Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:14 AM - Re: OBAM Configuration (rd2@evenlink.com)
2. 02:50 AM - Re: EFIS Backup Battery and fuseblocks - Attn Bob (Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe)
3. 05:34 AM - Re: APU vs battery (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 05:47 AM - Re: APU vs battery (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 05:50 AM - Re: EFIS Backup Battery and fuse blocks - (Charlie Kuss)
6. 06:38 AM - Re: Re: APU vs battery (Charlie England)
7. 07:06 AM - Re: APU vs Battery (Eric M. Jones)
8. 07:25 AM - Re: Re: APU vs battery (Wayne Sweet)
9. 07:25 AM - APU Stories ()
10. 09:31 AM - Re: APU vs battery (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 10:19 AM - Re: APU Stories (Chuck Jensen)
12. 11:06 AM - Re: EFIS Backup Battery and fuseblocks - Attn Bob (John Schroeder)
13. 11:09 AM - Re: EFIS Backup Battery and fuse blocks - Attn Bob <002b01c52170$aebea2b0$1132fea9@mikeyymdynhq4n> (John Schroeder)
14. 02:34 PM - Batteries - Off topic (Paul McAllister)
15. 02:51 PM - Re: Re: APU vs battery (B Tomm)
16. 03:06 PM - Re: Batteries - Off topic (Richard E. Tasker)
17. 03:21 PM - Re: Re: APU vs battery (Mickey Coggins)
18. 03:23 PM - Re: Batteries - Off topic (Dave)
19. 04:02 PM - Re: Re: APU vs battery or fuel cell (Jim Jewell)
20. 04:32 PM - Re: Batteries - Off topic (Eric M. Jones)
21. 05:30 PM - Argus 5000 (Chris Horsten)
22. 07:49 PM - Re: Re: APU vs battery (B Tomm)
23. 10:14 PM - RG58 vs RG400 Coax Cable (923te)
24. 10:59 PM - LED current control for Nav lights (Tim Olson)
25. 11:42 PM - Re: RG58 vs RG400 Coax Cable (Stein Bruch)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: OBAM Configuration |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Anything could mislead people, in principle. So could the amendment to bear
arms. But it is there, thank God. (not meant to start anything, just my
firm belief).
But we are talking responsible people here.
I did not take Bob's statement to be misleading at all, but encouraging
responsibility. Having said this, it is useful to see the rules all in one
place. After all that is why we have created the FAA and pay for its
existence. So, we wouls expect cooperation and assistance rather than an
adversarial relationship.
R
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from bakerocb@cox.net; Date: 09:35 PM 03/04/05
-0500)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
<<....skip.....But make no mistake about it folks, your OBAM airplane's
configuration belongs to YOU and no one else.....skip.....Bob . . .>>
3/4/2005
Hello Bob Nuckolls, Your statement above could mislead people.
The Special Airworthiness certificate issued to each amateur built
experimental aircraft includes Operating Limitations for that aircraft. The
Operating Limitations will include the following sentence: "After completion
of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or
instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under VFR, day only."
The FAA policy regarding this sentence is:
1) If the aircraft is flown day VFR only it does not need to meet any of
the instrumentation or equipment requirements of FAR Sec. 91.205.
2) If the aircraft is flown VFR at night it must comply with the
requirements of FAR Sec. 91.205 (b) and (c).
3) If the aircraft is flown IFR it must comply with the requirements of FAR
Sec. 91.205 (b), (c), and (d).
These three FAR paragraphs list the instrumentation and equipment required
for day VFR, night VFR, and IFR respectively.
In addition:
1) FAR Sec. 91.207 lists flight conditions under which aircraft must have
ELT's.
2) FAR Sec. 91.215 lists flight conditions under which aircraft must have
transponders.
Amateur built experimental aircraft are not excused from either of these two
equipment requirements in those applicable flight conditions
OC
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
<aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | EFIS Backup Battery and fuseblocks - Attn Bob |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe" <mwiebe@sympatico.ca>
Thanks Charlie - good start! Now I'm going to get picky <g>. I don't
mind the rear exit of the contacts, but I am kind of partial to the idea
of 1/4" spade connectors, instead of the "round pin" type that this
device has. Thoughts?
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Kuss [mailto:chaztuna@adelphia.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Backup Battery and fuseblocks -
Attn Bob
At 06:16 AM 3/4/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe"
><mwiebe@sympatico.ca>
>
>Bob - we haven't talked in about four years. Your designs are flying
>well in our Falco. Thanks for the advice back then, and here's a
>question for the new project.
>
>I very much like the low voltage warning system and the setup in your
>recently reference schematic
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf . This setup is
>exactly to my needs. However, one thing is getting complicated and I
>wonder if you have any thoughts.
>
>I really like the fuseblock idea instead of acres of breakers. But
this
>design requires four buses, so we're starting to get "acres of buses".
>When you divvy up the load this way, there are not many circuits on
each
>bus. What would be ideal is one common mechanical bus, with the
ability
>to segregate it electrically. Obviously nobody is likely to have it
set
>up the way I want, but perhaps yours (or other products?) can be "cut"
>and fed from both ends, so that each mechanical block is good for two
>electrical buses? Thoughts?
>
>Mike
Mike,
Bussman makes a newer style of fuse block which allows 2 power
sources.
They differ from the standard style Bob prefers, in that the power
output
wires exit from the rear of the fuse block. See
http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_063
http://www.mihdirect.biz/
I purchased mine from MIH.
Charlie Kuss
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: APU vs battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/2005 1:46:39 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Speedy11@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 3/3/2005 6:52:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Are tiny APU's reasonable for tiny airplanes?---
Eric,
You crack me up. : )
You are causing me to stretch mentally.
The APU idea may have merit.
Stan Sutterfield
Good Morning Stan,
It does sound interesting, but where is the advantage over a second
electrical generating source mounted on the existing engine?
It appears to me that adding another engine that cannot keep the airplane in
the air has little value that could not be gained by a second alternator on
that one and only power plant.
Even an APU has to be connected in some manner to the primary electrical
system. That seems to be the point where problems may occur.
The idea is to be able to have enough electricity to complete the planned
flight. Are batteries any more reliable than multiple generating sources?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: APU vs battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/2005 6:49:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
fvalarm@rapidnet.net writes:
how about this...
www.basicaircraft.com
Bevan
Good Morning Bevan,
The big problem I see with this answer is that it has to be activated.
On top of that, it has been my experience that the best backups are multiple
sources that are in constant use.
The drop out (or push out) wind driven generators cost at least as much as a
B&C standby unit. The B&C provides a full time source of power. It will
even help out an overloaded primary power source then go back to rest when it
is no longer needed. It may even weigh less!
I think that a full time second alternator would be much more reliable than
something that had to be activated by the pilot.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: | EFIS Backup Battery and fuse blocks - |
Attn Bob
<002b01c52170$aebea2b0$1132fea9@mikeyymdynhq4n>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Attn
Bob
Mike,
These new blocks actually REDUCE the number of connections between the
fuse and the protected circuit. The older style has 3 connection points.
#1 The contact surface between the fuse's blade and the female contact
in the block.
#2 The male/female fast on connection
#3 The crimp on the female fast on connection at the wire
These new style blocks do not have the #2 connection, so there are only 2
connections rather than 3.
The connectors used on these fuse blocks are open barrel style
connectors, like Molex connectors. Since you will most likely be purchasing
or borrowing a crimper to do the Molex or Amp style connectors on your
project, use of this block will not require the purchase of additional
tools. The female end of the connectors makes direct contact with the fuse.
This is an advantage, not a disadvantage in my view. With the older marine
style blocks, it the connection between the fuse and the block fails or
develops high resistance, you must scrap the entire fuse block. With this
new style, you simply replace the offending connector.
The new blocks also save space. Note that the older "fast on" style 10
fuse block is physically nearly as large as the newer 20 fuse style. For
those of us with space considerations, this is valuable.
MIH sells you the block, a great selection of the connectors and the tool
to release the connectors from the block for $38. Having the wires exit the
rear allows for a much neater wiring harness. The new block can be flush
as well as surface mounted. The cover will prevent accidental contact with
metal objects. See attached photos for mounting ideas. Your mounting
options using this style of block are increased.
I am still using the older style block for my battery bus, as I only need 6
fuses on this bus.
Charlie
PS Those of you reading this via the list will not see the photos. The list
will strip them out. If interested, contact me "off list".
>Thanks Charlie - good start! Now I'm going to get picky <g>. I don't
>mind the rear exit of the contacts, but I am kind of partial to the idea
>of 1/4" spade connectors, instead of the "round pin" type that this
>device has. Thoughts?
>
>M
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charlie Kuss [mailto:chaztuna@adelphia.net]
>Sent: March 4, 2005 9:22 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Cc: mwiebe@sympatico.ca
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Backup Battery and fuseblocks -
>Attn Bob
>
>At 06:16 AM 3/4/2005, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe"
> ><mwiebe@sympatico.ca>
> >
> >Bob - we haven't talked in about four years. Your designs are flying
> >well in our Falco. Thanks for the advice back then, and here's a
> >question for the new project.
> >
> >I very much like the low voltage warning system and the setup in your
> >recently reference schematic
> >http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf . This setup is
> >exactly to my needs. However, one thing is getting complicated and I
> >wonder if you have any thoughts.
> >
> >I really like the fuseblock idea instead of acres of breakers. But
>this
> >design requires four buses, so we're starting to get "acres of buses".
> >When you divvy up the load this way, there are not many circuits on
>each
> >bus. What would be ideal is one common mechanical bus, with the
>ability
> >to segregate it electrically. Obviously nobody is likely to have it
>set
> >up the way I want, but perhaps yours (or other products?) can be "cut"
> >and fed from both ends, so that each mechanical block is good for two
> >electrical buses? Thoughts?
> >
> >Mike
>
>Mike,
> Bussman makes a newer style of fuse block which allows 2 power
>sources.
>They differ from the standard style Bob prefers, in that the power
>output
>wires exit from the rear of the fuse block. See
>
>http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_063
>
>http://www.mihdirect.biz/
>
>I purchased mine from MIH.
>
>Charlie Kuss
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: APU vs battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 3/5/2005 1:46:39 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>Speedy11@aol.com writes:
>
>In a message dated 3/3/2005 6:52:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>Are tiny APU's reasonable for tiny airplanes?---
>Eric,
>You crack me up. : )
>You are causing me to stretch mentally.
>The APU idea may have merit.
>Stan Sutterfield
>
>
>Good Morning Stan,
>
>It does sound interesting, but where is the advantage over a second
>electrical generating source mounted on the existing engine?
>
>It appears to me that adding another engine that cannot keep the airplane in
>the air has little value that could not be gained by a second alternator on
>that one and only power plant.
>
>Even an APU has to be connected in some manner to the primary electrical
>system. That seems to be the point where problems may occur.
>
>The idea is to be able to have enough electricity to complete the planned
>flight. Are batteries any more reliable than multiple generating sources?
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Airpark LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8502
>
Sometimes we just have to get 'outside the box'. The 'Dawn Patrol' guys
in KC (flying VW powered WW-I replicas) discovered that a chainsaw motor
made an extremely lightweight starter for their engines & kept them from
needing batteries & charging systems. Pull the rope, rev it up, VW
starts, shut down the chainsaw motor.
Now, what if the little 4hp engine Eric speaks of had a pilot
controllable clutch to a starter gear in addition to the aux alternator?
Most new ideas are worthless. But if we didn't look at all 100%, we'd
miss the good ones.
Charlie
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: APU vs Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
http://www.basicaircraft.com Do you realize how HARD you'd have to blow on
that thing to start the engine??? Cheeeeez........
Bob N., Old Bob, Stan, etc.
>It does sound interesting, but where is the advantage over a second
>electrical generating source mounted on the existing engine?
>It appears to me that adding another engine that cannot keep the airplane
in
>the air has little value that could not be gained by a second alternator
on
>that one and only power plant.
In the yard, frozen solid under three feet of ice and snow, sleeps my
Craftsman lawn mower. The gas is slowly going bad, there is water in the
crankcase--AND it will start on the second pull this Spring. Odd as it may
seem (and perhaps without gas), there is no on-going degradation that will
prevent the motor from starting decades from now.
Which is most reliable and cost effective in a particular situation? I don't
know--but the APU will go for many years. It will cost more in the
beginning, but cost less in the end.
>>>> Repost from 1/11/04 so (Do Not Archive) <<<<
>From: Ian (jabiru22@yahoo.com.au)
>Not sure if you have seen this, though I thought that it was interesting
>/index.asp
>Ian
This deployable wind driven generator has been around for a while, as have
others. On sailboats a WDG is all you've got. This one has the benefit of
being deployable and compact and apparently powerful enough to do the job.
BUT I don't own stock in the company so I propose some questions for
discussion:
1) Isn't a small spare alternator really a much better way to go?
2) If you read the testimonials; isn't deciding to take off on your back-up
electrical system ill-advised?
3) If the device will get you out of a jam in IMC, isn't icing a concern?
4) If 3) is yes, how about an exhaust driven turbo-generator to replace the
muffler? (As usual I'll take my 10% fee for the idea.)
5) My own similar design (paper only) is made from a NACA duct and a turbine
wheel from an upright vacuum cleaner.
6) Doesn't Bob have eight ways to do this job? Are they (as I suspect)
better? For extra credit explain why. Compare and contrast the systems.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
- Mark Twain
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: APU vs battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Yet another mechanical device that can and will eventually fail.
This is nothing new, since most 50 year old airplanes that have gyros had
one of this wind driven vacuum pump. Backward to the future?? I doubt it.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: APU vs battery
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
> how about this...
>
> www.basicaircraft.com
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Speedy11@aol.com [SMTP:Speedy11@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:13 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: APU vs battery
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 3/3/2005 6:52:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> Are tiny APU's reasonable for tiny airplanes?---
> Eric,
> You crack me up. : )
> You are causing me to stretch mentally.
> The APU idea may have merit.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
3/5/2005
After climbing up out of a hot zone in Viet Nam in my USMC CH-46 helicopter
the crew chief stated that he had heard a bullet strike our aircraft.
We landed in a relatively safe area and he inspected the aircraft for
damage, but could not find any.
Later in the day at home field we got ready to shut down the engines for the
first time since leaving home field that morning. We attempted to start the
APU which was used to rotate a main engine in case of fire on shut down.
The APU would not start, but we shut down the main engines anyway. Upon a
more careful examination of the aircraft we discovered that the APU had been
shot dead.
OC
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: APU vs battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/2005 8:38:58 A.M. Central Standard Time,
ceengland@bellsouth.net writes:
Most new ideas are worthless. But if we didn't look at all 100%, we'd
miss the good ones.
Charlie
Good Afternoon Charlie,
Please don't get me wrong!
I agree wholeheartedly with the basic philosophy.
For one thing, an APU is nice to have when you are stuck in the boonies.
I would carry a Honda Generator if I were flying in the bush with no close
by support. The tiny APU sounds like a great idea in principle. It just
seems that the extra alternator doesn't really require an extra engine to drive
it when we are considering nothing other than extending the flight time. For
a backup electrical supply in the bush, it would be tremendous!.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Just proves the point--even a good APU is not bullet proof.
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: APU Stories
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
3/5/2005
After climbing up out of a hot zone in Viet Nam in my USMC CH-46 helicopter
the crew chief stated that he had heard a bullet strike our aircraft.
We landed in a relatively safe area and he inspected the aircraft for
damage, but could not find any.
Later in the day at home field we got ready to shut down the engines for the
first time since leaving home field that morning. We attempted to start the
APU which was used to rotate a main engine in case of fire on shut down.
The APU would not start, but we shut down the main engines anyway. Upon a
more careful examination of the aircraft we discovered that the APU had been
shot dead.
OC
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Backup Battery and fuseblocks - Attn Bob |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Mike -
The pins for these Bussmann 15710 fuse blocks are open barrel crimp style.
They snap into the block from the rear much like any other pins into
connectors (eg. AMP CPC's). They come with a pin removal tool and the pins
are very easy to take out with this tool.
I hope this clears up some of the concerns you have. BTW, they come with a
cover that snaps on the block and covers the fuses.
Cheers,
John
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:47:10 -0500, Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe
<mwiebe@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Thanks Charlie - good start! Now I'm going to get picky <g>. I don't
> mind the rear exit of the contacts, but I am kind of partial to the idea
> of 1/4" spade connectors, instead of the "round pin" type that this
> device has. Thoughts?
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: EFIS Backup Battery and fuse blocks - Attn Bob |
<002b01c52170$aebea2b0$1132fea9@mikeyymdynhq4n>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Mike -
Charlie provided the advantages far better than I just
did.
Do not archive
John
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:52:20 -0500, Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net
Attn Bob> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
> <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Attn Bob
>
> Mike,
> These new blocks actually REDUCE the number of connections between the
> fuse and the protected circuit. The older style has 3 connection points.
> #1 The contact surface between the fuse's blade and the female
> contact
> in the block.
> #2 The male/female fast on connection
> #3 The crimp on the female fast on connection at the wire
>
> These new style blocks do not have the #2 connection, so there are only 2
> connections rather than 3.
> The connectors used on these fuse blocks are open barrel style
> connectors, like Molex connectors. Since you will most likely be
> purchasing
> or borrowing a crimper to do the Molex or Amp style connectors on your
> project, use of this block will not require the purchase of additional
> tools. The female end of the connectors makes direct contact with the
> fuse.
> This is an advantage, not a disadvantage in my view. With the older
> marine
> style blocks, it the connection between the fuse and the block fails or
> develops high resistance, you must scrap the entire fuse block. With this
> new style, you simply replace the offending connector.
> The new blocks also save space. Note that the older "fast on" style 10
> fuse block is physically nearly as large as the newer 20 fuse style. For
> those of us with space considerations, this is valuable.
> MIH sells you the block, a great selection of the connectors and the
> tool
> to release the connectors from the block for $38. Having the wires exit
> the
> rear allows for a much neater wiring harness. The new block can be flush
> as well as surface mounted. The cover will prevent accidental contact
> with
> metal objects. See attached photos for mounting ideas. Your mounting
> options using this style of block are increased.
> I am still using the older style block for my battery bus, as I only
> need 6
> fuses on this bus.
> Charlie
> PS Those of you reading this via the list will not see the photos. The
> list
> will strip them out. If interested, contact me "off list".
>
>> Thanks Charlie - good start! Now I'm going to get picky <g>. I don't
>> mind the rear exit of the contacts, but I am kind of partial to the idea
>> of 1/4" spade connectors, instead of the "round pin" type that this
>> device has. Thoughts?
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charlie Kuss [mailto:chaztuna@adelphia.net]
>> Sent: March 4, 2005 9:22 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Cc: mwiebe@sympatico.ca
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Backup Battery and fuseblocks -
>> Attn Bob
>>
>> At 06:16 AM 3/4/2005, you wrote:
>> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe"
>> ><mwiebe@sympatico.ca>
>> >
>> >Bob - we haven't talked in about four years. Your designs are flying
>> >well in our Falco. Thanks for the advice back then, and here's a
>> >question for the new project.
>> >
>> >I very much like the low voltage warning system and the setup in your
>> >recently reference schematic
>> >http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf . This setup is
>> >exactly to my needs. However, one thing is getting complicated and I
>> >wonder if you have any thoughts.
>> >
>> >I really like the fuseblock idea instead of acres of breakers. But
>> this
>> >design requires four buses, so we're starting to get "acres of buses".
>> >When you divvy up the load this way, there are not many circuits on
>> each
>> >bus. What would be ideal is one common mechanical bus, with the
>> ability
>> >to segregate it electrically. Obviously nobody is likely to have it
>> set
>> >up the way I want, but perhaps yours (or other products?) can be "cut"
>> >and fed from both ends, so that each mechanical block is good for two
>> >electrical buses? Thoughts?
>> >
>> >Mike
>>
>> Mike,
>> Bussman makes a newer style of fuse block which allows 2 power
>> sources.
>> They differ from the standard style Bob prefers, in that the power
>> output
>> wires exit from the rear of the fuse block. See
>>
>> http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_063
>>
>> http://www.mihdirect.biz/
>>
>> I purchased mine from MIH.
>>
>> Charlie Kuss
>
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
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: | Batteries - Off topic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all,
This is a bit off topic but I was wondering if someone could point me in the right
direction. I have a Makita 14.4v drill and its 2.2 ah batter has died. I
went to the hardware store to get another one only to find that they were 80.00,
which is half the cost of a new drill with 2 batteries.
Does anyone know of a third party supplier, or a supplier that opens up the old
battery packs and replaces the cells.
Thanks, Paul
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: APU vs battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Yes, I agree.
The link I provided was for a "backup" alternator but most of the pictures
on the web site shows it mounted in such a way that it would always be in
the airflow and therefore turning. I thought it was interesting because it
could be "deployed" via a door AND because the Eggenfellner package cannot
accomodate a second engine driven alternator.
If I find that my dual batteries need to be mounted aft of the baggage area
for W&B considerations (RV7A with Egg H6), would you consider it
advisable/wise/practical to mount the two engine busses (fuse blocks) next
to the rear batteries and then run several fused wires forward for ECM,
fuel pumps etc? I'm thinking Z-19 here.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com [SMTP:BobsV35B@aol.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: APU vs battery
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/2005 6:49:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
fvalarm@rapidnet.net writes:
how about this...
www.basicaircraft.com
Bevan
Good Morning Bevan,
The big problem I see with this answer is that it has to be activated.
On top of that, it has been my experience that the best backups are
multiple
sources that are in constant use.
The drop out (or push out) wind driven generators cost at least as much as
a
B&C standby unit. The B&C provides a full time source of power. It will
even help out an overloaded primary power source then go back to rest when
it
is no longer needed. It may even weigh less!
I think that a full time second alternator would be much more reliable than
something that had to be activated by the pilot.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Batteries - Off topic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Try www.google.com - Makita 14.4V battery. I got lots of hits, but I
don't know exactly what your battery looks like.
Dick Tasker
Paul McAllister wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
>Hi all,
>
>This is a bit off topic but I was wondering if someone could point me in the right
direction. I have a Makita 14.4v drill and its 2.2 ah batter has died.
I went to the hardware store to get another one only to find that they were 80.00,
which is half the cost of a new drill with 2 batteries.
>
>Does anyone know of a third party supplier, or a supplier that opens up the old
battery packs and replaces the cells.
>
>Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
>
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: APU vs battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Bevan,
That's what I did:
http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20050112132057110
Mickey
>
> If I find that my dual batteries need to be mounted aft of the baggage area
> for W&B considerations (RV7A with Egg H6), would you consider it
> advisable/wise/practical to mount the two engine busses (fuse blocks) next
> to the rear batteries and then run several fused wires forward for ECM,
> fuel pumps etc? I'm thinking Z-19 here.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: Batteries - Off topic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave" <dave@coltnet.net>
Paul,
I had a similar experience with a 12 volt Makita battery pack. I took it to
a place called "Batteries Plus" in Boise, Idaho and they replaced the
batteries inside of the pack. I think it was about $30.00.
Dave
> Does anyone know of a third party supplier, or a supplier that opens up
> the old battery packs and replaces the cells.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: APU vs battery or fuel cell |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
There has been amount of some talk of alcohol fuelled fuel cells that are
intended to replace batteries in portable computers and other consumer
electronics. By now there might even be some product available.
It does not seem to be a big development shift to have this technology
provide back up for batteries or for power backed up by batteries depending
upon the variables of personal approach and mission requirements etc.
Fuel cells can be configured to burn alcohol, hydrogen among a list ? of
other fuels Why not avgas?
Is there anyone out there up to date with small fuel cell technology current
(no pun intended) and future.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: APU vs battery
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> The link I provided was for a "backup" alternator but most of the pictures
> on the web site shows it mounted in such a way that it would always be in
> the airflow and therefore turning. I thought it was interesting because
> it
> could be "deployed" via a door AND because the Eggenfellner package cannot
> accomodate a second engine driven alternator.
>
> If I find that my dual batteries need to be mounted aft of the baggage
> area
> for W&B considerations (RV7A with Egg H6), would you consider it
> advisable/wise/practical to mount the two engine busses (fuse blocks) next
> to the rear batteries and then run several fused wires forward for ECM,
> fuel pumps etc? I'm thinking Z-19 here.
>
> Bevan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BobsV35B@aol.com [SMTP:BobsV35B@aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: APU vs battery
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
> In a message dated 3/5/2005 6:49:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> fvalarm@rapidnet.net writes:
> how about this...
> www.basicaircraft.com
> Bevan
> Good Morning Bevan,
>
> The big problem I see with this answer is that it has to be activated.
> On top of that, it has been my experience that the best backups are a
> multiple
> sources that are in constant use.
> The drop out (or push out) wind driven generators cost at least as much as
> a
> B&C standby unit. The B&C provides a full time source of power. It will
> even help out an overloaded primary power source then go back to rest
> when it
> is no longer needed. It may even weigh less!
>
> I think that a full time second alternator would be much more reliable
> than
> something that had to be activated by the pilot.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
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: Batteries - Off topic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
<paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi Paul,
I sold mine on eBay, and there is always a great market in Makita batteries
there.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Horsten" <airplanes@sympatico.ca>
Hi there,
Anyone know if I can use a Garmin 35HVS or similar basic GPS to drive an
Argus 5000?
Thanks
Chris
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: APU vs battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Thanks Mickey.
I thought it was a good idea and now I feel even better about it.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: Mickey Coggins [SMTP:mick-matronics@rv8.ch]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: APU vs battery
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Bevan,
That's what I did:
http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20050112132057110
Mickey
>
> If I find that my dual batteries need to be mounted aft of the baggage area
> for W&B considerations (RV7A with Egg H6), would you consider it
> advisable/wise/practical to mount the two engine busses (fuse blocks) next
> to the rear batteries and then run several fused wires forward for ECM,
> fuel pumps etc? I'm thinking Z-19 here.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RG58 vs RG400 Coax Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "923te" <923te@cox.net>
Acording to the following reference RG58 weighs 2.9 LBS per 100ft while RG400 weighs
5 LBS per 100ft. If you used 100ft to wire 2 coms, 2 navs and your Transponder
and other antennaes your would be 2.1 LBS hevier using RG400 than RG58.
Is the RG400 worth the extra weight?
Is there an even lighter coax that would perform just as well as these two?
Thanks,
Ned
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/coaxdata.htm
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: | LED current control for Nav lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I have a question for you LED gurus...
I want to use LED Nav lights on my RV-10. I was thinking of getting
the Creative Air kit....but I'm not too fond of the "circuit board"
look to them. Then I saw the perihelion ones that look like they
might look nicer, but they have fewer LED's.
A 2nd issue is that the Van's Rv-10 wingtips are cut about 110 degrees
of visible area, whereas the regs say you need 120 I believe. So,
if I got the Creative Air ones, and mounted them as shown on their site,
I think the light angle will be insufficient to the rear.
To come up with the ideal, I thought maybe I'd take a stab at
designing a custom layout, where I have some LED's on the
back of the sheared tip area, and some on the sidewall where
the strobes will mount. But, I had a design question to start
with...
I see that people are advertising theirs with current control
regulators in the circuits...what benefit is this in an LED
Nav light situation? Can't someone just use the individual
LED + resistor arrangement, or is there something else I'm
not thinking of?
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RG58 vs RG400 Coax Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Definately YES...it's worth it. RG-400 is superior in many ways. Check the
archives or some of Bob's in depth analysis for review, but it's much better
to skip a couple big mac's than to skip the RG-400. Better Shielding,
Better Conductor and superior jacket are a few.
Just out of curiosity, I went and weighed a 1,000' spool of RG-400 a few
minutes ago. It weighed 44lbs, which is pretty close to the actual Mil
spec, which states 42lbs/MFT (per 1K). Most distributors/mfgs quote
50lbs/MFT, but the actual Mil Spec reads 42 so the real numbers are
somewhere between 42-50lbs/MFT.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of 923te
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG58 vs RG400 Coax Cable
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "923te" <923te@cox.net>
Acording to the following reference RG58 weighs 2.9 LBS per 100ft while
RG400 weighs 5 LBS per 100ft. If you used 100ft to wire 2 coms, 2 navs and
your Transponder and other antennaes your would be 2.1 LBS hevier using
RG400 than RG58.
Is the RG400 worth the extra weight?
Is there an even lighter coax that would perform just as well as these two?
Thanks,
Ned
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/coaxdata.htm
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! --
|