Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:06 AM - Re: Switch type (Scott Winn (Matronics List))
2. 12:24 AM - Re: EFIS Backup Battery (Scott Winn (Matronics List))
3. 03:37 AM - Re: parallelling batteries (Jan de Jong)
4. 05:17 AM - Opital sensor (plaurence@the-beach.net)
5. 05:23 AM - Re: Opital sensor (923te)
6. 05:25 AM - Re: Opital sensor (Ken Simmons)
7. 05:50 AM - Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 (Jim Butcher)
8. 05:50 AM - Re: Opital sensor (Chris Horsten)
9. 05:55 AM - Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 (Jan de Jong)
10. 06:05 AM - Re: Over Voltage Module/Relay (Vern W.)
11. 06:30 AM - Re: parallelling batteries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 06:32 AM - Re: EFIS Backup Battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 06:34 AM - Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 06:36 AM - Re: Instrument Panel Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 06:40 AM - ProxAlert R5 (rd2@evenlink.com)
16. 07:00 AM - Re: Switch type (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 07:14 AM - Re: Re: Wire Labeling (Glaeser, Dennis A)
18. 07:30 AM - Re: Over Voltage Module/Relay (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 08:00 AM - Re: Opital sensor (James E. Clark)
20. 08:03 AM - Re: Over Voltage Module/Relay (Vern W.)
21. 08:31 AM - Re: ProxAlert R5 (Rob Housman)
22. 08:48 AM - Re: ProxAlert R5 (rv-9a-online)
23. 08:51 AM - Re: ProxAlert R5 (rd2@evenlink.com)
24. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: Re: Wire Labeling (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 09:04 AM - Re: Switch type (James E. Clark)
26. 09:07 AM - Re: ProxAlert R5 (Dj Merrill)
27. 09:14 AM - Re: wire labeling practices (Karen and Robert Brown)
28. 09:16 AM - Re: Switch type (Scott Winn (Matronics List))
29. 09:21 AM - Re: wire labeling practices (Dwight Frye)
30. 09:28 AM - question re Z-19 (B Tomm)
31. 09:56 AM - Re: wire labeling practices (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 10:26 AM - Re: ADF Debug (Leo J. Corbalis)
33. 10:38 AM - Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 (Gilles Thesee)
34. 11:14 AM - Re: question re Z-19 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
35. 11:24 AM - Re: question re Z-19 (Glaeser, Dennis A)
36. 12:00 PM - Re: Over Voltage Module/Relay (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
37. 12:02 PM - Re: wire labeling practices (Paul Messinger)
38. 12:17 PM - Re: Switch type//battery (Paul Messinger)
39. 12:49 PM - Re: Re: question re Z-19 (Ken)
40. 12:55 PM - Re: Re: question re Z-19 (Mickey Coggins)
41. 03:09 PM - Re: Switch type//battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
42. 03:31 PM - Re: Re: question re Z-19 (glaesers)
43. 04:28 PM - Re: Switch type//battery (Fred Fillinger)
44. 04:43 PM - Re: Switch type//battery (Paul Messinger)
45. 05:10 PM - Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 (Paul Messinger)
46. 05:20 PM - Ruined lexan and gaffer tape (kfackler)
47. 05:51 PM - Re: question re Z-19 (B Tomm)
48. 05:55 PM - Re: Re: question re Z-19 (B Tomm)
49. 06:12 PM - Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 (Charlie Kuss)
50. 06:21 PM - Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 (Charlie Kuss)
51. 06:23 PM - Re: Ruined lexan and gaffer tape (Richard McCraw)
52. 07:04 PM - Re: wire labeling practices (Jim Stone)
53. 07:07 PM - Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 (glaesers)
54. 07:30 PM - Re: Switch type//battery (Paul McAllister)
55. 07:45 PM - Re: Re: question re Z-19 (glaesers)
56. 08:00 PM - Re: question re Z-19 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
57. 08:16 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 42 Msgs - 02/28/05 (Jay Brinkmeyer)
58. 08:19 PM - Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 (Paul Messinger)
59. 08:26 PM - Re: wire labeling practices (Paul Messinger)
60. 08:31 PM - Re: Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 (Paul Messinger)
61. 08:35 PM - Spark plug pickup? (AI Nut)
62. 08:45 PM - Re: question re Z-19 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
63. 08:45 PM - Re: Switch type//battery (Paul Messinger)
64. 08:52 PM - Re: EFIS Backup Battery (Scott Winn (Matronics List))
65. 08:54 PM - Re: question re Z-19 (Paul Messinger)
66. 08:58 PM - wing strobe wire disconnects (Jay Brinkmeyer)
67. 09:56 PM - Re: Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 (Matt Prather)
68. 10:11 PM - Re: Re: question re Z-19 (Matt Prather)
69. 11:34 PM - Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] (Matt Dralle)
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: "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat@cox.net>
Bob,
I'm not sure why the application is important? This is long, but here
it goes: It is a replacement for the Essential Bus alternate feed. This
goes back to the discussion I tried to start about adding a second
battery to the Z-13 diagram. I asked about this particular application
before (including posting a schematic) and I was not able to get an
opinion on it because I was not able to satisfactorily justify the
second battery.
My essential bus draws 8 amps continous including the EFIS, GPS/COM,
panel/flood lighting, and AHRS/Magnetometer used for EFIS support. If
the SD-8 alternator will output 8 amps at cruise power settings, this
offsets the entire endurance bus load. However, I still have an engine
that utilizes dual Electronic ignition. I am only required to run one,
and the manufacturer diagrams indicate that each ignition will draw 6
amps at the RPM that I will be running at.
If I suffered from main alternator or alternator belt failure, I would
need to obtain an 8 hour endurance to match the cruise range of my
Long-EZ with full fuel tanks. I would need 8 hours X 6 Amps (1
ignition), 48AH. This wouldn't leave any power for the end of the
flight to run the electrical speed brake, nose gear, doesn't include
radio transmits, etc... If I understood your book correctly you offer
replacement of the battery once it fails a 50% rated capacity test.
This means I would need 96AH of rated battery capacity to have 48AH
available at battery replacement time. I looked at 100AH batteries,
they weigh about 80lbs which I feel is too heavy.
I decided to lower my endurance sights and settle on a smaller amount of
battery capacity. I chose the batteries based on the largest physical
size that will fit into the small nose of the aircraft, and back-tracked
the endurance rating. With 32AH of rated power, this gives me 16AH of
capacity at battery replacement time. This will give me a comfortable
2.5 hour endurance with the SD-8 running at full tilt and one ignition
turned off, with some reserve for radio transmits and gear/brake motors.
I can obtain 32AH of rated capacity with one big battery or I can do it
with two smaller ones. This provides advantages to me in terms of
providing alternate paths of wiring to each ignition. Call it an
emotional decision if you like, I like the idea of having two batteries
and two separate paths of power to the two separate ignition systems.
It adds very little complication, requiring an Aux Battery switch, a
change to ebus alt feed switch and and an extra contactor.
I have one question about this configuration:
Does this design change decrease the safety of flight?
Now back to the switch.
In order to support the dual battery busses that now exist, I modified
the e-bus alt feed switch with a 2-1 On-Off-On switch. This switch
switches the e-bus alt feed to either the main battery or the aux
battery as well as the output of the SD-8 alternator to the same
battery. This way the selected e-bus alt feed path also connects the
SD-8 to the proper battery bus. The 2-1 switch will work fine for this
application.
My problem is with aesthetics and ergonomics. I assembled all my
switches on my mockup panel and noticed that all of the switches are in
the 'Down' position when they are turned off except the Ebus alt feed
switch which is in the middle. I want the Ebus alt feed to be the same
as all of the others. I want a double pole Off-On-On switch.
At the prompting of the helpful folks at B&C, I talked to Carling
product assistance and they do indeed make such a switch. It is Carling
part number 2G-P51-73. I have sent this part number to B&C to see if
they can special order the switch for me.
--Scott Winn
San Diego, 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: | EFIS Backup Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat@cox.net>
Bob,
This is exactly what I was looking for.
For the small 1.2AH assist battery I'd like to hardwire it into 'auto'
mode, would this be a problem?
Can I replace the contactor with something smaller like a relay for this
small battery?
Also, I've already got a voltage warning light from the LR3C regulator.
Does this warning light provide any additional functionality?
--Scott Winn
San Diego, CA
The battery isolator you need is exactly what you've
proposed and described as both a product and a DIY
project at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf
you can buy an ECB to assemble the project at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: parallelling batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong@xs4all.nl>
>
>
>The way we use paralleled batteries is to run them paralleled
> only in the charge mode (normal alternator operations) and
> separate them into separate duties within seconds of alternator
> failure as indicated by ACTIVE notification of low voltage.
>
Z30?
I have some trouble with the rationale. If batteries function well in
parallel, each charging/discharging according to its size and percentage
of charge, then the total endurance when separating them will be smaller
than if you didn't because one of the two batteries will run out first.
So the reason for separating must be that we are not after maximum total
endurance but guaranteed partial endurance - on the battery that we
designed to run out last.
So now we have 3 categories of consumers - "main", "endurance" and
"essential" - and 3 steps of degradation: end of main (alternator
finished), end of endurance (say 3 hours at 4 A finished) and end of
engine (say 4 hours at 3 A finished).
Is this the idea?
I think I might still be happier having an alternator, however tiny, to
supply the "essential" part.
Jan de Jong
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: plaurence@the-beach.net
Bob, and others:
Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical sensors
to
measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
Peter
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Opital sensor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "923te" <923te@cox.net>
http://www.aircraftextras.com/FuelSensor1.htm
http://www.aircraftextras.com/LowOilSensor.htm
> Bob, and others:
>
> Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical
sensors to
> measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
>
>
> Peter
>
>
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: Opital sensor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com>
http://www.ppavionics.com/
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: plaurence@the-beach.net
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: plaurence@the-beach.net
>
>Bob, and others:
>
>Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical sensors
to
>measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
>
>
>Peter
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net>
Jan,
Your chart for the SD-8 is correct and the % power vs rpm for the Rotax is
also correct. However, the vacuum pump drive pad turns at 54% of engine
speed. So when you are at 75% power (5000 engine rpm) the SD-8 is turning
2700 rpm (54% of 5000) which outputs about 5 amps. That's why I have fitted
a larger alternator driven off the rear of the crankshaft.
Jim Butcher Europa A185 N241BW
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: "Chris Horsten" <airplanes@sympatico.ca>
Peter,
Check out http://www.aircraftextras.com/. They have the optical low level
warnings but it is based on a simple condition: not getting back a
reflection. If you want to use it for levels, it looks like you would have
to install several sensors at varying heights and then calibrate them. Not
very practical. Perhaps there is another sensor that will "see" fuel and
measure it.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
plaurence@the-beach.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Opital sensor
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: plaurence@the-beach.net
Bob, and others:
Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical
sensors to measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
Peter
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: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong@xs4all.nl>
>
>
>@#$@# regulator. There are more robust products out there. Further,
> one might craft a dual regulator system to back up the standard
> regulator. Putting an SD-8 on the Rotax vacuum pump drive is a
> VERY marginal proposition.
>
This sounds like a very practical idea - taking into account the actual
reliability of the various parts of the power supply.
And switching regulators would not lead to any degradation of service
either.
Thank you very much.
The crafting would require some thought. I wonder if you couldn't just
put the regulators in parallel on the AC inputs and only switch control
lines and outputs. Is a shorted AC-input a failure mode? Then the inputs
need to be switched also. What are possible alternator voltages when
load is removed? Can a regulator in rest be hit with this? Maybe a
make-before break relay is in order. The alternator won't care either
way. And I suppose the output capacitor is better not switched so there
would be two of those too. But the backup one won't like the sudden
inrush from the battery on switchover. Maybe a sequencing of switches is
called for. But no, I seem to remember that electrolytic capacitors like
a voltage applied from time to time to maintain their voltage rating
anyway. A diode or resistor from the other side of the output relay
could supply bus voltage and there would be no inrushes. And there would
be two OV modules, therefore two output relays. Altogether 3 2-pole
relays, one of them m-b-b, to be connected for two panel switches
off-batt-alt and reg1-reg2. I don't see a problem anymore. Could that be
right?
Jan de Jong
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: Over Voltage Module/Relay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
Good stuff, Bob!
I do, however, have a question about the Z-13/20 "sneak peak" /ldrawing.
What I like about the original Z-13 (Z-13/8) drawing is that it uses the
SD-8 dynamo as backup that doesn't NEED a battery to continue powering
accessories in the (very) unlikely event of a battery internal short
failure. To me, that's an even better emergency solution than the Z-14
architecture. (But what I don't like about the Z-13/8 is that you only get 8
amps although that's probably plenty for most applications).
With the Z-13/20 design, you DO get more amps for backup, in fact,
perfect for what I have in mind. But am I wrong in assuming that the SD-20
is a conventional alternator and not a dynamo? If that's the case, failure
of the battery itself would also bring down the SD-20 which means, unlike
with the SD-8, you wouldn't have a positive failsafe in the event of battery
failure.
Do I understand things correctly?
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over Voltage Module/Relay
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 08:19 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Troy Maynor"
<wingnut54@charter.net>
> >
> >
> >I posted these questions on the website then when I found out Bob had
gone
> >out of town I posted it on the forum. Still in holding pattern....
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I want to install an OVM14. I have a Rotax 912S. On the Z-7 diagram it
shows
> >an overvoltage relay that, in the description of OVM14, should be used
with
> >an alternator having an internal regulator. (See quote below).
>
> The OVM-14 is a generic ov protection device suited for
> use in ANY alternator system when incorporated as suggested
> in the various Z-figures . . .
>
> > However the
> >Z-7 diagram shows both an EXTERNAL regulator AND the OV disconnect relay.
In
> >addition, your parts catalog does not show a overvoltage relay available.
>
> The latest diagram replacing Z-7 is Z-16 Revision K which will
> be published in an upcoming Rev 11 to the AeroElectric Connection.
> You can get a sneak preview copy at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Architecture/Zfigs_K_3.pdf
>
>
> >Where can I get one, at an auto parts store?
>
> The B&C catalog at:
>
>
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2-3
>
> lists an S704-1 relay (about 3/4 way down the page) which is the same
> one called out on Z-7/Z-16. If you choose to go with the latest
> Z-16 configuration, the ALT WARN light is replaced with ACTIVE
> notification of LOW VOLTS. This means that you can use a single
> pole, single throw version of the S704-1 . . . These can be had
> from Radio Shack p/n 275-226
>
>
> > One other thing, I have LEDs
> >already installed in my panel as warning lights, including the alternator
> >fail light. Will this work in place of the Alt. lamp shown on Z-7?
>
> Yes . . . in fact, if you purchase or duplicate the LV Warning
> module described at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.html
>
> and
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf
>
> you can perhaps use your existing LED to satisfy this
> functionality. However, I would caution you that the LED
> should be EASY to see, high intensity LED with no series
> resistor . . . the LV warn module has the necessary
> resistor built in.
>
>
> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: parallelling batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:42 PM 3/1/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong@xs4all.nl>
>
> >
> >
> >The way we use paralleled batteries is to run them paralleled
> > only in the charge mode (normal alternator operations) and
> > separate them into separate duties within seconds of alternator
> > failure as indicated by ACTIVE notification of low voltage.
> >
>
>Z30?
>I have some trouble with the rationale. If batteries function well in
>parallel, each charging/discharging according to its size and percentage
>of charge, then the total endurance when separating them will be smaller
>than if you didn't because one of the two batteries will run out first.
Not necessarily. The driver for two or more batteries is to
separate them into specific tasks when engine driven power is
not available. Those tasks do not necessarily require the same
battery capacity. For example, a main battery might run an e-bus load
of 5 amps while an ignition battery is drained at only 2.
This is the basis on which some builders have installed unequal
sized batteries in a two-battery system.
I'm partial to the equal size batteries even when alternator
out current draws are different. This allows you to put in one
new battery/year and rotate the main battery into the aux battery
slot. Further, you can use both batteries for cranking.
>
>So the reason for separating must be that we are not after maximum total
>endurance but guaranteed partial endurance - on the battery that we
>designed to run out last.
Your perception is an illustration of why I suggest that
the FIRST task of crafting an electrical system is a load
analysis teamed with a selection of architectures. Until
one has all the numbers and decisions are made as to where
and under what conditions each system will get power, one
is not ready to size alternators, batteries, or bus sizes.
>So now we have 3 categories of consumers - "main", "endurance" and
>"essential" - and 3 steps of degradation: end of main (alternator
>finished), end of endurance (say 3 hours at 4 A finished) and end of
>engine (say 4 hours at 3 A finished).
>Is this the idea?
>I think I might still be happier having an alternator, however tiny, to
>supply the "essential" part.
This is a weight and cost of ownership issue. Aux batteries are
cheaper but perhaps heavier than an SD-8. However, an SD-8
is likely to run the lifetime of the airplane while a battery
is an expendable commodity. Over time, the Z-13 driver will
have equal or better system reliability, higher practical
e-bus loads and a much lighter system. The initial cost is
higher due to cost of alternator. Battery costs are the same
because you're still buying one battery per year. Finally,
Z-13 allows one to save 100% of battery capacity for approach
to landing.
I agree, Z-13 is preferable to a Z-11 with two batteries.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS Backup Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:23 AM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Winn (Matronics List)"
><swmat@cox.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>This is exactly what I was looking for.
>
>For the small 1.2AH assist battery I'd like to hardwire it into 'auto'
>mode, would this be a problem?
The switch might be a better deal . . . if the LV sensor
dies, you have a manual option for getting the relay closed.
>Can I replace the contactor with something smaller like a relay for this
>small battery?
Most certainly. Suggest S704-1 from B&C or similar
>Also, I've already got a voltage warning light from the LR3C regulator.
>Does this warning light provide any additional functionality?
No, but you'd like to have some notification of proper
functionality. Instead of a second LV warning, put a blue
or green lamp in parallel with the relay coil to show that
it is receiving power after the engine starts and the bus
voltage rises.
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: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:57 PM 2/28/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
>... how do you REALLY feel about that Rotax 914 Ducati regulator, Bob? ;-)
>
>What are the preferred part numbers for replacing the "piece of @#$@#"
>914 regulator?
I'm not current with the present choices. You might check with
suppliers to the ultra-light market. There's an outfit called
AirWolf that used to carry a regulator from Key West. I've not
been privy to conversations about this for several years. A bit
of net-searching would be useful here.
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: | Instrument Panel Wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:31 PM 2/28/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
>At 02:00 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> ><mstewart@iss.net>
> >
> >Randy's advice is real real good.
> >
> >I chose Molex for their cost and convenience. My 6 has a ton, and so
> >...
> >I also have drawings for every circuit in my plane, and I keep them on
> >the web in case I get stuck somewhere with a problem.
> >
> >Mike
> >S8 Cowl...ARGH!
> >Do not archive
>
>Thanks everyone for all the good advice. Coupled with the wire labeling
>thread I'm off to a good start. I've got AC 43.13 so I'll review that
>first. Since I'm a simple Kitfox I think I'll minimize connectors but wire
>the panel so I can lay it out without disconnecting any wiring. (I'll have
>to disconnect the throttle and primer, though.)
Consider crafting airframe to panel wire bundle with a foot
or two of "slack" . . . the excess can be coiled up and
tye-wrapped for service but extended at will to allow
panel displacement without disconnecting the wires.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Hi all,
I am considering getting ProxAlert R5. Does anyone have any experience -
positive, negative, advice - to share, I'd appreciate it. Main use would be
in the more congested NE, both in VFR and IFR.
The other known competitors are SureCheck and Monroy. ProxAlert seems to be
the only one with built-in altitude measurement and ability to show 3
threats simultaneously.
Thanks for the feedback
Rumen
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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:04 AM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Winn (Matronics List)"
><swmat@cox.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm not sure why the application is important? This is long, but here
>it goes: It is a replacement for the Essential Bus alternate feed. This
>goes back to the discussion I tried to start about adding a second
>battery to the Z-13 diagram. I asked about this particular application
>before (including posting a schematic) and I was not able to get an
>opinion on it because I was not able to satisfactorily justify the
>second battery.
>
>My essential bus draws 8 amps continous including the EFIS, GPS/COM,
>panel/flood lighting, and AHRS/Magnetometer used for EFIS support. If
>the SD-8 alternator will output 8 amps at cruise power settings, this
>offsets the entire endurance bus load. However, I still have an engine
>that utilizes dual Electronic ignition. I am only required to run one,
>and the manufacturer diagrams indicate that each ignition will draw 6
>amps at the RPM that I will be running at.
>
>If I suffered from main alternator or alternator belt failure, I would
>need to obtain an 8 hour endurance to match the cruise range of my
>Long-EZ with full fuel tanks. I would need 8 hours X 6 Amps (1
>ignition), 48AH. This wouldn't leave any power for the end of the
>flight to run the electrical speed brake, nose gear, doesn't include
>radio transmits, etc... If I understood your book correctly you offer
>replacement of the battery once it fails a 50% rated capacity test.
Not necessarily. In the fat iron world, we run batteries until
they don't meet a paltry 30-minute generator-out endurance
requirement . . . for most of our fleet this is at about 80%
of new capacity. There are no rules of thumb here. You have
properly perceived a need for analysis, establishment of limits
and plans to be followed in case of certain kinds of failure.
>This means I would need 96AH of rated battery capacity to have 48AH
>available at battery replacement time. I looked at 100AH batteries,
>they weigh about 80lbs which I feel is too heavy.
>
>I decided to lower my endurance sights and settle on a smaller amount of
>battery capacity. I chose the batteries based on the largest physical
>size that will fit into the small nose of the aircraft, and back-tracked
>the endurance rating. With 32AH of rated power, this gives me 16AH of
>capacity at battery replacement time. This will give me a comfortable
>2.5 hour endurance with the SD-8 running at full tilt and one ignition
>turned off, with some reserve for radio transmits and gear/brake motors.
>I can obtain 32AH of rated capacity with one big battery or I can do it
>with two smaller ones. This provides advantages to me in terms of
>providing alternate paths of wiring to each ignition. Call it an
>emotional decision if you like, I like the idea of having two batteries
>and two separate paths of power to the two separate ignition systems.
>It adds very little complication, requiring an Aux Battery switch, a
>change to ebus alt feed switch and and an extra contactor.
>
>I have one question about this configuration:
>
>
>Does this design change decrease the safety of flight?
Given that you've fully deduced the system's LIMITS there
is no degradation of SAFETY of flight.
>Now back to the switch.
>In order to support the dual battery busses that now exist, I modified
>the e-bus alt feed switch with a 2-1 On-Off-On switch. This switch
>switches the e-bus alt feed to either the main battery or the aux
>battery as well as the output of the SD-8 alternator to the same
>battery. This way the selected e-bus alt feed path also connects the
>SD-8 to the proper battery bus. The 2-1 switch will work fine for this
>application.
>
>My problem is with aesthetics and ergonomics. I assembled all my
>switches on my mockup panel and noticed that all of the switches are in
>the 'Down' position when they are turned off except the Ebus alt feed
>switch which is in the middle. I want the Ebus alt feed to be the same
>as all of the others. I want a double pole Off-On-On switch.
>
>At the prompting of the helpful folks at B&C, I talked to Carling
>product assistance and they do indeed make such a switch. It is Carling
>part number 2G-P51-73. I have sent this part number to B&C to see if
>they can special order the switch for me.
Have you considered an SD-20? Alternatively, how about
running one ignition only on the SD-8 and dropping to
hand-held support until ready for descent and approach
to landing?
Keep in mind that our modern alternators are 10x better
machines than those installed on the spam-cans. Probability
of alternator failure hinges more on belts (put new one on
regularly) and wiring failure (pay attention to proper use
of that crimp tool!). While the scenario you've suggested
is possible, it's probability is exceedingly low compared
to what our brothers are flying in the certified iron.
Adding the SD-8 or larger backup drives your probability
for a bad day still lower. How about accepting the rare
need to shut everything on the panel down for the time it
takes to complete the en route phase of flight? Do you
plan an autopilot? GPS aided? How much current does it
draw? What's your plan-b for EFIS failure?
You may be making this too complicated. You are perhaps
more likely to have a failure in the back-ups-to-backups
hardware than the normal flight hardware (or make an
operating mistake during a stressful situation).
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: RE: Wire Labeling |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
Bummer! Thanks for the heads-up. The font size I could live with, but I
obviously didn't experiment with heat-shrink. It should be good enough for
installation tagging. I will be following this thread a bit closer now :-)
Dennis
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net
<mailto:b.nuckolls@cox.net?subject=Re:%20RE:%20Wire%20Labeling&replyto=20050
3010440.j214e6f13190@matronics.com> >
At 06:03 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers"
><glaesers@wideopenwest.com
<mailto:glaesers@wideopenwest.com?subject=Re:%20RE:%20Wire%20Labeling&replyt
o=200503010440.j214e6f13190@matronics.com> >
>
>My schoolteacher wife got a "Dymo Letra Tag 2000" at Target last
year for
>about $30. It is a handheld unit that runs on 6 AA batteries. It
prints
>both horizontal and vertical, has different fonts and you can get a
variety
>of colors and sizes of tape . It will make a wonderful wire
labeler.
I have one of these. It's a thermal printer. The whole label
turns black under the heatshrink. Besides, the smallest font
it generates is too big for anything but largest wires.
Bob . . .
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2657.73">
Re: RE: Wire Labeling
Bummer! Thanks for the heads-up. The font size I could live with, but I obviously
didn't experiment with heat-shrink. It should be good enough for installation
tagging. I will be following this thread a bit closer now :-)
Dennis
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert L. Nuckolls, III b.nuckolls@cox.net
At 06:03 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, you wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: glaesers
glaesers@wideopenwest.com
My schoolteacher wife got a Dymo Letra Tag 2000 at Target last year for
about $30. It is a handheld unit that runs on 6 AA batteries. It prints
both horizontal and vertical, has different fonts and you can get a variety
of colors and sizes of tape . It will make a wonderful wire labeler.
I have one of these. It's a thermal printer. The whole label
turns black under the heatshrink. Besides, the smallest font
it generates is too big for anything but largest wires.
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: Over Voltage Module/Relay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:08 AM 3/1/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
>
>Good stuff, Bob!
>
> I do, however, have a question about the Z-13/20 "sneak peak" /ldrawing.
>What I like about the original Z-13 (Z-13/8) drawing is that it uses the
>SD-8 dynamo as backup that doesn't NEED a battery to continue powering
>accessories in the (very) unlikely event of a battery internal short
>failure.
The SD-8's current regulator design requires a battery to
start up. It won't self excite.
> To me, that's an even better emergency solution than the Z-14
>architecture. (But what I don't like about the Z-13/8 is that you only get 8
>amps although that's probably plenty for most applications).
It should be for the vast majority of installations. See recent
posting to Scott Winn for some discussion on alternator-out
energy requirements. I think it's more prudent to design a system
that concentrates on the approach to landing phase than attempting
to support hi-draw loads in the en-route phase. Given that the
probability of alternator failure is already low by virtue of
modern components and design, the idea that you MIGHT have to
hand-fly the airplane using hand-helds perhaps once in the lifetime
of the airplane is not a particularly scarry thing to contemplate.
I'll suggest this be fully explored before you add lots of
backups-to-backups that can only grow system complexity.
> With the Z-13/20 design, you DO get more amps for backup, in fact,
>perfect for what I have in mind. But am I wrong in assuming that the SD-20
>is a conventional alternator and not a dynamo? If that's the case, failure
>of the battery itself would also bring down the SD-20 which means, unlike
>with the SD-8, you wouldn't have a positive failsafe in the event of battery
>failure.
>
> Do I understand things correctly?
Yes you do except for behavior of the SD-8. It's too bad that
the present regulator is not self exciting . . . it would not
be difficult to do. None=the-less, given the current state
of the science and art of battery fabrication, I don't
believe it's unreasonable to place as much stock in a well
maintained RG battery as you do in prop bolts. Shorted cells
and total opens are virtually unheard of. This leaves accidents
of connection and neglect, both of which are easily offset
when the guy doing maintenance is the same guy who wants to
depend on the equipment!
May I suggest some thinking that drives toward crafting
plan-b or even plan-c that lives within the simplest,
lightest, least expensive hardware.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
To detect **LOW** fuel, here is a link (for RVs).
http://www.aircraftextras.com/
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
| aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of plaurence@the-
| beach.net
| Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:15 AM
| To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
| Subject: AeroElectric-List: Opital sensor
|
| --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: plaurence@the-beach.net
|
| Bob, and others:
|
| Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical
| sensors to
| measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
|
|
| Peter
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: Over Voltage Module/Relay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
> > Do I understand things correctly?
>
> Yes you do except for behavior of the SD-8. It's too bad that
> the present regulator is not self exciting . . . it would not
> be difficult to do.
> Bob
Talk to me (us), Bob! If not difficult to do, what would it take to
make the SD-8, and better yet, the SD-20, self exciting?
If I could have the Z-13/20, with the SD-20 being self exciteable, then
I'd be ready to start ordering parts!
It's the idea of having a self-exciteable backup alternator that
"excites" me the most because then, a dual-alternator/single battery system
would truly be an independant and unlimited power source. I like it better
than the Z-14 because it's both simpler AND lighter.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over Voltage Module/Relay
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 08:08 AM 3/1/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
> >
> >Good stuff, Bob!
> >
> > I do, however, have a question about the Z-13/20 "sneak peak"
/ldrawing.
> >What I like about the original Z-13 (Z-13/8) drawing is that it uses the
> >SD-8 dynamo as backup that doesn't NEED a battery to continue powering
> >accessories in the (very) unlikely event of a battery internal short
> >failure.
>
> The SD-8's current regulator design requires a battery to
> start up. It won't self excite.
>
> > To me, that's an even better emergency solution than the Z-14
> >architecture. (But what I don't like about the Z-13/8 is that you only
get 8
> >amps although that's probably plenty for most applications).
>
> It should be for the vast majority of installations. See recent
> posting to Scott Winn for some discussion on alternator-out
> energy requirements. I think it's more prudent to design a system
> that concentrates on the approach to landing phase than attempting
> to support hi-draw loads in the en-route phase. Given that the
> probability of alternator failure is already low by virtue of
> modern components and design, the idea that you MIGHT have to
> hand-fly the airplane using hand-helds perhaps once in the lifetime
> of the airplane is not a particularly scarry thing to contemplate.
> I'll suggest this be fully explored before you add lots of
> backups-to-backups that can only grow system complexity.
>
> > With the Z-13/20 design, you DO get more amps for backup, in fact,
> >perfect for what I have in mind. But am I wrong in assuming that the
SD-20
> >is a conventional alternator and not a dynamo? If that's the case,
failure
> >of the battery itself would also bring down the SD-20 which means, unlike
> >with the SD-8, you wouldn't have a positive failsafe in the event of
battery
> >failure.
> >
> > Do I understand things correctly?
>
> Yes you do except for behavior of the SD-8. It's too bad that
> the present regulator is not self exciting . . . it would not
> be difficult to do. None=the-less, given the current state
> of the science and art of battery fabrication, I don't
> believe it's unreasonable to place as much stock in a well
> maintained RG battery as you do in prop bolts. Shorted cells
> and total opens are virtually unheard of. This leaves accidents
> of connection and neglect, both of which are easily offset
> when the guy doing maintenance is the same guy who wants to
> depend on the equipment!
>
> May I suggest some thinking that drives toward crafting
> plan-b or even plan-c that lives within the simplest,
> lightest, least expensive hardware.
>
> 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
Here's what Aviation Consumer (a publication I highly recommend for aircraft
owners, and homebuilders in particular- it's sort of a Consumer Reports for
aviators) concluded in an article published in their April 2004 issue:
Recommendations
For the price-$800 to $1200 depending on which unit you select-the portables
strike us as cheap insurance against a mid-air collision or near miss.
But you get what you pay for. Don't expect either unit to find all the
traffic. Both will miss lots of targets, especially those ahead and below
the aircraft. And once you start installing one of these in a panel using an
external antenna, you could nearly double the cost.
In adding all these numbers up, refer to the chart on page 6 which compares
prices on all the current offerings across all price ranges. With the Garmin
Mode-S based TIS available for about $5000, owners will need to put a sharp
pencil on the decision to go down market with a portable. But the $5000
applies only if you already have a GNS430 or 530 in the panel. And maybe you
don't want to spend that much on traffic gear and the portable suits your
needs.
Which is best? Both are improved over previous models and we don't think
you'll go wrong with either, keeping in mind that this technology has sharp
limitations. We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It's $400
cheaper than the SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a simpler,
easier-to-read display.
Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that the SureCheck
missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is strongly influenced
by antenna position. For the extra $400, the SureCheck gives you the ability
to run on batteries and has the onboard altitude sensor, neither of which
the Monroy has.
As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude determinations
when the host aircraft Mode-C isn't available, which appears to be the case
about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren't clear.
If that capability is important to you or you can't run on ship's power
alone, the SureCheck TrafficScope is the better choice, in our view. In any
case, we think SureCheck deserves kudos for dramatically improving its
product over the previous iteration and we give the company high marks for
much improved customer and technical support.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
rd2@evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ProxAlert R5
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Hi all,
I am considering getting ProxAlert R5. Does anyone have any experience -
positive, negative, advice - to share, I'd appreciate it. Main use would be
in the more congested NE, both in VFR and IFR.
The other known competitors are SureCheck and Monroy. ProxAlert seems to be
the only one with built-in altitude measurement and ability to show 3
threats simultaneously.
Thanks for the feedback
Rumen
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: | Re: ProxAlert R5 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
After a near mid-air collision, I purschased the Monroy ATD-300. I've
been using it as a portable and plan on permanent install in my RV-9A.
It comes with a panel mount kit as well.
I treat the ATD-300 as an extra set of eyes. It does not replace the
need for a visual scan, and it can miss things. It works better in busy
airspace, which is what you want.
The biggest downfall of these devices is that you have to be in radar
surveillance for them to work. If you are in a 'radar shadow', or if
the offending aircraft does not have a transponder, they do not work.
Nevertheless, I now routinely leave my GPS in the bag, and plug my
ATD-300 in for local flights (Vancouver VTA).
Remember... it's like another set of eyes... it won't find everything,
but it can sometimes see things the pilot doesn't.
Vern Little
Rob Housman wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>
>Here's what Aviation Consumer (a publication I highly recommend for aircraft
>owners, and homebuilders in particular- it's sort of a Consumer Reports for
>aviators) concluded in an article published in their April 2004 issue:
>Recommendations
>For the price-$800 to $1200 depending on which unit you select-the portables
>strike us as cheap insurance against a mid-air collision or near miss.
>But you get what you pay for. Don't expect either unit to find all the
>traffic. Both will miss lots of targets, especially those ahead and below
>the aircraft. And once you start installing one of these in a panel using an
>external antenna, you could nearly double the cost.
>In adding all these numbers up, refer to the chart on page 6 which compares
>prices on all the current offerings across all price ranges. With the Garmin
>Mode-S based TIS available for about $5000, owners will need to put a sharp
>pencil on the decision to go down market with a portable. But the $5000
>applies only if you already have a GNS430 or 530 in the panel. And maybe you
>don't want to spend that much on traffic gear and the portable suits your
>needs.
>Which is best? Both are improved over previous models and we don't think
>you'll go wrong with either, keeping in mind that this technology has sharp
>limitations. We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It's $400
>cheaper than the SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a simpler,
>easier-to-read display.
>Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that the SureCheck
>missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is strongly influenced
>by antenna position. For the extra $400, the SureCheck gives you the ability
>to run on batteries and has the onboard altitude sensor, neither of which
>the Monroy has.
>As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude determinations
>when the host aircraft Mode-C isn't available, which appears to be the case
>about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren't clear.
>If that capability is important to you or you can't run on ship's power
>alone, the SureCheck TrafficScope is the better choice, in our view. In any
>case, we think SureCheck deserves kudos for dramatically improving its
>product over the previous iteration and we give the company high marks for
>much improved customer and technical support.
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Rob Housman
>
>Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
>Airframe complete
>Irvine, CA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>rd2@evenlink.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: ProxAlert R5
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
>Hi all,
>I am considering getting ProxAlert R5. Does anyone have any experience -
>positive, negative, advice - to share, I'd appreciate it. Main use would be
>in the more congested NE, both in VFR and IFR.
>The other known competitors are SureCheck and Monroy. ProxAlert seems to be
>the only one with built-in altitude measurement and ability to show 3
>threats simultaneously.
>Thanks for the feedback
>Rumen
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Thank you, Rob.
I had read the article but wanted to hear some personal experiences in
addition. There is no substitute for the "horse's mouth".
Best
Rumen (will keep researching)
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Rob Housman; Date: 08:30 AM 3/1/2005
-0800)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
Here's what Aviation Consumer (a publication I highly recommend for aircraft
owners, and homebuilders in particular- it's sort of a Consumer Reports for
aviators) concluded in an article published in their April 2004 issue:
Recommendations
For the price-$800 to $1200 depending on which unit you select-the portables
strike us as cheap insurance against a mid-air collision or near miss.
But you get what you pay for. Don't expect either unit to find all the
traffic. Both will miss lots of targets, especially those ahead and below
the aircraft. And once you start installing one of these in a panel using an
external antenna, you could nearly double the cost.
In adding all these numbers up, refer to the chart on page 6 which compares
prices on all the current offerings across all price ranges. With the Garmin
Mode-S based TIS available for about $5000, owners will need to put a sharp
pencil on the decision to go down market with a portable. But the $5000
applies only if you already have a GNS430 or 530 in the panel. And maybe you
don't want to spend that much on traffic gear and the portable suits your
needs.
Which is best? Both are improved over previous models and we don't think
you'll go wrong with either, keeping in mind that this technology has sharp
limitations. We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It's $400
cheaper than the SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a simpler,
easier-to-read display.
Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that the SureCheck
missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is strongly influenced
by antenna position. For the extra $400, the SureCheck gives you the ability
to run on batteries and has the onboard altitude sensor, neither of which
the Monroy has.
As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude determinations
when the host aircraft Mode-C isn't available, which appears to be the case
about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren't clear.
If that capability is important to you or you can't run on ship's power
alone, the SureCheck TrafficScope is the better choice, in our view. In any
case, we think SureCheck deserves kudos for dramatically improving its
product over the previous iteration and we give the company high marks for
much improved customer and technical support.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
rd2@evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ProxAlert R5
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Hi all,
I am considering getting ProxAlert R5. Does anyone have any experience -
positive, negative, advice - to share, I'd appreciate it. Main use would be
in the more congested NE, both in VFR and IFR.
The other known competitors are SureCheck and Monroy. ProxAlert seems to be
the only one with built-in altitude measurement and ability to show 3
threats simultaneously.
Thanks for the feedback
Rumen
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: RE: Wire Labeling |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:11 AM 3/1/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A"
><dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
>
>Bummer! Thanks for the heads-up. The font size I could live with, but I
>obviously didn't experiment with heat-shrink. It should be good enough for
>installation tagging. I will be following this thread a bit closer now :-)
I tried it for fabrication labels too. Too slow and expensive compared
to a roll of plastic tape, a Sharpie and X-Acto knife. I use it
a lot for labeling parts drawers, etc.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Bob's comment below is another reason why I prefer Z-14 (for *my* purposes).
If I plan it all right from the beginning, I envision having to make NO
in-flight decisions if I lose one electrical system in its entirety except
for looking at the non-dark EFIS/instruments and choosing at which airport I
will land.
Given I plan for the plane to be IFR, I have decided that the way to save
the extra weight of another PC680 + regulator and the delta of the SD20 over
the SD8 is to TAKE IT OFF ME!! :-)
Just a different, non technical view of things.
James
Go with what works for you,
Your mileage may vary,
Etc., etc.
{LONG SNIP}
| You may be making this too complicated. You are perhaps
| more likely to have a failure in the back-ups-to-backups
| hardware than the normal flight hardware (or make an
| operating mistake during a stressful situation).
|
| 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: | Re: ProxAlert R5 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
rv-9a-online wrote:
> Remember... it's like another set of eyes... it won't find everything,
> but it can sometimes see things the pilot doesn't.
I have one of the older Surecheck units, and although
the distance displayed is not accurate, it does at least let you
know when somehting is within 5 miles of you. There have been a couple
of times that it has warned me there is something close, and then
I'll find the traffic visually. I bought mine refurbished off
Ebay for $300, and I consider it a great investment.
I agree, though, that you have to consider it like another
set of eyes. It doesn't replace yours, and it won't
catch everything, but IMHO I think it does at least increase
your chances of being aware of other traffic nearby.
When I build my Sportsman, I'm going to include
a TIS aware system in the panel, but until I can afford that,
the portable units are worth the investment in my opinion.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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: | Re: wire labeling practices |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
After observing the "primer wars" for several years now on the various homebuilder
lists...I believe we now have our own version! May these become known in
history as...the "wire labeling wars"!
Bob Brown
RV7A - wiring...
and labeling. What's the big deal?
do not archive
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat@cox.net>
Bob,
Not necessarily. In the fat iron world, we run batteries until
they don't meet a paltry 30-minute generator-out endurance
requirement . . . for most of our fleet this is at about 80%
of new capacity. There are no rules of thumb here. You have
properly perceived a need for analysis, establishment of limits
and plans to be followed in case of certain kinds of failure.
It never occurred to me to replace the battery sooner. In reality
that's what we'd do, because we'll just replace one of the batteries
each year and rotate. I can't believe they will reach 50% capacity in a
year.
>Does this design change decrease the safety of flight?
Given that you've fully deduced the system's LIMITS there
is no degradation of SAFETY of flight.
Good.
Have you considered an SD-20? Alternatively, how about
running one ignition only on the SD-8 and dropping to
hand-held support until ready for descent and approach
to landing?
We are planning on IFR operations. I don't think handheld support will
suffice unless it is very sophisticated. I thought about the SD-20 but
it adds weight to the wrong end of the aircraft. I prefer to put weight
in the nose instead of the tail. The Long-EZ is typically tail heavy
and I'm trying to minimize the weight behind the firewall. The SD-8 is
a really light piece of hardware.
Keep in mind that our modern alternators are 10x better
machines than those installed on the spam-cans. Probability
of alternator failure hinges more on belts (put new one on
regularly) and wiring failure (pay attention to proper use
of that crimp tool!). While the scenario you've suggested
is possible, it's probability is exceedingly low compared
to what our brothers are flying in the certified iron.
I agree. I sincerely hope that the Aux Alt and E-Bus Alt feed switches
remain in the off position for the life of the aircraft, being exercised
only during preflight.
Adding the SD-8 or larger backup drives your probability
for a bad day still lower. How about accepting the rare
need to shut everything on the panel down for the time it
takes to complete the en route phase of flight? Do you
plan an autopilot? GPS aided? How much current does it
draw? What's your plan-b for EFIS failure?
Plan-b for EFIS failure includes the same equipment that the user of a
spam can would have in the event of a vacuum failure for IFR flight.
This includes a Turn Coord (electric), VSI, altimeter, and compass.
Additionally we also have a tru-trak autopilot which can be utilized to
maintain level flight and follow the GPS flight plan. This is a partial
panel situation that we will train for.
You may be making this too complicated. You are perhaps
more likely to have a failure in the back-ups-to-backups
hardware than the normal flight hardware (or make an
operating mistake during a stressful situation).
I have considered the complexity of the system. The checklist for a
Voltage Warning Light event is as follows:
Turn Off DC PWR MASTER
Turn Off AUX BAT MASTER
Turn Off RIGHT IGN
Switch E-BUS ALT FEED to Aux
Turn On AUX ALT
Sufficient electrical power for 2 Hours of flight time remain, find a
suitable landing field within this time frame.
The number of steps only differs from a single battery configuration
with one step, Turn Off AUX BAT MASTER. This step would not exist with a
standard Z-13 configuration. I do have an additional contactor to
replace if it goes bad. If I find this to be a hassle, I can always
eliminate the AUX BAT switch, the associated contactor and install a
single 32AH battery in the future. It fits into the same physical space
as the two 16AH batts. (Or I could install a paralleling jumper wire)
B&C got back to me today, and they can get the Off-On-On switch for me
at a good price.
--Scott Winn
San Diego, CA
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dwight Frye <dwight@openweave.org>
I got lucky and got a new-in-box Kroy K2000 off of eBay. It prints on
labels as well as heat-shrink tubing. It is *way* overkill for this task
but since I got a deal ... I figured why not go for it?? :)
-- Dwight
do not archive
On Sat Feb 26 06:19:27 2005, Jay Brinkmeyer wrote :
>Can someone point me to a good source/example of wire labeling and
>identification best practices? Are folks using fancy mil-spec labels, just
>printing & heat shrinking them on, or something else???
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: | question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Bob,
Thank you for your time and effort to make our electrical systems better.
I have a question regarding Z-19 as this is very close to what I need to
do.
The endurance bus alternate feed switch cannot feed power from the
secondary battery without closing 2 contactors. Shouldn't the e-bus be
capable of drawing from either electrical resevoir? OR could solid state
contactors be used as they draw much less current to beep the power
flowing?
My project is an RV7A and my engine choice (at this time) is the
Eggenfellner H6. Can you comment on how to achieve battery sizes for Z-19.
Both batteries may end up being mounted aft of the baggage area. What size
wires need to be run forward? Can/should they be run forward on the same
wire run?
Thank you
Bevan
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:16 AM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown"
><bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
>
>After observing the "primer wars" for several years now on the various
>homebuilder lists...I believe we now have our own version! May
>these become known in history as...the "wire labeling wars"!
How about "investigations and debate?" This has come up before and
WILL come up again. If the List is to serve as a good class room,
there will always be new students, new technologies to be explored,
and old myths to be debunked. The big deal is that we strive
to be good teachers and offer the best we know how to do
irrespective of how many times it has been covered in the past.
Bob . . .
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: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
Get a GPS. Stop navigating from one thunderhead to another.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADF Debug
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
>
> I bought a C150 to do some instrument training in. Everything is okay
> except the little Narco ADF is lazy. Sometimes it works and points to
> the station, and sometimes it doesn't. I have played with all of the
> controls
> and haven't been able to find any way to make it work better. It doesn't
> seem to matter how close I am to the ground station. I have tried tuning
> in a couple of different transmitters - an NDB and a compass locator, (I
> think). I can select the BFO and get a solid tone, and I can also hear
the
> station identifier relatively clearly - no noticeable ignition noise.
>
> Anyone have experience debugging this kind of behavior? Do the symptoms
> tell me anything about the problem?
>
> If the ADF is trash, I can get a KR87 and indicator from barnstormers for
> about $1000 or an overhauled unit from Vista for $1300. Another option
> is to bag the ADF altogether and get an IFR cert GPS. Not sure how
> much that will run me, but I am guessing about 2x the price for a used
> unit. The nice thing about the GPS is that the airplane doesn't have a
DME,
> and I think a certified GPS can perform those functions. Is that correct?
> I know, I know, you can't tune talk radio with a GPS.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
> VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> The Rotax standard alternator is permanent magnet. VERY robust.
> The weakest link in Rotax's electrical system is their piece of
> @#$@# regulator. There are more robust products out there. Further,
> one might craft a dual regulator system to back up the standard
> regulator. Putting an SD-8 on the Rotax vacuum pump drive is a
> VERY marginal proposition.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Hi Bob and all,
Some time ago I could lay my hands on a 912 Rotax alternator. A buddy
machined a drive coupling to run the unit on test bench. As he is an
researcher in things electrical, we made a survey of the unit and the
Ducati-Rotax regulator. I posted some of his conclusions on this list
some months ago.
To make things short, the Rotax regulator cannot deliver the advertised
output without overheating. Nevertheless, students made some cooling
tests, and a fan or blast tube can greatly improve things.
The safe maximal continuous output seems to be about 12-14 amps.
We chose to use a German Schicke GR4.
When I have some spare time I'll craft some webpages on the results of
our investigations.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
16 happy test hours on our MCR 4S
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:27 AM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you for your time and effort to make our electrical systems better.
>
>I have a question regarding Z-19 as this is very close to what I need to
>do.
>
>The endurance bus alternate feed switch cannot feed power from the
>secondary battery without closing 2 contactors. Shouldn't the e-bus be
>capable of drawing from either electrical resevoir? OR could solid state
>contactors be used as they draw much less current to beep the power
>flowing?
Recall that the rational for dual batteries is to make sure
that the airplane stays operational for a PREDETERMINED period
of time after alternator failure. IF you can craft a system
where this time is for duration of fuel aboard, fine. If not,
KNOW what that period is and maintain the system so that the
requirement is met.
When the alternator quits, e-bus runs from one battery and
engine runs from the other. If you've been a poor steward of
either energy stored or maintenance of the system's components,
then the REAL emergency will arise when you need to switch
the engine over to the e-bus battery . . . here's where sweating
is expected.
The scenario you hypothesize is fodder for a good dark-n-stormy-
night story. You're down to the last few watt-seconds of energy
stored in batteries and as a last gesture of gallant determination
to remain airborne for a few more minutes, you load the engine
battery with e-bus loads or vice-versa.
The goal: When the low volts light comes on you (1) set
E-BUS ALT FEED - ON. (2) set DC PWR MASTER to OFF. (3) E-Bus
Loads - Minimize if practical. Continue flight to airport
of intended destination or to nearest airport within range
of your pre-determined endurance capabilities. The secondary
power switch for the engine is to address failures in wiring and/or
switch on the primary side and/or failure to keep the engine
battery charged. Be sure to add voltmeter check of both battery
busses after the engine starts to verify that both battery
contactors are closed.
This philosophy makes an alternator failure no worse than
failure of nav lights with respect to comfortable completion
of flight.
>My project is an RV7A and my engine choice (at this time) is the
>Eggenfellner H6. Can you comment on how to achieve battery sizes for Z-19.
Do a load analysis. What "stuff" needs to run during
alternator out conditions? How much current do these items
need? You then have one of two choices (1) make batteries
large enough for continued flight to airport of intended
destination or (2) select batteries that are "too small" and
deduce realistic expectations for electrical endurance to make
an alternate airport.
>Both batteries may end up being mounted aft of the baggage area. What size
>wires need to be run forward? Can/should they be run forward on the same
>wire run?
See if you can mount a pair of 17 a.h. batteries forward first.
If they have to go aft, you could consider using airframe ground
for both batteries and bringing each battery lead forward on
4AWG wire.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
Bevan,
I am also planning on an RV7A with an E-Subaru (single cam at the moment)
and have come up with the following electrical architecture (pre Z-19):
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm
<http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm>
Differences from Z-19:
- E-Bus fed from either battery.
- Dual fuel pumps with auto-failover
- EIS will provide LV warning and voltmeter (so neither shown on my
diagram).
- Starter solenoid energized by a 40 amp relay (Bosch - $2) rather than
going through a contactor.
- OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal
regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
For the H6 you will need to add a relay to provide power to the O2 sensors.
I have a diagram for how I'd do that also if you're interested.
I look forward to Bob's reply to your questions on battery sizing and
running the leads (in case I change my mind on engines ;-)
Dennis Glaeser
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2657.73">
Re: question re Z-19
Bevan,
I am also planning on an RV7A with an E-Subaru (single cam at the moment) and have
come up with the following electrical architecture (pre Z-19):
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm
Differences from Z-19:
- E-Bus fed from either battery.
- Dual fuel pumps with auto-failover
- EIS will provide LV warning and voltmeter (so neither shown on my diagram).
- Starter solenoid energized by a 40 amp relay (Bosch - $2) rather than going
through a contactor.
- OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal regulator
on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
For the H6 you will need to add a relay to provide power to the O2 sensors. I have
a diagram for how I'd do that also if you're interested.
I look forward to Bob's reply to your questions on battery sizing and running the
leads (in case I change my mind on engines ;-)
Dennis Glaeser
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: Over Voltage Module/Relay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:07 AM 3/1/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
>
> > > Do I understand things correctly?
> >
> > Yes you do except for behavior of the SD-8. It's too bad that
> > the present regulator is not self exciting . . . it would not
> > be difficult to do.
> > Bob
>
> Talk to me (us), Bob! If not difficult to do, what would it take to
>make the SD-8, and better yet, the SD-20, self exciting?
First, you need to be SURE that once either one of these systems
is up and running WITHOUT a battery on line that the power quality
is acceptable. The SD-8 installation calls for a fat filter capacitor
but I'm not 100% sure that we'd like the voltage regulation dynamics.
> If I could have the Z-13/20, with the SD-20 being self exciteable, then
>I'd be ready to start ordering parts!
>
Allow me to suggest that it's easier/faster/sure-bet to have
a second battery no matter how small. If you're loosing sleep
over a battery failure in figure Z-13, then perhaps you'd
entertain a small (2-4 a.h.) SVLA battery as the #2 battery
to insure that an SD-8, SD-20 or even the main alternator can
be coaxed on line with a modicum of filtering offered by the
small battery.
> It's the idea of having a self-exciteable backup alternator that
>"excites" me the most because then, a dual-alternator/single battery system
>would truly be an independant and unlimited power source. I like it better
>than the Z-14 because it's both simpler AND lighter.
With an "aux" battery added to Figure Z-13, the aux battery
contactor can be a large relay like S704-1. It can be charged
by using the auto feature of an LVWARN/ABMM module and would
offset whatever risk there may be for loosing the main battery.
Now, this battery certainly wants to be replaced every year
(or tested) along with the main battery . . . and you avoid any new
development programs for regulators and testing for addition of filter
capacitors that may be as heavy as the "too small" aux battery.
Bob . . .
Message 37
| 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: wire labeling practices |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Very true and I wonder why we do not have a list of old tips?
Having a place for FAQ's would, I think greatly help cut down on recycled
threads etc
The labeling 'heat blackout' issue was thrashed out several years ago on
this list as I recall.
There are several different brands and different types of tape within some
brands.
One that worked then, and I have used it with great success with small type
and clear heat shrink is the following.
I learned of it on this list 2-3 years ago so why the rehashing old what was
solved before?
Brother P touch machines using TZ tape works others do not.
I obtained a P-Touch 1800 that prints 3 lines and type from 6 point to 26
point that is great for even #22 wire. Getting very flexible heat shrink (it
cones in many types and flexibilities) worked for me. Cost $19.00 at the
time as it was on sale.
In any event the key is the TZ tape.
I really suggest a place on the web where FAQ's can be stored and that could
really reduce the seemingly never-ending recycling of questions from year to
year, or (in some cases) several times a year for the same or nearly the
same question.
This way Bob's time could be spent on new ideas etc that could benefit all
of us.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 09:16 AM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown"
>><bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
>>
>>After observing the "primer wars" for several years now on the various
>>homebuilder lists...I believe we now have our own version! May
>>these become known in history as...the "wire labeling wars"!
>
>
> How about "investigations and debate?" This has come up before and
> WILL come up again. If the List is to serve as a good class room,
> there will always be new students, new technologies to be explored,
> and old myths to be debunked. The big deal is that we strive
> to be good teachers and offer the best we know how to do
> irrespective of how many times it has been covered in the past.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 38
| 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 type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Well Bob, I wonder what brand of batteries you are referring to.
The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual, as specified
by the battery manufacturer, and Concord specifies that the battery must
have at least 85% of its original stated capacity to be airworthy. That is
higher than 80% and far above the above ref of 50%.
I have a 2 year old Power-Sonic (one of the popular 12V 18AH type) that
tests at 6 AH or has lost 66% of its capacity in 2 years and never was deep
discharged nor over charged during this entire time (Recharged with multi
stage charger).
Not typical, but not mistreated, and yet not usable for flight in my
opinion. Starts engine just fine but would fade fast if needed. Room temp
cranking amp tests at over 500AMPs.
Paul
Sorta back we will see.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Switch type
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>>If I understood your book correctly you offer
>>replacement of the battery once it fails a 50% rated capacity test.
>
> Not necessarily. In the fat iron world, we run batteries until
> they don't meet a paltry 30-minute generator-out endurance
> requirement . . . for most of our fleet this is at about 80%
> of new capacity. There are no rules of thumb here. You have
> properly perceived a need for analysis, establishment of limits
> and plans to be followed in case of certain kinds of failure.
>
Message 39
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Dennis
Is this what you meant to write?
While it is probably better than nothing, AFAIK it is wishful thinking
to believe that the alternator will not latch on with a failed VR during
an OV situation. Once the VR has failed and charging full bore, I don't
think you can reasonably expect that depowering the IGN terminal will
still shut it down.
Ken
Glaeser, Dennis A wrote:
>-->snip
> - OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal
>regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
>-->snip
>
>
Message 40
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Dennis,
I hope you are right, but are you sure about this?
Mickey
> - OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal
> regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
Message 41
| 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 type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:16 PM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>Well Bob, I wonder what brand of batteries you are referring to.
>
>The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual, as specified
>by the battery manufacturer, and Concord specifies that the battery must
>have at least 85% of its original stated capacity to be airworthy. That is
>higher than 80% and far above the above ref of 50%.
Concord's recommendation and the values levied by the type certificated
installation on an airplane may not be the same number. When we
certify a battery on the airframe, it's emergency operating capacity
is demonstrated for 30 minutes endurance per the FARS . . . whether
this is 70% or 90% of capacity when new is a variable we have to
consider with respect to customer acceptance. If 70% then the battery
is too heavy, if 90% then the battery needs replaced too often. Don't
know about annual testing but our maintenance manuals have cap checks
at hour intervals as well. I think I recall the first one at 600
hours and every 300 hours thereafter . . . but yes, irrespective
of one's testing philosophy or regulations the important feature
is to launch KNOWING that one's battery(ies) are ready to perform
as established in the original design.
My 50% number came from a suggestion that while cranking ability
for a flooded battery was a fair test of battery condition, it
could be misleading for an RG battery. It was my suggestion that
folks who wish to stretch the VSLA battery as far as practical in
a day/vfr machine should build some form of capacity tester and
discard the battery when it drops to 50% in spite of how well it
cranks the engine. This was a recommendation for OBAM aircraft and
only if there was no great dependency on battery capacity.
>I have a 2 year old Power-Sonic (one of the popular 12V 18AH type) that
>tests at 6 AH or has lost 66% of its capacity in 2 years and never was deep
>discharged nor over charged during this entire time (Recharged with multi
>stage charger).
>
>Not typical, but not mistreated, and yet not usable for flight in my
>opinion. Starts engine just fine but would fade fast if needed. Room temp
>cranking amp tests at over 500AMPs.
Point made. I have several instrumentation batteries in the shop
that have fallen to 60% or less capacity that will dump 400+ amps.
They would start an engine but I wouldn't want to fly them. I'm
getting ready to scrap a couple of them.
>Paul
>
>Sorta back we will see.
Please to see you back sir.
Bob . . .
Message 42
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Mickey,
I asked specifically that question on the Subaru Yahoo list and got the
reply that the field does not latch. When you think about it, the factory
recommended EXPBUS also depends on controlling the alternator via the field
circuit. I think you will be getting your engine pretty soon, so you can
check it out and let me know for sure!
Ken,
I'm expecting/hoping that the field circuit is the power for the alternator
field, like it is in an externally regulated alternator, and that removing
power kills the field and therefore the output, regardless of what the VR is
doing. I'm a long way from getting my engine, but that will definitely be
something I will verify. If there is any doubt, I will install the B-lead
contactor in a heartbeat (I haven't tossed the version of my diagram with
that contactor :-)
Dennis
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
<mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Dennis,
I hope you are right, but are you sure about this?
Mickey
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Dennis
Is this what you meant to write?
While it is probably better than nothing, AFAIK it is wishful thinking
to believe that the alternator will not latch on with a failed VR during
an OV situation. Once the VR has failed and charging full bore, I don't
think you can reasonably expect that depowering the IGN terminal will
still shut it down.
Ken
> - OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal
> regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
>
Message 43
| 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 type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
"Paul Messinger" wrote:
> The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual,
> as specified by the battery manufacturer ...
>
That may come as news to some of us. If you're referring to Part 43
and arguing that the language of FAR 43.13 requires strict adherehnce
to a manufacturer's service instructions (two long-time A&P/IAs I know
say it does not, though good judgment should control), the service
manual for my plane states only to "check specific gravity." My
battery mfr says, to determine if serviceable, to either check
specific gravity or do a capacity test without specifics on how to do
it, and they label both as "suggested methods."
Reg,
Fred F.
Message 44
| 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 type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
This FAA requirement is a couple of years old as I understand.
Its irrespective of original certification requirements (and overrules them
as needed).
The new reg is obtuse as it says to use the battery mfgr's requirements so
its the brand of battery that determines the load method and amount of loss
before no longer being usable. Not unlike the ELT battery approach the FAA
uses where its the ELT mfgr that rules.
I have not looked at the regs recently but it could be as obtuse as all
installed equipment must meet mfgrs requirements. Like the ELT is worded :-(
NEW (in the past couple of years?) batteries are to be shipped with the
annual retesting methods and go / no-go levels
The way I read the regs is that what applied originally or even a couple of
years ago are no longer valid. The FAA has now stated that the current rules
as published by the battery manufacturer apply. Thus trumping any prior FAA
approvals from the past.
Concord has specs for recertification on their web site for both flooded and
AGM cells. The way I read them if any certificated aircraft has a Concord
brand battery it must be tested in accordance with the concord specs and if
less than 85% of the spec AH value is not approved for flight at that time.
SNEAKY in some ways (that based on your comments) rescind the original type
approval etc.
I agree that these regs may not apply to experimentals but its not really
clear there as some regs do apply depending on the time of day etc:-)
Paul
PS many annuals are performed ignoring this but the IA is at risk if found
out.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 12:16 PM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
>><paulm@olypen.com>
>>
>>Well Bob, I wonder what brand of batteries you are referring to.
>>
>>The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual, as
>>specified
>>by the battery manufacturer, and Concord specifies that the battery must
>>have at least 85% of its original stated capacity to be airworthy. That is
>>higher than 80% and far above the above ref of 50%.
>
> Concord's recommendation and the values levied by the type
> certificated
> installation on an airplane may not be the same number. When we
> certify a battery on the airframe, it's emergency operating capacity
> is demonstrated for 30 minutes endurance per the FARS . . . whether
> this is 70% or 90% of capacity when new is a variable we have to
> consider with respect to customer acceptance. If 70% then the battery
> is too heavy, if 90% then the battery needs replaced too often. Don't
> know about annual testing but our maintenance manuals have cap checks
> at hour intervals as well. I think I recall the first one at 600
> hours and every 300 hours thereafter . . . but yes, irrespective
> of one's testing philosophy or regulations the important feature
> is to launch KNOWING that one's battery(ies) are ready to perform
> as established in the original design.
>
> My 50% number came from a suggestion that while cranking ability
> for a flooded battery was a fair test of battery condition, it
> could be misleading for an RG battery. It was my suggestion that
> folks who wish to stretch the VSLA battery as far as practical in
> a day/vfr machine should build some form of capacity tester and
> discard the battery when it drops to 50% in spite of how well it
> cranks the engine. This was a recommendation for OBAM aircraft and
> only if there was no great dependency on battery capacity.
>
>
>>I have a 2 year old Power-Sonic (one of the popular 12V 18AH type) that
>>tests at 6 AH or has lost 66% of its capacity in 2 years and never was
>>deep
>>discharged nor over charged during this entire time (Recharged with multi
>>stage charger).
>>
>>Not typical, but not mistreated, and yet not usable for flight in my
>>opinion. Starts engine just fine but would fade fast if needed. Room temp
>>cranking amp tests at over 500AMPs.
>
> Point made. I have several instrumentation batteries in the shop
> that have fallen to 60% or less capacity that will dump 400+ amps.
> They would start an engine but I wouldn't want to fly them. I'm
> getting ready to scrap a couple of them.
>
>
>>Paul
>>
>>Sorta back we will see.
>
> Please to see you back sir.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 45
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
regulator does have OV protection built in.
However there is a seldom seen failure where the internal field switch fails
short and the only way to stop the full output of the alternator is with an
external opening of the power output lead "B" lead wire.
VAN's, EXPBUS, NSI, Eggenfelner etc. do not protect for this; only here on
the Aeroelectric list is this failure mode addressed (as far as I can tell)
.
While quite rare its a huge failure as the system bus will quickly rise to
levels that will fail all the electronics even the engine computers from
very high voltages.
The alternator output goes to current level somewhat over the rated
altrnator max current and the system voltage will rise until this current is
absorbed. A fully charged Concord 25ah battery was unable to clamp a 40 amp
test current I applied and the battery and system voltage rose to over 20V
in 1/2 minute and I stopped the test after one minute at a system voltage of
over 30 v and rising. The alternator is quite capable of over 100 volts
If you are already at a high % of alternator output the voltage rise is
small but what if you have a 55 amp alternator and are only loading under 10
amps? Then the voltage can get to damaging levels very quickly. The above
mfgrs as I understand it do not have automatic flashing lights etc to warn
you as well as NO way to stop the fault from causing system damage (first
your wallet and if you need electronics to power the engine perhaps your
BUTT).
NOTE that an external regulator can do the same thing but usually has a CB
that you can pull to remove all field power. The OR-3 regulator has built in
protection and you can add it to the Ford etc regulators.
Eventually one can litterly burn up things including the alternator from
overheating.
The OVP and "B" lead cutter (Eric Jones) are the only way currently
available to detect and isolate this failure from the rest of the aircraft.
Most common alternator failure is to fail off. Second with modern regulators
is to fail from OV. Very rare to have fail in uncontrolled hi output but
very expensive if it happens.
My point is most of us feel that a sure way of automatically disconnection
of the alternator is not an option as the failure progression happens too
fast in most cases of human seeing and reacting to a volt meter etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: question re Z-19
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers"
> <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
>
> Mickey,
>
> I asked specifically that question on the Subaru Yahoo list and got the
> reply that the field does not latch. When you think about it, the factory
> recommended EXPBUS also depends on controlling the alternator via the
> field
> circuit. I think you will be getting your engine pretty soon, so you can
> check it out and let me know for sure!
>
> Ken,
>
> I'm expecting/hoping that the field circuit is the power for the
> alternator
> field, like it is in an externally regulated alternator, and that removing
> power kills the field and therefore the output, regardless of what the VR
> is
> doing. I'm a long way from getting my engine, but that will definitely
> be
> something I will verify. If there is any doubt, I will install the B-lead
> contactor in a heartbeat (I haven't tossed the version of my diagram with
> that contactor :-)
>
> Dennis
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> I hope you are right, but are you sure about this?
>
> Mickey
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> Dennis
> Is this what you meant to write?
> While it is probably better than nothing, AFAIK it is wishful thinking
> to believe that the alternator will not latch on with a failed VR during
> an OV situation. Once the VR has failed and charging full bore, I don't
> think you can reasonably expect that depowering the IGN terminal will
> still shut it down.
> Ken
>> - OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the
>> internal
>> regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
>>
>
>
>
Message 46
| 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: | Ruined lexan and gaffer tape |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "kfackler" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
> to sit down and cry. Did a quick repair with gaffer's tape
John:
What is gaffer's tape and how did you use it to repair lexan damaged by
gasoline?
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / A722KWF
Rochester MI
ethods."
>
> Reg,
> Fred F.
>
>
>
Message 47
| 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: | question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Bob
Thanks for you comments.
The scenario you hypothesize is fodder for a good dark-n-stormy-
night story. You're down to the last few watt-seconds of energy
stored in batteries and as a last gesture of gallant determination
to remain airborne for a few more minutes, you load the engine
battery with e-bus loads or vice-versa.
The goal: When the low volts light comes on you (1) set
E-BUS ALT FEED - ON. (2) set DC PWR MASTER to OFF. (3) E-Bus
Loads - Minimize if practical. Continue flight to airport
of intended destination or to nearest airport within range
of your pre-determined endurance capabilities. The secondary
power switch for the engine is to address failures in wiring and/or
switch on the primary side and/or failure to keep the engine
battery charged. Be sure to add voltmeter check of both battery
busses after the engine starts to verify that both battery
contactors are closed.
Yes, I missed that when looking when looking at the drawing.
Do a load analysis. What "stuff" needs to run during
alternator out conditions? How much current do these items
need? You then have one of two choices (1) make batteries
large enough for continued flight to airport of intended
destination or (2) select batteries that are "too small" and
deduce realistic expectations for electrical endurance to make
an alternate airport.
Could you give us a rule of thumb for sizing the batteries if when knew the
ebus + ECU + fuel pump current and wanted X hours endurance minimum from a
1 year old battery? Both batteries would be same size in my case.
See if you can mount a pair of 17 a.h. batteries forward first.
If they have to go aft, you could consider using airframe ground
for both batteries and bringing each battery lead forward on
4AWG wire.
I was thinking it would be preferrable to use a single "4AWG" wire to bring
the switched power forward from both rear batteries and a shared "4AWG"
wire for return ground, therefore single point ground and minimum heavy
wire runs. There would also be a 10 or 12 AWG from each battery coming all
the way forword for the two battery busses. These would be easier to
route.
Bevan
Message 48
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Dennis
Very nice layout. Thanks for the help. What did you use to draw the layouts?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: Glaeser, Dennis A [SMTP:dennis.glaeser@eds.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: question re Z-19
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
Bevan,
I am also planning on an RV7A with an E-Subaru (single cam at the moment)
and have come up with the following electrical architecture (pre Z-19):
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm
<http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm>
Message 49
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 08:09 PM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
>regulator does have OV protection built in.
snipped
Paul,
When was this "latest design" regulator instituted by ND? (year) I have a
60 amp unit which was remanufactured by NAPA 2 years ago.
Charlie Kuss
Message 50
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 08:09 PM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
>regulator does have OV protection built in.
snipped
Paul
I forgot to mention, my 60 amp alternator is off of a 1991 Toyota Camry.
Reman'ed 2 years ago.
Charlie Kuss
Message 51
| 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: | Ruined lexan and gaffer tape |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard McCraw" <rmccraw@s4t.net>
I don't know about Lexan repair, but I know gaffer's tape through theater.
It's a heavy-duty fabric tape -- heavy enough to put on a stage and have
actors walk, run and dance on it without destroying it.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kfackler
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ruined lexan and gaffer tape
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "kfackler" <kfackler@ameritech.net>
> to sit down and cry. Did a quick repair with gaffer's tape
John:
What is gaffer's tape and how did you use it to repair lexan damaged by
gasoline?
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / A722KWF
Rochester MI
ethods."
>
> Reg,
> Fred F.
>
>
>
Message 52
| 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: wire labeling practices |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
what width tape did you use?
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> <paulm@olypen.com>
>
> Very true and I wonder why we do not have a list of old tips?
>
> Having a place for FAQ's would, I think greatly help cut down on recycled
> threads etc
>
> The labeling 'heat blackout' issue was thrashed out several years ago on
> this list as I recall.
>
> There are several different brands and different types of tape within some
> brands.
>
> One that worked then, and I have used it with great success with small
> type
> and clear heat shrink is the following.
>
> I learned of it on this list 2-3 years ago so why the rehashing old what
> was
> solved before?
>
> Brother P touch machines using TZ tape works others do not.
>
> I obtained a P-Touch 1800 that prints 3 lines and type from 6 point to 26
> point that is great for even #22 wire. Getting very flexible heat shrink
> (it
> cones in many types and flexibilities) worked for me. Cost $19.00 at the
> time as it was on sale.
>
> In any event the key is the TZ tape.
>
> I really suggest a place on the web where FAQ's can be stored and that
> could
> really reduce the seemingly never-ending recycling of questions from year
> to
> year, or (in some cases) several times a year for the same or nearly the
> same question.
>
> This way Bob's time could be spent on new ideas etc that could benefit all
> of us.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>>
>> At 09:16 AM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown"
>>><bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
>>>
>>>After observing the "primer wars" for several years now on the various
>>>homebuilder lists...I believe we now have our own version! May
>>>these become known in history as...the "wire labeling wars"!
>>
>>
>> How about "investigations and debate?" This has come up before and
>> WILL come up again. If the List is to serve as a good class room,
>> there will always be new students, new technologies to be explored,
>> and old myths to be debunked. The big deal is that we strive
>> to be good teachers and offer the best we know how to do
>> irrespective of how many times it has been covered in the past.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 53
| 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: Re: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
If I understand correctly, you're saying that even 'non latching' field
leads on internal VRs do not absolutely control the power to the alternator
field (right?).
I put the external OVP only in the field circuit, expecting that removing
power to that lead kills the field (and therefor alternator output) -
period. If that is not the case, it's not really 'non-latching', by my
definition anyway.
I'm not against the contactor on the B-lead, but figured on saving the
weight and complexity if it added no value. Apparently it does.
Dennis Glaeser
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
regulator does have OV protection built in.
However there is a seldom seen failure where the internal field switch fails
short and the only way to stop the full output of the alternator is with an
external opening of the power output lead "B" lead wire.
VAN's, EXPBUS, NSI, Eggenfelner etc. do not protect for this; only here on
the Aeroelectric list is this failure mode addressed (as far as I can tell)
Message 54
| 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 type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
So... what does this mean in the experimental realm... anyone hazard a guess
?
BTW, Paul... welcome back
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
Message 55
| 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: Re: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Bevan,
Thanks. I used a highly specialized tool - PowerPoint ;-)
Dennis
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Dennis
Very nice layout. Thanks for the help. What did you use to draw the
layouts?
Bevan
Message 56
| 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: | question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Could you give us a rule of thumb for sizing the batteries if when knew the
>ebus + ECU + fuel pump current and wanted X hours endurance minimum from a
>1 year old battery? Both batteries would be same size in my case.
Its reasonable to assume that a 1 year old battery will still
be very close to rated capacity as long as it didn't suffer
serious abuse during the year . . . i.e. deep discharge and
long storage in the discharged state. So if you want 2 hours
endurance and 10A of load, a 20 a.h. battery is called for
as a minimum. 24 gives you 20% headroom. If you use a pair of
17 a.h. batteries and want the same 20% headroom, then 17
x .8 gives you 13.6 or 1.3 hours at 10 amps load.
More time = bigger battery. Reduce weight = smaller
calculated endurance time.
> See if you can mount a pair of 17 a.h. batteries forward first.
> If they have to go aft, you could consider using airframe ground
> for both batteries and bringing each battery lead forward on
> 4AWG wire.
>
>I was thinking it would be preferrable to use a single "4AWG" wire to bring
>the switched power forward from both rear batteries and a shared "4AWG"
>wire for return ground, therefore single point ground and minimum heavy
>wire runs.
That would probably work. How long will the ground wire be?
> There would also be a 10 or 12 AWG from each battery coming all
>the way forword for the two battery busses. These would be easier to
>route.
OOPS! Battery busses go right at the battery. Leads from
always hot side of battery contactor to battery bus
should be as short as practical. You don't want long runs
of always hot wire running through structure. Note the
(*) symbol on various wires in the diagrams . . . this
suggest 6" long leads is a good thing to strive for.
Bob . . .
Message 57
| 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-List Digest: 42 Msgs - 02/28/05 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
Nice schematic and software design tool Vern (this looks useful)! Thanks for
sharing...
Jay
From: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument Panel Wiring
<snip>
I designed a removable panel for my RV-9A. A complete editable schematic, plus
special wiring adapters to allow panel disconnect using D-sub connectors are
shown.
http://www3.telus.net/aviation/vx
Thanks, Vern Little RV-9A
=====
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Message 58
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Sorry but I do not know. Just that hi quality rebuilders say later versions
are better. Lots of rebuilders out there and lots of freplacement regulators
also and not all are the same.
Wish I could help. NAPA as with others have various quality products and
priced that way.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Kuss" <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: question re Z-19
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
> <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
> At 08:09 PM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
>><paulm@olypen.com>
>>
>>The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
>>regulator does have OV protection built in.
> snipped
>
> Paul,
> When was this "latest design" regulator instituted by ND? (year) I have a
> 60 amp unit which was remanufactured by NAPA 2 years ago.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
Message 59
| 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: wire labeling practices |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
My unit handles up to 3 lines on 6mm 1/4" thru 3/4 and then you cut as
needed. (one line on 1/4 and 3 on 3/4 that is)
The key is the tape type that does not blacken.
6 point type is really small and will wrap around once plus a little with
the type readable.
3 lines of type on 3/4" tape and then cut around the letters is lower cost
than one line trimmed.
Easiest to find is 1/2" tape and here 2 lines work on my machine with lots
of room for trimming.
The ability of the machines varies quite a lot with type fonts and sizes
etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone"
> <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> what width tape did you use?
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
>> <paulm@olypen.com>
>>
>> Very true and I wonder why we do not have a list of old tips?
>>
>> Having a place for FAQ's would, I think greatly help cut down on recycled
>> threads etc
>>
>> The labeling 'heat blackout' issue was thrashed out several years ago on
>> this list as I recall.
>>
>> There are several different brands and different types of tape within
>> some
>> brands.
>>
>> One that worked then, and I have used it with great success with small
>> type
>> and clear heat shrink is the following.
>>
>> I learned of it on this list 2-3 years ago so why the rehashing old what
>> was
>> solved before?
>>
>> Brother P touch machines using TZ tape works others do not.
>>
>> I obtained a P-Touch 1800 that prints 3 lines and type from 6 point to 26
>> point that is great for even #22 wire. Getting very flexible heat shrink
>> (it
>> cones in many types and flexibilities) worked for me. Cost $19.00 at the
>> time as it was on sale.
>>
>> In any event the key is the TZ tape.
>>
>> I really suggest a place on the web where FAQ's can be stored and that
>> could
>> really reduce the seemingly never-ending recycling of questions from year
>> to
>> year, or (in some cases) several times a year for the same or nearly the
>> same question.
>>
>> This way Bob's time could be spent on new ideas etc that could benefit
>> all
>> of us.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
>>
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>>>
>>> At 09:16 AM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown"
>>>><bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
>>>>
>>>>After observing the "primer wars" for several years now on the various
>>>>homebuilder lists...I believe we now have our own version! May
>>>>these become known in history as...the "wire labeling wars"!
>>>
>>>
>>> How about "investigations and debate?" This has come up before and
>>> WILL come up again. If the List is to serve as a good class room,
>>> there will always be new students, new technologies to be explored,
>>> and old myths to be debunked. The big deal is that we strive
>>> to be good teachers and offer the best we know how to do
>>> irrespective of how many times it has been covered in the past.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 60
| 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: Re: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Latching was meant (by me at least) is do you retain control with the
external control lead. I have several brands that once turned on stay on and
opening the control lead makes no difference. Thus with these alternators a
simple push button momentary switch is all you need.
If the external lead is non latching as in late model ND internal regulators
you can turn off the regulator and kill the output of the alternator IF THE
internal regulator has not failed short. Its this last failure mode that
requires the "B" lead cutter.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers"
> <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
>
> If I understand correctly, you're saying that even 'non latching' field
> leads on internal VRs do not absolutely control the power to the
> alternator
> field (right?).
>
> I put the external OVP only in the field circuit, expecting that removing
> power to that lead kills the field (and therefor alternator output) -
> period. If that is not the case, it's not really 'non-latching', by my
> definition anyway.
>
> I'm not against the contactor on the B-lead, but figured on saving the
> weight and complexity if it added no value. Apparently it does.
>
> Dennis Glaeser
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> <paulm@olypen.com>
>
> The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
> regulator does have OV protection built in.
>
> However there is a seldom seen failure where the internal field switch
> fails
> short and the only way to stop the full output of the alternator is with
> an
> external opening of the power output lead "B" lead wire.
>
> VAN's, EXPBUS, NSI, Eggenfelner etc. do not protect for this; only here on
> the Aeroelectric list is this failure mode addressed (as far as I can
> tell)
>
>
>
Message 61
| 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: | Spark plug pickup? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Does anyone know a convenient, cheap way to read an engine's spark plug
signals into an oscilloscope? Would one of those inductive pickups
work, with suitable connector change at the o'scope end?
Thanks.
Message 62
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:04 PM 3/1/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers"
><glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
>
>If I understand correctly, you're saying that even 'non latching' field
>leads on internal VRs do not absolutely control the power to the alternator
>field (right?).
>
>I put the external OVP only in the field circuit, expecting that removing
>power to that lead kills the field (and therefor alternator output) -
>period. If that is not the case, it's not really 'non-latching', by my
>definition anyway.
>
>I'm not against the contactor on the B-lead, but figured on saving the
>weight and complexity if it added no value. Apparently it does.
>
>Dennis Glaeser
Measure current in the control lead while the alternator is running
with engine at low RPM and lots of "stuff" turned on. If the current
is less than 2A . . . field current is being controlled internally
to the alternator with some manner of solid state device. This is
the device that will launch system voltage to the mood when it shorts.
If the current is over 2A and the alternator shuts down when control
switch is opened, then it's likely that ov protection concentrating
on the control lead will suffice.
Understand that it's risky to make any deduction of alternator
internal configuration and behavior based on make/model of alternator
unless it's factory new or known to be stock. Once an after-market
regulator is fitted to the alternator, all bets are off with
respect to abnormal behavior. I'm seeing traffic on several
'net lists where the pedigree of Van's alternators cannot
be deduced . . .
This internal regulator thing has been a real pain in the arse.
For the first 10 years of publishing I stuck to my recommendations
for purchasing modified alternators or modifying them yourself
to use external regulation. Then as a designer I could state that
external ov protection on the field-lead will do the job EVERY
time. However, there are huge market pressures to use automotive
products right off the car. Risky? Minimally so but NOT zero . . .
and more risky than an externally regulated machine with field-
lead ov protection.
We crafted the low-cost add-on protection for stock automotive
machines only to field some complaints from some quarters about
potential damage to the alternator when the switches were
operated in an unnecessary and inappropriate way. Okay, let's
add some Transorbs. That works for some folks but if the alternator
regulator is slow during a load-dump recovery, the output bump
energy is too much for a Transorb. So another round of
thrashing produces some super Transorbs or combinations of
components that can handle the bump. All this complexity
stacked into a system to avoid modifying the alternator to
perform in an orderly and predictable manner with a minimum
parts count and each little change opens new doors for
problems.
This is a good example of how a "simple" change can have
consequences that ripple through a system's design in
undesirable ways. Earlier today a desire was expressed
for self-exciting alternators. The obvious wish was that
an alternator would start up and produce useful energy sans
battery.
Now we need to consider regulation dynamics and bus noises
when the battery is not present. This is a difficult thing
to predict and defies development of any broad brush
advice. It's a certainty that energy quality will suffer
when the battery is removed. Suffice it to say that one
is best advised to keep some kind of battery on line in
an alternator system so that noise, regulation and excitation
don't even become issues.
This particular missive isn't a crusade or even a
recommendation for everyone to rip out their internal
regulators and buy LR3's from B&C. I would like for
List participants to be aware that "simple" changes
quite often are not so simple and it behooves us to
examine the benefits and risks of "simple" changes
carefully.
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
>regulator does have OV protection built in.
>
>However there is a seldom seen failure where the internal field switch fails
>short and the only way to stop the full output of the alternator is with an
>external opening of the power output lead "B" lead wire.
>
>VAN's, EXPBUS, NSI, Eggenfelner etc. do not protect for this; only here on
>the Aeroelectric list is this failure mode addressed (as far as I can tell)
Correct. I don't recall seeing ov protection discussed in any
of the texts popular with the OBAM aircraft community. Does anyone
have copies of Tony B's books? I don't think he discussed it either.
I have seen numerous OV conditions in externally regulated systems in
certified aircraft . . . and there have been at least two OV
events in internally regulated alternators discussed here on
the list in years past. So it all goes to personal assessments
of risk mitigation. Van's is perfectly happy recommending that
straight automotive alternators run "barefoot" and has thousands
of hours anecdotal data to back it up. At the same time, I doubt that
anyone at Van's has dissected one of their alternators to
deduce its failure modes. Yet there are folks trying to make
design decisions based on inadequate knowledge of the components
they're working with. I've been bit enough times to understand
the need for an intimate working knowledge of the components
I plan to use.
Bob . . .
Message 63
| 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 type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I think its a warning to be careful of counting on your battery in an
emergency if you have not load checked and factored in latest AH results.
I feel that even a 10% reduction in AH is cause for concern.
My recent load testing included 3 different batteries.
a PC680, PC625 and the before mentioned 12V18AH Powersonic.
The PC680 was new and load tested near advertised capacity.
The PC625 was 4 years old and while not deep discharged it was well used. It
also tested like new and had 10% more AH than the PC680.
The 2 year old Powersonic had lost 66% of its AH but otherwise appeared fine
in all other respects.
As Bob has said the AGM batteries fail in AH and not in cranking power or
terminal voltage so there is no way I can see to determine AH other than to
test it.
There is no way I would fly with a battery that had not been load tested
first (even a brand new one) and on at least an annual basis. As its so
simple to load test (today) I plan on testing during the year as my acft
requires lots of amps to keep the engine running (10+ amps that is for one
of 2 systems available to run things.
Hi pressure fuel pump 5-7 amps, ign 2-5 amps, injectors and computer 4-6
amps (for one system) ; amps are based on engine rpm and higher rpm is
higher current.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
> <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
> So... what does this mean in the experimental realm... anyone hazard a
> guess
> ?
>
> BTW, Paul... welcome back
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
>
>
>
Message 64
| 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: | EFIS Backup Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat@cox.net>
Bob,
What I'd really like to have is a 'charge fault' light. Is there a
simple way to attach an LED that would light IF charge voltage is
present on main bus AND the output of the relay has not been driven to
ground (I.E. bad relay)?
--Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Backup Battery
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:23 AM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Winn (Matronics List)"
><swmat@cox.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>This is exactly what I was looking for.
>
>For the small 1.2AH assist battery I'd like to hardwire it into 'auto'
>mode, would this be a problem?
The switch might be a better deal . . . if the LV sensor
dies, you have a manual option for getting the relay closed.
>Can I replace the contactor with something smaller like a relay for
>this small battery?
Most certainly. Suggest S704-1 from B&C or similar
>Also, I've already got a voltage warning light from the LR3C regulator.
>Does this warning light provide any additional functionality?
No, but you'd like to have some notification of proper
functionality. Instead of a second LV warning, put a blue
or green lamp in parallel with the relay coil to show that
it is receiving power after the engine starts and the bus
voltage rises.
Bob . . .
Message 65
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Bob, remember the AH rating of batteries are based on at least 10 hour rate
and many at 20 hour rate.
A discharge of 10 amps from a 20 amp hour battery is less that 2 hours
useful as that rate is at least 5 times the AH its rated at. The higher the
discharge rate the lower the total AH that is available for the user. Also
the final power may be at a terminal voltage below that needed for some or
all uses.
In addition the real load must be known for duration. its voltage dependent
in many cases.
Some equipment will have lower current as the voltage goes down and some
will have a higher current. Depends on the device and its power conversion
if any.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: question re Z-19
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>> So if you want 2 hours
> endurance and 10A of load, a 20 a.h. battery is called for
> as a minimum. 24 gives you 20% headroom. If you use a pair of
> 17 a.h. batteries and want the same 20% headroom, then 17
> x .8 gives you 13.6 or 1.3 hours at 10 amps load.
Message 66
| 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: | wing strobe wire disconnects |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield) through 4-pin
Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem reasonable?
Jay
=====
__________________________________
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
Message 67
| 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: Re: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I haven't been keeping up with all of this stuff, but your comments
suggest an acceptable design and operational mode for new ND ir
alternators. If I just want to turn the alternator off (for whatever
reason - maybe debugging a noise problem), I can use the control
lead. This allows you to then disconnect the battery (if you are so
inclined) without load dump, as long as you turned the alternator off
first.
If the system goes overvoltage, the only solution is to allow some
OV circuit to open the B-lead contactor, at which point you might
not care about the load dump situation. You just don't want the
alternator connected to your expensive electronics. The remaining
thing I wonder about is whether getting a false OV event will cause
the load dumping alternator to fry itself. That would be a bummer.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> <paulm@olypen.com>
>
> Latching was meant (by me at least) is do you retain control with the
> external control lead. I have several brands that once turned on stay on
> and opening the control lead makes no difference. Thus with these
> alternators a simple push button momentary switch is all you need.
>
> If the external lead is non latching as in late model ND internal
> regulators you can turn off the regulator and kill the output of the
> alternator IF THE internal regulator has not failed short. Its this
> last failure mode that requires the "B" lead cutter.
>
> Paul
Message 68
| 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: question re Z-19 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
How 'good' does a battery have to be in order for it to reliably
start an alternator? What are the fail modes that a modern battery
can suffer which will render it unable to fire and stabilize the alternator.
With glass mat seperators, a shorted cell is unlikely, suggesting that
the voltage with a light load (initial field current excitation) will be
adequate, even with a relatively dead battery.
If my main alternator fails and I am running more loads than my backup
alternator can keep up with, is the behavior going to be that the bus
voltage will sag until some devices stop performing?
Someone commented that their ignition system needs 6A at cruise
power. That's a lot of joules. Maybe too many, considering the
required design tradeoffs. Maybe that's fine for a sport plane, but
not one which you want to be able to burn all your gas before you
use all your Amps. Surely there's a less thirsty EI out there for your
engine. Maybe consumer demand would drive a limp-home mode
where you don't generate so many MSD's if the alternator dies,
dropping power consumption.
Regards,
Matt-
Message 69
| 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: | Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] |
DNA: do not archive
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Lister,
Please read over the AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
AeroElectric-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/AeroElectric-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the AeroElectric-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the AeroElectric-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
AeroElectric-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the AeroElectric-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
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! --
|