camera. Due to
it's "crippled" condition, I'll probably not sell it
when I upgrade. My next purchase will probalby be the
digital version of the Cannon EOS with interchangeable
lenses. It remains to be seen how well that camera
works through the microscope so I'll keep the C-5050
around until it croaks completely.
I used digital photography extensively both on works
for the 'Connection and for my job at RAC. Virtually
all my memos and reports are liberally illustrated.
It's so easy, there's no reason not to do it.
Along with a camera, you need a minimalist editing
and captioning program. Take a look at LView Pro.
http://www.lview.com/index1024.htm
It's very intuitive and easy to use.
Bob . . .
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Load dump and shutdown procedures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:36 PM 1/11/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> 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.
I think it's simpler still George. The internal
regulator is not an automatic negative irrespective
of the vehicle it's used in. The prudent
designer needs to be aware of limits in all
system components and compare those with
known stresses.
I have to belive that ND and any other alternator
designers have been aware of the effects of
load-dump for a very long time. They've learned
how to live with it harmoniously just as your
own design has been crafted to well considered
requirements.
This whole tempest-in-a-teapot bubbled up for
mostly wrong or poorly considered reasons. I believe
the vast majority of pilots flying internally
regulated machines have little to worry about
with respect to self-immolation-by-load-dump.
The only thing "special" about our application
is the desire to exercise operating panel
control over all power sources including
alternators. This means there is a switch
that either (1) opens the field excitation
path or (2) opens a b-lead disconnect contactor.
Adding OV protection to EITHER configuration
is easy.
(2) is a special case where normal operation
of a control may produce a load-dump
transient. The alternator in question was
probably designed to tolerate it. But
facts not in evidence go to whether the smoked
alternators were in their OEM configuration.
The safest thing to do is assume that all
such alternators are at-risk and mitigate
the risk by prudent design. It's easy
and cheap to do. In any case the load
dump induced failure is no more perilous
to aircraft or pilot than a failure for any
other reason (loose b-lead nut, broken belt,
etc.).
Bob . . .
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aircraft Theft Protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
From time to time we've participated in discussions about aircraft
security with respect to theft with many builders gravitating
toward key switches, hidden switches, etc.
I've often offered the story about bringing a rental airplane
home after I'd lost the key by simply breaking the p-leads loose
from the mag switch and propping the engine. After I got
home, I dug up the spare key, cut a replacement for the
lost key and crimped new terminals on the p-leads.
I think my overall favorite anti-theft technique involves
use of a covered length of hard chain and an equally hard
lock looped over the propeller blades. This morning I was
walking in from another look at the "Beechjet from Hell"
and saw this airplane sitting on the ramp:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/AC_Theft_Protection.jpg
Like most aircraft of the genre, once you're inside the airplane,
it belongs to you. But the simple addition to the left propeller
is about as forceful a deterrent to flight as I can imagine.
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 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: Fix for radio noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> This is the first time since I've been publishing the 'Connection
> that I've become aware of a mag noise problem so intractable as
> to require the p-lead filters in addition to ordinary shielding.
>
> Bob . . .
BTW, I used your suggestion of installing
the Radio Shack 10A noise filters on my strobe
power supplies, and it completely cleaned up the
noise I was hearing in my headset.
Thanks! :-)
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "earl_schroeder@juno.com" <earl_schroeder@juno.com>
I have a 'surplus' mouse type GPS receiver purchased from ebay. It works fine
with my laptop via the USB port. I would like to use this GPS receiver to provide
data to a TruTrak autopilot which needs NEMA 0183 provided by this GPS.
I have determined that the outer two USB pins provide power but which of the two
center pins is data? And I assume it is referenced to the negative side of
the power?
If I wanted to use a scope to see the data, what 'load' should be placed on the
data line?
Maybe someone could point to a URL to obtain this info. I've tried email to the
mfg but no response. Thanks, Earl (if this is outside the scope of this list,
surely someone will let me know)
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: Aircraft Theft Protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Unless that chain is looped around the left hand blade and you can't tell
from the picture, It has NO Protection
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Theft Protection
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> From time to time we've participated in discussions about aircraft
> security with respect to theft with many builders gravitating
> toward key switches, hidden switches, etc.
>
> I've often offered the story about bringing a rental airplane
> home after I'd lost the key by simply breaking the p-leads loose
> from the mag switch and propping the engine. After I got
> home, I dug up the spare key, cut a replacement for the
> lost key and crimped new terminals on the p-leads.
>
> I think my overall favorite anti-theft technique involves
> use of a covered length of hard chain and an equally hard
> lock looped over the propeller blades. This morning I was
> walking in from another look at the "Beechjet from Hell"
> and saw this airplane sitting on the ramp:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/AC_Theft_Protection.jpg
>
> Like most aircraft of the genre, once you're inside the airplane,
> it belongs to you. But the simple addition to the left propeller
> is about as forceful a deterrent to flight as I can imagine.
>
>
> 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 31
| 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 E. Nelson" <david.nelson@pobox.com>
Hi Earl,
USB uses differential signaling (D- and D+). Also, you are limited to
500 mA @ 5VDC from the power pins. Also, the signalling can vary from
1.2 megabits/sec (Low Speed) to 12 megabits/sec (Full Speed) - for USB
1.x and up to 480 megabits/sec (Hi Speed) for USB 2.0. All this is
negotiated when you plug in a USB device. Say goodbye to simple serial
communications.
Do not archive.
Regards,
/\/elson
earl_schroeder@juno.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "earl_schroeder@juno.com" <earl_schroeder@juno.com>
>
>
>I have a 'surplus' mouse type GPS receiver purchased from ebay. It works fine
with my laptop via the USB port. I would like to use this GPS receiver to provide
data to a TruTrak autopilot which needs NEMA 0183 provided by this GPS.
>
>I have determined that the outer two USB pins provide power but which of the two
center pins is data? And I assume it is referenced to the negative side of
the power?
>
>If I wanted to use a scope to see the data, what 'load' should be placed on the
data line?
>
>Maybe someone could point to a URL to obtain this info. I've tried email to the
mfg but no response. Thanks, Earl (if this is outside the scope of this list,
surely someone will let me know)
>
>
>
>
Message 32
| 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: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut@engalt.com>
I doubt that you are going to have any luck here because NMEA data is
standard at 4,800 baud and is in a specific serial format. I am not a USB
expert, but I suspect that the USB data coming from the antenna is vastly
different than what you need.
I am also not familiar with the Trutrack autopilot, but I am very familiar
with marine autopilots and 99% of the marine autopilots are looking mainly
for crosstrack error from the GPS when you have the GPS programmed to steer
to a waypoint. When you are not steering to a waypoint the only usefull
data that the pilot uses from the GPS is speed. Since you can not program a
waypoint without the computer hooked up your autopilot might not care less
even if you do get the data from the GPS into it.
By the way, I manufacture a NMEA splitter that provides six independent
outputs from a single input. I sell a ton of them in the marine industry
because it is common to interface GPSs, speed logs, sounders, etc. to
sometimes a dozen or more pieces of equipment that use the data. I am not
sure how common a problem it is on aircraft to run out of drive capability
on your GPS, but if there is any interest click on MARINE PRODUCTS on my web
site. I also make a handheld NMEA simulator and do other custom interface
solutions.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
earl_schroeder@juno.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS wiring?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "earl_schroeder@juno.com"
<earl_schroeder@juno.com>
I have a 'surplus' mouse type GPS receiver purchased from ebay. It works
fine with my laptop via the USB port. I would like to use this GPS receiver
to provide data to a TruTrak autopilot which needs NEMA 0183 provided by
this GPS.
I have determined that the outer two USB pins provide power but which of the
two center pins is data? And I assume it is referenced to the negative side
of the power?
If I wanted to use a scope to see the data, what 'load' should be placed on
the data line?
Maybe someone could point to a URL to obtain this info. I've tried email to
the mfg but no response. Thanks, Earl (if this is outside the scope of this
list, surely someone will let me know)
Message 33
| 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: Rob Logan <Rob@Logan.com>
> on initial takeoff and chandelle type maneuvers (such as a closed
> pull-up, or first turn out of traffic), the unit had significant
> acceleration errors and frequently showed erroneous bank angles.
The $15k certified xbow 500 in my lancair will display a slight
tilt too.. very distracting, but far from "significant". Its still way
better than any spinning tungsten because the kalman filter
level it within a min. (no caging) enough so I trust mine IMC with
a backup T&B. the trick is to fly GPS barring and track (or
Chelton velocity vector) for the first min.
Rob
Message 34
| 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: Rob Logan <Rob@Logan.com>
> At airports located in high obstacle fields, the lowest minima
> will almost always be via a non precision level flight segment
while this is true, a CNX80 loaded with 2.0 software or any Chelton
will provide vertical guidance below MDA from FAF to MAP via a perfect
to hit dirt (yea its shallow) GS. with a Chelton one
can do a "VFR" approach with any angle GS (all the way to dirt) but
I prefer to take the surveyed path up high.
For those that have pushed mins, ground lighting is
extremely important.. heck, I've gone missed on an ILS twice
and then went to an airport with centerline lighting and made
it.. Lighting is extremely important. This and another experience
makes me note the type of lighting (RAIL) before any approach.
The point the original author of the thread was trying to make
before it was hijacked was: Does the shutdown of your
entire navigator if one very hard to receive SV signal is lost,
increase safety? wouldn't some information be better than none?
Bob's been waiving the MDA, LPV minima flag for 3+ years to keep
us legal, and that's *very* important. but these navigators
offer real life advantages, and lets hope that can be
improved too.
Rob
Message 35
| 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: Rob Logan <Rob@Logan.com>
> I have a 'surplus' mouse type GPS receiver purchased from ebay.
there is a block in the middle of the cable that's rs232 to usb.
cut that out and you have:
red 6-40vdc
black ground
blue rx
white tx
green (rx for dgps, leave n/c)
from http://www.garmin.com/manuals/GPS35LPSeries_TechnicalSpecification.pdf
Rob
Message 36
| 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: Fix for radio noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
What kind (brand/type) of noise filters were used here?
Thx Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fix for radio noise
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 12:56 PM 1/14/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
> ><cheathco@comcast.net>
> >
> >I thought I would post the results of noise fix. I installed both mag
> >filters. (tedious) and fixed the noise. charlie heathco ATL.
>
>
> Thank you Charlie. For other folks on the list, Charlie called a couple
> of weeks ago complaining of magneto noise in radio. He had already
> wired per Z-figures and was reasonably sure spark plug harnesses
> were okay. I suggested magneto p-lead noise filters. He's now reporting
> success with the noise problem.
>
> This is the first time since I've been publishing the 'Connection
> that I've become aware of a mag noise problem so intractable as
> to require the p-lead filters in addition to ordinary shielding.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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! --
|