Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:49 AM - Re: switch guards (Hans Teijgeler)
2. 01:13 AM - Aeroelectrci - two battery, two alternator system ( Z-11) (owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com)
3. 01:46 AM - Re: Aeroelectrci - two battery, two alternator (Mickey Coggins)
4. 01:47 AM - Routing large power cables near radios (Charlie Kuss)
5. 04:20 AM - GRT Magnetometer reliance (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
6. 05:48 AM - Re: GRT Magnetometer reliance (Chuck Jensen)
7. 06:28 AM - Re: GRT Magnetometer reliance (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
8. 06:29 AM - Garmin manuals (Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR)
9. 06:48 AM - Re: Routing large power cables near radios (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:07 AM - Re: Aeroelectrci - two battery, two alternator system (Glaeser, Dennis A)
11. 08:17 AM - Home made VOR/GS antenna (Bordelon, Greg)
12. 08:48 AM - Re: Home made VOR/GS antenna (Wayne Sweet)
13. 09:56 AM - Re: switch guards (Jim and Lucy)
14. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: Aeroelectric - two battery, two alternator system (owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com)
15. 12:22 PM - Re: switch guards (paul wilson)
16. 12:37 PM - Battery Failure (Richard V. Reynolds)
17. 01:10 PM - Re: Battery Failure (Chuck Jensen)
18. 01:41 PM - Re: Home made VOR/GS antenna (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 02:08 PM - Re: two battery, two alternator system (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 02:45 PM - Re: Battery Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 04:20 PM - Re: Battery Failure (Richard V. Reynolds)
22. 07:22 PM - Garmin 296 Antenna Cable (Phil Birkelbach)
23. 07:34 PM - Re: Garmin 296 Antenna Cable (Chris Horsten)
24. 07:47 PM - Re: Garmin 296 Antenna Cable (BobsV35B@aol.com)
25. 08:01 PM - Re: Garmin 296 Antenna Cable (Jim Corner)
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: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans@jodel.com>
Thanks Michael. Just what I was looking for. I've ordered four pairs of
Hans
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] Namens Jones, Michael
> Verzonden: dinsdag 8 februari 2005 14:30
> Aan: AeroElectric-List Digest Server (E-mail)
> Onderwerp: AeroElectric-List: switch guards
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jones, Michael"
> <MJones@hatch.ca>
>
> hi all
>
> found web site with some really good looking toggle switch guards, for any
> one who wants to spruce up a boring looking panel, they have reproductions
> of guards from space shuttle and x-15 rocket plane panels, not that
> expensive either
>
> http://periheliondesign.com/
>
> mike#007 <<OldNASAguards[1].gif>> <<SpaceShuttleSwitchGuard[1].jpg>>
>
>
> NOTICE - This message is the property of HATCH. It may also be
> confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient
> of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate,
> copy or take any action with respect to it.
>
> If you have received this message in error please notify
> HATCH immediately via mailto:MailAdmin@hatch.ca.
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aeroelectrci - two battery, two alternator system ( |
Z-11)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
This is really a question for Bob. But here goes to the list anyway.
Being new to building a plane and to electrical matters, I read Bob's book
cover to cover twice and was sold on the idea of fitting my RV8 with a two
alternator, two battery system (two years for each battery). System seems
good and it one main advantage: two level redundancy.
But a nagging feeling keeps coming back. In an attempt at applying the KISS
principle (for those who might not be aware aka 'keep it simple, stupid'), I
tell myself would I not be better off with a very simple one battery, one
alternator setup? Am I not with all those extra wires and switches and other
equipment offsetting the redundancy advantage with a higher risk at having a
complexity related failure?
That's it - if Bob or anyone else would care to comment?
One last thing - I know it is my airplane and that I should do whatever
seems best for me - but I would appreciate some enlightened intelligent
comments.
Regards,
Michle Delsol
RV8 - Wings going on to the fuselage
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: Aeroelectrci - two battery, two alternator |
system ( Z-11)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Michle,
What kind of flying do you plan for the airplane? What
kind of stuff will you install? Is the airplane electrically
dependent? (no mags?) If you have mags, and plan on daytime
VFR, then dual batteries and dual alternators seems to be
overkill. If you plan to fly it over the Atlantic with
an electrically dependent engine, then 2+2 is probably a
good idea.
Mickey
owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
> This is really a question for Bob. But here goes to the list anyway.
>
> Being new to building a plane and to electrical matters, I read Bob's book
> cover to cover twice and was sold on the idea of fitting my RV8 with a two
> alternator, two battery system (two years for each battery). System seems
> good and it one main advantage: two level redundancy.
>
> But a nagging feeling keeps coming back. In an attempt at applying the KISS
> principle (for those who might not be aware aka 'keep it simple, stupid'), I
> tell myself would I not be better off with a very simple one battery, one
> alternator setup? Am I not with all those extra wires and switches and other
> equipment offsetting the redundancy advantage with a higher risk at having a
> complexity related failure?
>
> That's it - if Bob or anyone else would care to comment?
>
> One last thing - I know it is my airplane and that I should do whatever
> seems best for me - but I would appreciate some enlightened intelligent
> comments.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: | Routing large power cables near radios |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Bob & Listers,
Does anyone foresee problems by running my main positive (rear) battery
cable so that it passes within 4" of the rear of my radio stack?
Charlie Kuss
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: | GRT Magnetometer reliance |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Hey guys,
I learned something yesterday that is very important to know.
I uploaded the recent software into the GRT EFIS. The upload procedure
was... frankly... amazing.
Insert usb chip into unit, turn knob, and watch. How cool is that? I
walked over to my buddy's house who has the dual units installed and
updated his. He thought I was very cool. I told him... Its not me, its
GRT. A monkey could do it. A very dumb monkey could do it.
Anyway, after the upload my attitude did not work and an e-mail to Todd
at GRT resulted in the answer. The new version does not show an attitude
if the magnetometer is not connected, or fails. The reason being that it
needs that data to complete the AHARS solution for attitude. I am still
going back and forth with Todd to determine if there is a better way for
them to handle an in flight manometer failure than just going TU, but
for now this is the behavior you will see in flight.
Since the attitude reading requires compass data, I have asked them to
look at some other solution like an "ahars unreliable" flag, or
countdown to going TU, or something other than instant TU. I do not know
what testing led to this new software change but I have to figure that
there is some period of time after loss of compass data that it is
usable, or partially usable.
Also since it is getting ground track from a gps source over a serial
data stream, could this not be used as a backup piece of data while the
compass is out? I dunno. But I do know "Other" competitors do not rely
on external devices to complete the solution for attitude.
Thoughts group?
Mike Stewart
Basement flying the GRT.
S8 FWF
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: | GRT Magnetometer reliance |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Michael,
Not showing an attitude indication when the AHARS is disconnected or 'down' on
the GRT EFIS may well be the right solution by eliminating a faulty indications.
Better to have no attitude indication that is correct, then to have one that's
incorrect. The GRT EFIS takes input from both the remote AHARS and GPS,
but they provide data for different functions. I would think the AI is primarily
dependent on the AHARS, perhaps totally so. If the AHARS goes down, but your
GPS is still up, the EFIS will show map data, but no attitude indication.
In this case, your AHARS unreliable 'flag' is that there is no attitude indication
on the screen. As far as giving an early warning failure flag and getting
the benefit of a few remaining minutes of decaying accuracy, I doubt this applies
to electric gyros. The old vacuum gyros took a few minutes to spin down,
but the electronic ones likely go TU near instantly as there is no mechanical
momentum. If you are going to fly IFR, you do have a backup electric or vacuum
AI don't you?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GRT Magnetometer reliance
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Hey guys,
I learned something yesterday that is very important to know.
I uploaded the recent software into the GRT EFIS. The upload procedure
was... frankly... amazing.
Insert usb chip into unit, turn knob, and watch. How cool is that? I
walked over to my buddy's house who has the dual units installed and
updated his. He thought I was very cool. I told him... Its not me, its
GRT. A monkey could do it. A very dumb monkey could do it.
Anyway, after the upload my attitude did not work and an e-mail to Todd
at GRT resulted in the answer. The new version does not show an attitude
if the magnetometer is not connected, or fails. The reason being that it
needs that data to complete the AHARS solution for attitude. I am still
going back and forth with Todd to determine if there is a better way for
them to handle an in flight manometer failure than just going TU, but
for now this is the behavior you will see in flight.
Since the attitude reading requires compass data, I have asked them to
look at some other solution like an "ahars unreliable" flag, or
countdown to going TU, or something other than instant TU. I do not know
what testing led to this new software change but I have to figure that
there is some period of time after loss of compass data that it is
usable, or partially usable.
Also since it is getting ground track from a gps source over a serial
data stream, could this not be used as a backup piece of data while the
compass is out? I dunno. But I do know "Other" competitors do not rely
on external devices to complete the solution for attitude.
Thoughts group?
Mike Stewart
Basement flying the GRT.
S8 FWF
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: | GRT Magnetometer reliance |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Chuck,
The AHARS is a unit of electric gyros. I would expect that if it went
TU, then all bets are off.
BUT... the flux gate magnetometer is a separate unit, more wires and
failure points, providing compass data only to the AHARS. Don't mix the
2 cause they are different items.
The GRT is the only EFIS I am aware of that requires compass heading
data to plot the solution. Others use the data, some don't at all.
The solid state gyros do like to have cross reference data. I am no
expert here.
Backups are a different matter entirely.
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck
Jensen
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GRT Magnetometer reliance
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
<cjensen@dts9000.com>
Michael,
Not showing an attitude indication when the AHARS is disconnected or
'down' on the GRT EFIS may well be the right solution by eliminating a
faulty indications. Better to have no attitude indication that is
correct, then to have one that's incorrect. The GRT EFIS takes input
from both the remote AHARS and GPS, but they provide data for different
functions. I would think the AI is primarily dependent on the AHARS,
perhaps totally so. If the AHARS goes down, but your GPS is still up,
the EFIS will show map data, but no attitude indication.
In this case, your AHARS unreliable 'flag' is that there is no attitude
indication on the screen. As far as giving an early warning failure
flag and getting the benefit of a few remaining minutes of decaying
accuracy, I doubt this applies to electric gyros. The old vacuum gyros
took a few minutes to spin down, but the electronic ones likely go TU
near instantly as there is no mechanical momentum. If you are going to
fly IFR, you do have a backup electric or vacuum AI don't you?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GRT Magnetometer reliance
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS
Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Hey guys,
I learned something yesterday that is very important to know.
I uploaded the recent software into the GRT EFIS. The upload procedure
was... frankly... amazing.
Insert usb chip into unit, turn knob, and watch. How cool is that? I
walked over to my buddy's house who has the dual units installed and
updated his. He thought I was very cool. I told him... Its not me, its
GRT. A monkey could do it. A very dumb monkey could do it.
Anyway, after the upload my attitude did not work and an e-mail to Todd
at GRT resulted in the answer. The new version does not show an attitude
if the magnetometer is not connected, or fails. The reason being that it
needs that data to complete the AHARS solution for attitude. I am still
going back and forth with Todd to determine if there is a better way for
them to handle an in flight manometer failure than just going TU, but
for now this is the behavior you will see in flight.
Since the attitude reading requires compass data, I have asked them to
look at some other solution like an "ahars unreliable" flag, or
countdown to going TU, or something other than instant TU. I do not know
what testing led to this new software change but I have to figure that
there is some period of time after loss of compass data that it is
usable, or partially usable.
Also since it is getting ground track from a gps source over a serial
data stream, could this not be used as a backup piece of data while the
compass is out? I dunno. But I do know "Other" competitors do not rely
on external devices to complete the solution for attitude.
Thoughts group?
Mike Stewart
Basement flying the GRT.
S8 FWF
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com>
Mike & Listers,
I'm trying to find an electronic version of the SL10 Installation manual.
Mike's list didn't include it, and I haven't been able to find it on the
Garmin site. Does anyone have a copy?
======================================
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
phone: (860)727-2393
fax: (860)998-9396
email: fred.stucklen@utcfuelcells.com
Message:
#124797
Subject: more Garmin Appolo Manual
<http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=155468073?KEYS=m
anuals?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=14?SERIAL=06050918430?SHOWBUTTONS=NO> Downloads
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" < mstewart@iss.net
<mailto:mstewart@iss.net> >
Here are some more(added the first few here below) manuals popular found
by JB. You will notice by looking at the file names and using the
scheme, that you can find just about anything you are looking for. Some
file names are not intuitive like GPS165TSODzusRail_PilotsGuide.pdf. Ill
try and work on getting the entire directory of everything possible. But
for now, this is a really good list. Old and new, popular in junk. Its
in there. STC, pilot Guide, Supplemental Flight Manual, Quick Reference
Guide, Pilots Guide, Installation Manual, Training Syllabus, all kinds
of very useful stuff in there. Just think about how many times you have
wanted a manual and could not find it. Especially installation manuals
which they seem to keep tight reign on. I ran a job from the office to
get all of these, yes every one, so Ill keep them somewhere just in
case they disappear. Another fella did that right before they took the
appolo site down. I got a file from him like
sl40_install_560-0956-03a.pdf. I mean how would you ever figure out that
filename? So I hope to have these stashed just in case GArmin gets hit
by a bus.
<http://www.garmin.com/manuals/> http://www.garmin.com/manuals/ these
files below. So if you are
looking for a manual, just search this list (ex. Ctl-f 430) and append
the filename to the url above and you will have it.
Enjoy,
Mike Stewart
MX20_InstallationManual.pdf
SL30Nav_Comm_InstallationManual.pdf
......
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: Routing large power cables near radios |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:45 AM 2/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
>Bob & Listers,
> Does anyone foresee problems by running my main positive (rear) battery
>cable so that it passes within 4" of the rear of my radio stack?
>Charlie Kuss
it would be a good idea not to do this. It's not a guaranteed
formula for noise but if you can get a wider separation (foot
or more) it would definitely be a good thing to do.
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: Aeroelectrci - two battery, two alternator system |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
Michel,
What is your anticipated mission profile? What engine are you using?
The basic decision process I used is this: go down the list of every piece
of equipment on your airplane (instruments, electrical power, radios,
servos, switches, lights ...) and ask yourself - what will I do when (not
if) this fails in-flight? In the case of an alternator, how long can you
operate on battery power until something unacceptable happens - like loss of
power if you have an electrically dependent engine, or loss of critical
instruments or radios if IFR (and don't forget lights if you fly at night).
If you want to be able to continue to your destination no matter what, or if
you fly where reasonable places to land are few and far between, then either
dual alternators or enough battery power to outlast your fuel is in order.
If you have an engine that doesn't require electricity, having enough
battery to run radios and instruments for a long time is not tough to do.
If your engine requires juice then you need to decide: a second alternator,
carry enough battery power to match your fuel (and take the useful load
reduction), or accept some limit based on the battery(ies) you are willing
to carry (1-2 hours is not tough to achieve - depends on the engine of
course).
Statistically, failure rate does go up with complexity, and this will affect
cost (initial purchase and ongoing maintenance), but shouldn't impact safety
if you have a failure tolerant design, and follow proper procedures. The
added complexity reduces the chances that you will need to land short of
your destination, despite a failure. How much is that worth to you?
My $0.02
Dennis Glaeser
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
This is really a question for Bob. But here goes to the list anyway.
Being new to building a plane and to electrical matters, I read
Bob's book
cover to cover twice and was sold on the idea of fitting my RV8 with
a two
alternator, two battery system (two years for each battery). System
seems
good and it one main advantage: two level redundancy.
But a nagging feeling keeps coming back. In an attempt at applying
the KISS
principle (for those who might not be aware aka 'keep it simple,
stupid'), I
tell myself would I not be better off with a very simple one
battery, one
alternator setup? Am I not with all those extra wires and switches
and other
equipment offsetting the redundancy advantage with a higher risk at
having a
complexity related failure?
That's it - if Bob or anyone else would care to comment?
One last thing - I know it is my airplane and that I should do
whatever
seems best for me - but I would appreciate some enlightened
intelligent
comments.
Regards,
Michle Delsol
RV8 - Wings going on to the fuselage
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: | Home made VOR/GS antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bordelon, Greg" <gbordelon@hess.com>
I wish to fabricate my own combination "whip" VOR/Glide Slope antenna.
Before anyone suggest, I know about the wing tip plate antenna but I
don't want to use that.
1st question: Do I attach the center lead to one element and the shield
to the other element? Is that all? Or do I need to use ferrite beads
near the splitting of coax? If yes, how many and where do I get them
from? In Bob's Aeroelectric book, he has a picture of a VOR antenna on
page 13-14 without any beads and on page 13-17 is a picture of a glide
slope antenna with three ferrite beads. Its unclear to me which method
is correct.
2nd question: I will need a splitter or diplexer to attach to the
antenna and the VOR and Glide Slope inputs on my radio. I found three
manufactures of these; Comant, RA Miller, and Dorne Margolin. How do I
determine which of these will perform best? Is there anyone with
experience with these that can offer comments?
Thanks - Greg
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: Home made VOR/GS antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
After a recent avionics upgrade, my plane now has two VORs and two GS which
uses one antenna and a 1 into 4 splitter. Don't remember the manufacturer,
but got it from ACS.
I use a "cat whiskers" type VOR/GS antenna (ACS some 15 years ago) and
fabricated the connection that memory does not recall exactly how it is
connected. But you have part of the idea; the center lead to one terminal
and the shield to the other, but as I recall, the same coax is then looped
back and connected to the airframe. I am about (in a week or so) to re-route
my COM1 coax and will be getting back there in the tailcone to do that. If
you still do not have an answer, I will take a picture or two of my
connection.
BTW, my Terra NAV/COM (200/760 old style push buttons) and GNS430 always
pick up the GS (VOR's are not an issue; always good reception) at least 20
nm out.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bordelon, Greg" <gbordelon@hess.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Home made VOR/GS antenna
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bordelon, Greg"
> <gbordelon@hess.com>
>
> I wish to fabricate my own combination "whip" VOR/Glide Slope antenna.
> Before anyone suggest, I know about the wing tip plate antenna but I
> don't want to use that.
>
> 1st question: Do I attach the center lead to one element and the shield
> to the other element? Is that all? Or do I need to use ferrite beads
> near the splitting of coax? If yes, how many and where do I get them
> from? In Bob's Aeroelectric book, he has a picture of a VOR antenna on
> page 13-14 without any beads and on page 13-17 is a picture of a glide
> slope antenna with three ferrite beads. Its unclear to me which method
> is correct.
>
> 2nd question: I will need a splitter or diplexer to attach to the
> antenna and the VOR and Glide Slope inputs on my radio. I found three
> manufactures of these; Comant, RA Miller, and Dorne Margolin. How do I
> determine which of these will perform best? Is there anyone with
> experience with these that can offer comments?
>
> Thanks - Greg
>
>
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 712 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
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: switch guards |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim and Lucy <jpollard@ciaccess.com>
At 09:04 AM 2/8/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
> I'm using the Space Shuttle replica switch guards in my 8A.
http://www.delcity.net/delcity/servlet/catalog?parentid=4810&page=1
this is a link to some other switchguards
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: Aeroelectric - two battery, two alternator |
system
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
Dennis,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The 2 batt/2 alt setup (Z11) did get me
excited but the type of flying (very occasional dusk VFR, no IFR, over water
at times) plus a common sensical KISS principle to govern decisions may
dampen my enthusiasm for Z11.
In the final analysis, I think it all boils down to whether I want full
electronic ignition, partial, or all mags.
I am finishing the wings which means that I have a long way to go - you'll
see my posts as the situation evolves.
Thanks again,
Michle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Glaeser, Dennis A
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 5:06 PM
> To: 'AeroElectric-List@matronics.com'
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aeroelectrci - two battery, two alternator
> system
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A"
> <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
>
> Michel,
>
> What is your anticipated mission profile? What engine are you using?
>
> The basic decision process I used is this: go down the list of every piece
> of equipment on your airplane (instruments, electrical power, radios,
> servos, switches, lights ...) and ask yourself - what will I do when (not
> if) this fails in-flight? In the case of an alternator, how long can you
> operate on battery power until something unacceptable happens - like loss
> of
> power if you have an electrically dependent engine, or loss of critical
> instruments or radios if IFR (and don't forget lights if you fly at
> night).
>
> If you want to be able to continue to your destination no matter what, or
> if
> you fly where reasonable places to land are few and far between, then
> either
> dual alternators or enough battery power to outlast your fuel is in order.
>
> If you have an engine that doesn't require electricity, having enough
> battery to run radios and instruments for a long time is not tough to do.
>
> If your engine requires juice then you need to decide: a second
> alternator,
> carry enough battery power to match your fuel (and take the useful load
> reduction), or accept some limit based on the battery(ies) you are willing
> to carry (1-2 hours is not tough to achieve - depends on the engine of
> course).
>
> Statistically, failure rate does go up with complexity, and this will
> affect
> cost (initial purchase and ongoing maintenance), but shouldn't impact
> safety
> if you have a failure tolerant design, and follow proper procedures. The
> added complexity reduces the chances that you will need to land short of
> your destination, despite a failure. How much is that worth to you?
>
> My $0.02
>
> Dennis Glaeser
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
> This is really a question for Bob. But here goes to the list
> anyway.
>
> Being new to building a plane and to electrical matters, I read
> Bob's book
> cover to cover twice and was sold on the idea of fitting my RV8
> with
> a two
> alternator, two battery system (two years for each battery).
> System
> seems
> good and it one main advantage: two level redundancy.
>
> But a nagging feeling keeps coming back. In an attempt at applying
> the KISS
> principle (for those who might not be aware aka 'keep it simple,
> stupid'), I
> tell myself would I not be better off with a very simple one
> battery, one
> alternator setup? Am I not with all those extra wires and switches
> and other
> equipment offsetting the redundancy advantage with a higher risk
> at
> having a
> complexity related failure?
>
> That's it - if Bob or anyone else would care to comment?
>
> One last thing - I know it is my airplane and that I should do
> whatever
> seems best for me - but I would appreciate some enlightened
> intelligent
> comments.
>
> Regards,
> Michle Delsol
> RV8 - Wings going on to the fuselage
>
>
>
>
>
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: switch guards |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: paul wilson <pwilson@climber.org>
An inexpensive switch guard you linked to can also be purchased at Autozone
in various anodized colors, included is a simple on off switch of
questionable heritage. These things have worked fine on my truck for over a
year. Other auto parts stores stock the same thing. When the guard is
closed it operates the toggle switch at the same time.
Paul
==========
At 12:54 PM 2/9/05 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim and Lucy <jpollard@ciaccess.com>
>
>At 09:04 AM 2/8/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
> >
> > I'm using the Space Shuttle replica switch guards in my 8A.
>http://www.delcity.net/delcity/servlet/catalog?parentid=4810&page=1
>this is a link to some other switchguards
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: "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds@macs.net>
I have an all electric RV-6A wired per Z-13, with B&C alternator and
LR-3 voltage regulator, but without the second alternator.
My IFR instructor asked me what happens if in flight
1) the battery shorts out (one or more of the internal plates short)
2) the battery goes dead
3) The positive lead falls off of the battery post (does not ground)
4) the positive lead shorts to ground
The batter is a Concord RG (sealed lead acid)
Richard Reynolds
RV-6A N841RV
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: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
The instructor posed interesting questions. However, did he give you the probabilities
of each, or any, of these events happenings on a well maintained aircraft?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Richard V. Reynolds
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds@macs.net>
I have an all electric RV-6A wired per Z-13, with B&C alternator and
LR-3 voltage regulator, but without the second alternator.
My IFR instructor asked me what happens if in flight
1) the battery shorts out (one or more of the internal plates short)
2) the battery goes dead
3) The positive lead falls off of the battery post (does not ground)
4) the positive lead shorts to ground
The batter is a Concord RG (sealed lead acid)
Richard Reynolds
RV-6A N841RV
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: Home made VOR/GS antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:16 AM 2/9/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bordelon, Greg" <gbordelon@hess.com>
>
>I wish to fabricate my own combination "whip" VOR/Glide Slope antenna.
>Before anyone suggest, I know about the wing tip plate antenna but I
>don't want to use that.
>
>1st question: Do I attach the center lead to one element and the shield
>to the other element? Is that all? Or do I need to use ferrite beads
>near the splitting of coax? If yes, how many and where do I get them
>from? In Bob's Aeroelectric book, he has a picture of a VOR antenna on
>page 13-14 without any beads and on page 13-17 is a picture of a glide
>slope antenna with three ferrite beads. Its unclear to me which method
>is correct.
The beads offer no practical benefit. When the section
on antennas was published, I repeated information offered from
other sources. I've since investigated the design in the lab
and found that the beads do not change the antenna performance
in any meaningful way.
>2nd question: I will need a splitter or diplexer to attach to the
>antenna and the VOR and Glide Slope inputs on my radio. I found three
>manufactures of these; Comant, RA Miller, and Dorne Margolin. How do I
>determine which of these will perform best? Is there anyone with
>experience with these that can offer comments?
They all pretty much perform as advertised. They're not difficult
to build so it's unlikely that one brand stands head-n-shoulders
above another brand.
The simple dipole antenna with coax center conductor to one
element and coax shield to the other element will perform
very nicely. This style antenna was installed on thousands
of Cessna's from the early 50's through late 70's . . .
a time that included vacuum tube radios and early solid
state. The antennas were NOT the weakest link in the VOR,
LOC, GS system.
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: two battery, two alternator system |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:46 PM 2/9/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
>Dennis,
>
>Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The 2 batt/2 alt setup (Z11) did get me
>excited but the type of flying (very occasional dusk VFR, no IFR, over water
>at times) plus a common sensical KISS principle to govern decisions may
>dampen my enthusiasm for Z11.
Let's try to put some things into perspective. There are tons
of dark-n-stormy night stories wherein alternators and batteries
are star performers in the role of villain. Given the proven
reliability of modern automotive alternators . . . in particular
the converted Nipon Denso products from B&C . . . probability
of alternator failure is a small fraction of what we've come to
expect from certified iron. Combine this with the very robust,
sealed lead-acid batteries -AND- a truly meaningful preventative
maintenance plan and we've beat the worst worries into submission.
If one simply installs Van's a-la C-172 wiring with a modern
alternator and well maintained RG battery, probability of
personalizing a dark-n-stormy night experience over electrical
systems issues is very low.
By taking advantage of variations on a theme described in the
z-figures, one can push those probabilities still lower. In
10+ years of suggesting builders consider the e-bus, I've
had only one reader write and tell me the e-bus turned an
alternator failure into a ho-hum event. However, I've had
perhaps a half dozen people write and thank me for the OVM-14
crowbar ov module. Far more folks have experienced an ov
condition that forced alternator shutdown than simple
alternator failure. I don't recall the numbers of ov
experiences that benefited from an e-bus installation after
the alternator was shut off. Even if the builder did not
have an e-bus, keeping a well maintained RG battery on
board goes a long way to saving the day.
>In the final analysis, I think it all boils down to whether I want full
>electronic ignition, partial, or all mags.
If you go electronic ignition, run p-mags which do not depend
on electrical system for system operations.
>I am finishing the wings which means that I have a long way to go - you'll
>see my posts as the situation evolves.
I have a client with enough funds to strive for the
"ultimate" system which may include dual efis, dual
electronic ignition, dual autopilots . . . For the
moment, I'm still trying to justify ruling out
a Figure Z-13 installation thus saving about a 12#
penalty for going with Z-14.
Reliability doesn't have to be heavy or expensive . . .
just well considered. Since the e-mag/p-mag guys
came along, reliability is getting easier, lighter
and less expensive all the time.
Bob . . .
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: Battery Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:36 PM 2/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard V. Reynolds"
><rvreynolds@macs.net>
>
>I have an all electric RV-6A wired per Z-13, with B&C alternator and
>LR-3 voltage regulator, but without the second alternator.
>
>My IFR instructor asked me what happens if in flight
>
>1) the battery shorts out (one or more of the internal plates short)
This puts the whole system at risk. A battery with a shorted cell
cannot be depended on for power nor can it be left connected to
a system with a working alternator. Most folks are wiring their
systems such that one cannot take the battery off line and operate
alternator-only. This kind of operation has been suggested or
even permitted in a very few certified ships. I'm aware of
Bonanzas and Barons in particular.
The up-side is that probability of shorted cells in an RG
battery is a tiny fraction of what our experience has demonstrated
with flooded batteries. Further, cells in flooded batteries
short after the battery has been used hard and put away wet
for so long that chemistry is falling out of the plates . . .
the battery's capacity is most certainly degraded to just
above useless. If you maintain an RG battery for minimum
useful capacity, you can ignore the shorted cell syndrome.
>2) the battery goes dead
Batteries don't capriciously "go dead" . . . they are (1) run
to death by a system that fails to adequately support system
loads while the engine is running and/or (2) used far beyond
the time when reserve capacity represents a useful store of
energy for sustaining flight.
>3) The positive lead falls off of the battery post (does not ground)
>
>4) the positive lead shorts to ground
These are the makings for a bad day at Black Rock . . .
How do these things happen? If one installs battery fasteners
with the same care as one installs prop bolts, then the aforementioned
scenarios are not worth considering. While we're considering
due diligence, why would the OBAM aircraft mechanic categorize
ANY hardware into degrees of diligence required for trouble-free
operation? I would hope that a home builder is attuned
to system functionality and requirements for trouble free
operation irrespective of whether or not the component
is 'critical' . . .
Like most "what if" discussions, it's the unanticipated, unconsidered
scenario that bites you. I was really proud of the last of
the mature Bradford Pear trees in our neighborhood. Snuggled
between two houses it was protected from winds and had a
magnificent 40' canopy. While there was value in protecting
the tree from winds, it was an ice storm that ultimately
brought the tree down . . with great risk that branches
would fall on houses that protected it from winds!
Select modern products, use due diligence installing
fasteners, minimize electrical stresses to the battery
by monitoring charging system performance and finally,
take the battery out of service when it won't support
the e-bus for duration of fuel aboard. When folks
fail to observe one or more of these simple tenets,
there are valid concerns for the failure modes cited.
This happens to spam can drivers all the time but I
trust will never happen to folks who participate on
the AeroElectric List . . .
Bob . . .
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: Battery Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds@macs.net>
Chuck,
No probabilities. Just questions, since I don't have a vacuum system. I think Bob's
answer will put the discussion to bed. Let's not drag it out (vacuum vs all
electric).
Richard Reynolds
Chuck Jensen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> The instructor posed interesting questions. However, did he give you the probabilities
of each, or any, of these events happenings on a well maintained aircraft?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Richard V. Reynolds
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Failure
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds@macs.net>
>
> I have an all electric RV-6A wired per Z-13, with B&C alternator and
> LR-3 voltage regulator, but without the second alternator.
>
> My IFR instructor asked me what happens if in flight
>
> 1) the battery shorts out (one or more of the internal plates short)
>
> 2) the battery goes dead
>
> 3) The positive lead falls off of the battery post (does not ground)
>
> 4) the positive lead shorts to ground
>
> The batter is a Concord RG (sealed lead acid)
>
> Richard Reynolds
> RV-6A N841RV
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 296 Antenna Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach <phil@petrasoft.net>
I just got my Garmin GPSMap 296 and I'd like to semi-permanently mount
it into my RV-7. Can anybody see any reason why I could not cut that
BNC connector off the end of the antenna cable so that I could feed the
cable through a hole smaller than that monster of a plug that comes on
the antenna?
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach
RV-7 N727WB
http://www.myrv7.com
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: | Garmin 296 Antenna Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Horsten" <airplanes@sympatico.ca>
Phil.
I have the same issue to deal with. I as going to make the hole partly
behind the mounting bracket and put a grommet. That way it would not be so
obvious when the unit was not in the aircraft.
However, I too would be interested in an alternative solution.
Chris H
CH-300
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Birkelbach
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 296 Antenna Cable
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach
--> <phil@petrasoft.net>
I just got my Garmin GPSMap 296 and I'd like to semi-permanently mount it
into my RV-7. Can anybody see any reason why I could not cut that BNC
connector off the end of the antenna cable so that I could feed the cable
through a hole smaller than that monster of a plug that comes on the
antenna?
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach
RV-7 N727WB
http://www.myrv7.com
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: Garmin 296 Antenna Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 2/9/2005 9:36:00 P.M. Central Standard Time,
airplanes@sympatico.ca writes:
I just got my Garmin GPSMap 296 and I'd like to semi-permanently mount it
into my RV-7. Can anybody see any reason why I could not cut that BNC
connector off the end of the antenna cable so that I could feed the cable
through a hole smaller than that monster of a plug that comes on the
antenna?
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach
Good Evening Phil,
That would be one solution, but why not drill the hole big enough to allow
the connector to go through then use a grommet sized for that hole with an
inner hole just big enough for the cable? The grommet can be split to allow
it
to be put over the cable and it will be held together by insertion into the
metal so that the slit wouldn't even be visible. That way, you could install
and remove at will.
Grommets of suitable diameters are readily available at almost all parts
suppliers.
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: | Garmin 296 Antenna Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Corner <jcorner@shaw.ca>
Bob
I replaced the antenna cable plug on my 295 and didn'thave any problems.
Can't see why the 296 should be any different
Jim
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 2/9/2005 9:36:00 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> airplanes@sympatico.ca writes:
>
> I just got my Garmin GPSMap 296 and I'd like to
> semi-permanently mount it into my RV-7. Can anybody see any
> reason why I could not cut that BNC connector off the end of
> the antenna cable so that I could feed the cable through a
> hole smaller than that monster of a plug that comes on the antenna?
>
> Godspeed,
>
> Phil Birkelbach
>
>
> Good Evening Phil,
>
> That would be one solution, but why not drill the hole big
> enough to allow
> the connector to go through then use a grommet sized for that
> hole with an
> inner hole just big enough for the cable? The grommet can
> be split to allow it
> to be put over the cable and it will be held together by
> insertion into the
> metal so that the slit wouldn't even be visible. That way,
> you could install
> and remove at will.
>
> Grommets of suitable diameters are readily available at
> almost all parts
> suppliers.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
> =========
> Matronics Forums.
> =========
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-> List.htm
> Search Engine:
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> =========
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|