Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:44 AM - Cheap rg400 (Richard Riley)
2. 04:39 AM - Re: RG58 vs RG400 Coax Cable (Helming, L R & K L)
3. 04:56 AM - Interior lighting (Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe)
4. 05:41 AM - Re: RG58 vs RG400 Coax Cable (Eric M. Jones)
5. 06:12 AM - Re: LED current control for Nav lights (Eric M. Jones)
6. 06:34 AM - Re: LED current control for Nav lights (Paul McAllister)
7. 11:38 AM - Re: Interior lighting (Larry)
8. 12:55 PM - Mike and headset jack location (Neil K Clayton)
9. 01:29 PM - Re: Mike and headset jack location (Matt Prather)
10. 02:49 PM - Re: Interior lighting (Dennis Golden)
11. 03:28 PM - Re: APU vs Battery (Speedy11@aol.com)
12. 03:37 PM - Re: APU vs Battery (Speedy11@aol.com)
13. 04:33 PM - Re: Re: APU vs battery (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
14. 05:42 PM - Re: Re: APU vs Battery (Charlie England)
15. 06:12 PM - Re: APU vs Battery (Speedy11@aol.com)
16. 06:22 PM - Dimmer cockpit control question (Mark Hall)
17. 07:49 PM - Re: Re: APU vs Battery (Wayne Sweet)
18. 08:20 PM - Re: Re: APU vs Battery (Jim Oke)
19. 08:46 PM - Re: Interior lighting (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com)
20. 09:19 PM - Small "Forest of Tabs" (Guy Buchanan)
21. 10:19 PM - Re: Re: APU vs Battery (Matt Prather)
22. 10:19 PM - Re: Small "Forest of Tabs" (Stein Bruch)
23. 10:53 PM - Re: Interior lighting (Frank & Dorothy)
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: Richard Riley <Richard@Riley.net>
In case anyone's looking for cheap RG-400, here it is for under $.50 a foot.
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3704&item=5756023513&tc=photo
At 10:14 PM 3/5/05, you wrote:
>--> 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 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: | Re: RG58 vs RG400 Coax Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Helming, L R & K L" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
And I would like to add that Stein Bruch sells the RG400 at a very low
price. Check out his web site if interested. do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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
> To: Aeroelectric-List@Matronics.Com
> 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
>
>
>
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: | Interior lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe" <mwiebe@sympatico.ca>
Listers..Thanks all for advice on the fuse panel. Bussman looks like my
solution.
On to the next problem, interior lighting. So that you can understand
my mission, this is an amphibious float plane with predominant
instrumentation being an EFIS. It will fly occasionally at night (try
landing on your favourite lake at night, and you'll know why I say
"occasionally" <g>). However, it is fully open to the back, so it will
also be used as an overnight camper on those fishing trips to nowhere.
I'm looking for two lighting solutions. First is some simple panel
lighting, in the form of a swivel-able, focus-able, dimmable light I can
mount up high left and right, and use to wash light into the corners of
the panel where there is no EFIS, but there are unlit switches, etc.
The Aircraft $pruce solution is sort of what I had in mind (part number
S1990/12), but I can't help think there is something more cost
effective, without having to build from scratch. I really don't want to
get fancy luminescence bars, bezels or post lights for this "occasional"
need. With the mini-mag on the headset, I just need some night-vision
friendly overhead fill-in to keep the scary monsters away.
Second solution is to light that cargo bay at night, in order set up the
sleeping bag for beddy-by time, drink hot cocoa with a good book, etc.
A little LED array seems like the perfect solution (again A/S part
number 11-02882), but at a reasonable price. I tried DigiKey, who seem
to have a ton of them. However, it's all most too many choices for my
mechanically adept, electrically challenged mind to ponder. Anybody
have a good idea?
Mike
p.s. I gotta tell you about a cool toy. As I start to cut metal for
the panel, I've been investigating GPS solutions. A closer look has
sealed my decision on a Garmin 296. It appears that they have a module
that will turn it into a fishfinder/depthfinder. Isn't that the
ultimate decadence - land on the lake, switch modes on the GPS and troll
for fish. Now all I need is electric downriggers on the belly, and I'll
never have to get out of the plane! I'm selling the idea to my wife on
the merits of knowing the depth so that I don't damage those expensive
floats...
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: RG58 vs RG400 Coax Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> 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
Ned,
Semflex RG+142 weighs only 35% of standard RG58. 1.5 lbs/100 ft. And it
performs better too. Most coax has a steel or copper core and inner PE
insulation. RG+142 has a copper-clad aluminum core and TFE tape insulation.
Higher temps, longer life, better performance. AND you can buy it from
Perihelion Design!
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"Life may have no meaning. Or even worse, it may have a meaning of which I
disapprove." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
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: LED current control for Nav lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>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.
My white LED tail light has ONE led. But it puts out well over 100 lumens.
The number of LEDs is not the issue---the fewer the better. The LED wingtip
position light designs usually have few LEDs---See Whelen or Goodrich.
>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...
If you want to make you own PLEASE read my posting on the subject
http://www.periheliondesign.com/downloads.htm (Even Whelen reads them!)
>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
Yes, you can use a regular arrangement. In my case for the white LED tail
light, it draws 700 mA at 5 Volts. So the resistor would be
(15V-5V)/0.700=14.3 ohms at 7W minimum (say 10W). At 10V the resistor would
be (10V-5V)/0.700=7 ohms at 3.4W (let's say 5W)......so you see that just
regulating the LED current is often simpler and leads to a more predictable
current through the LED, as well as automatically filtering out bumps in the
electrical supply.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
--Clint Eastwood
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: LED current control for Nav lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Tim,
After a lot of reading and soul searching I settled on the LED wingtip and
tail lights from Perihelion. One of the reasons I choose to use them was
because it was quite apparent that a lot of design thought had gone into
them so they would meet / exceed the FAA requirements. I have had them for
nearly a year now and they have worked well.
I have been happy with the product and the service from Perihelion
Paul
http://europa363.versadev.com/
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: Interior lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Walter Tondu used an LED to light the cockpit of his RV7. Here
<http://www.rv7-a.com/cockpit_3.htm>:
<http://www.rv7-a.com/cockpit_3.htm> is where it starts, and there is
more on subsequent pages of his web site. This, with a 9v battery may
work for you.
From an email from Walter:
"It's so bright it lights up the entire cabin. I may replace it with
a red bulb, don't know yet. I'm gonna fly at night first and see.
So in a sense that's my cockpit lighting, I have no other lights.
What you see in the picture is a heat sink, which sits directly
on top of the led (the back of it of course). These little suckers
get quite hot and need a heat sink. The power puck is the little
round disk which modifies the 12V aircraft power to the appropriate
amperage for the led.
Look for the power puck here.
http://www.theledlight.com/luxeonaccessories.html
Look for the Luxeon LED's here.
http://www.theledlight.com/led-specs.html
You can also find the led's and power pucks in a combo package.
What's really neat is that you can power these suckers with a
little square 9V battery as a backup :) "
Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe" <mwiebe@sympatico.ca>
>
>Listers..Thanks all for advice on the fuse panel. Bussman looks like my
>solution.
>
>On to the next problem, interior lighting. So that you can understand
>my mission, this is an amphibious float plane with predominant
>instrumentation being an EFIS. It will fly occasionally at night (try
>landing on your favourite lake at night, and you'll know why I say
>"occasionally" <g>). However, it is fully open to the back, so it will
>also be used as an overnight camper on those fishing trips to nowhere.
>
>I'm looking for two lighting solutions. First is some simple panel
>lighting, in the form of a swivel-able, focus-able, dimmable light I can
>mount up high left and right, and use to wash light into the corners of
>the panel where there is no EFIS, but there are unlit switches, etc.
>The Aircraft $pruce solution is sort of what I had in mind (part number
>S1990/12), but I can't help think there is something more cost
>effective, without having to build from scratch. I really don't want to
>get fancy luminescence bars, bezels or post lights for this "occasional"
>need. With the mini-mag on the headset, I just need some night-vision
>friendly overhead fill-in to keep the scary monsters away.
>
>Second solution is to light that cargo bay at night, in order set up the
>sleeping bag for beddy-by time, drink hot cocoa with a good book, etc.
>A little LED array seems like the perfect solution (again A/S part
>number 11-02882), but at a reasonable price. I tried DigiKey, who seem
>to have a ton of them. However, it's all most too many choices for my
>mechanically adept, electrically challenged mind to ponder. Anybody
>have a good idea?
>
>Mike
>
>p.s. I gotta tell you about a cool toy. As I start to cut metal for
>the panel, I've been investigating GPS solutions. A closer look has
>sealed my decision on a Garmin 296. It appears that they have a module
>that will turn it into a fishfinder/depthfinder. Isn't that the
>ultimate decadence - land on the lake, switch modes on the GPS and troll
>for fish. Now all I need is electric downriggers on the belly, and I'll
>never have to get out of the plane! I'm selling the idea to my wife on
>the merits of knowing the depth so that I don't damage those expensive
>floats...
>
>
>
>
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: | Mike and headset jack location |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton <harvey4@earthlink.net>
Although I've deliberately kept my panel mounted compass close to the
air-driven instruments to avoid stray fields, a good place to put my
drivers side headset and mike jacks is near (~3") the compass.
Are the signals in the phones and mike wires sufficient to disturb the
compass or are they so small as to not matter that much?
Thanks
Neil
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: Mike and headset jack location |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Standard headset current is very low. Shouldn't be an issue.
Some newer ANR headsets make use of one of the extra portions
of the headset plug to provide power for the circuitry. Even
in that case, the current requirement is very low and shouldn't
cause any problems for the compass.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton
> <harvey4@earthlink.net>
>
> Although I've deliberately kept my panel mounted compass close to the
> air-driven instruments to avoid stray fields, a good place to put my
> drivers side headset and mike jacks is near (~3") the compass.
>
> Are the signals in the phones and mike wires sufficient to disturb the
> compass or are they so small as to not matter that much?
>
> Thanks
> Neil
>
>
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: Interior lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dennis Golden <dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe" <mwiebe@sympatico.ca>
<snip>
>
> Second solution is to light that cargo bay at night, in order set up the
> sleeping bag for beddy-by time, drink hot cocoa with a good book, etc.
> A little LED array seems like the perfect solution (again A/S part
> number 11-02882), but at a reasonable price. I tried DigiKey, who seem
> to have a ton of them. However, it's all most too many choices for my
> mechanically adept, electrically challenged mind to ponder. Anybody
> have a good idea?
At the suggestion on this list sometime back, I bought an Energizer LED
lantern at Wall Mart. It runs on 4 AA batteries and has to output
settings. They claim 200 hours on low and 100 hours on high for a set of
batteries. It has a folding hook made for hanging in a tent and the
angle is adjustable just over 180 degrees.
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
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: APU vs Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/2005 2:57:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
One more comment; my friend, a retired FedEx 747 captain told me when I
mentioned about this thread, that the APU on the 747 would frequently quit
because of lack of oil, or some other maintenance issue. It only had two
gauges, which I have forgotten what they were, but he stated the gauges did
not indicate much about the status of the APU, other than it was running or
not running.
The 747 also had batteries, a 24 volt system.
In the past ten years, I've never had an APU fail. I've had some that were
inop for maintenance and were MEL'd for flight, but never had one fail once it
was running. It's true that there are only two guages monitoring the APU and
they basically tell you whether it's running or not and whether it's putting
out power - but, for something that is producing electrical power for you, how
much more info do you need? The B-737 24v aircraft battery is used ONLY to
start the APU. Once running, the APU provides all power for electrics and bleed
air for other systems such as starting the engines. The battery is not used
as a backup for the electrical system as they are used in GA aircraft. An
airliner battery is far too miniscule to power anything for very long. If one
loses an engine (not physically), the remaining engine generator (alternator)
powers the electrical system until the APU is started and begins powering the
"dead" side of the electrical system.
I had a dead battery when I got to the airplane this morning and we could not
close the circuits to enable external power nor could we start the APU. But,
once the APU was running, we could have removed the battery and flown away.
The F-16 had a hydrazine-powered APU that could start within seconds such that
if the (single) engine failed, the APU could quickly provide electric and
hydraulic power to the "glider."
I don't think we should write off Eric's idea as unsuitable for GA.
Especially for experimental GA. Afterall, coloring outside the lines and stretching
the limits of technology are what experimental aviation is all about.
I, for one, am interested in Eric's APU idea - even if the APU had it's own
tiny (lightweight and low cost) battery for starting - and if the APU could
come up to operating speed very quickly. In the event of alternator failure, in
IMC, I would want the APU to automically start and to be running very quickly.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
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: APU vs Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/2005 2:57:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
how about this...
www.basicaircraft.com
Bevan,
Another valid idea. I've never seen a deployable, emergency wind generator
like this before for GA aircraft. I've seen fixed wind generators on some
older aircraft such as Luscombes and C-140s that provided limited electrical power
in planes that did not have an engine-powered electrical source.
The only deployable wind generator I've seen before was on the F-4 which had
an emergency generator that, when delpoyed, could provide (as I recall) both
electrical and hydraulic power.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
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: APU vs battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/2005 9:38:58 A.M. Eastern 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
New ideas often seem impractical or too complicated to be of use. They are
often ahead of the existence of the right materials to build them with. When
I was a kid (12-14 yrs old) I built a "Weed Eater" type tool for trimming
grass. I used the blower motor from dad's old '53 Chevy attached to a broom
handle. The motor turned a plywood disk on it's shaft. The wooden disk had
two opposite screws in it to anchor two small cat whisker pieces of stranded
aircraft control cable. I carried a car battery on my back. It worked like a
champ with a few problems:
The battery was nearly heavier than me. The motor was very heavy at the end
of a non-counter balanced handle. When the stranded lengths of cable
"cutters" wore for a short time, they would unravel and throw small ends of the
cable strands into the air and stick in my shins! (no guard on this model) I
tossed it aside as impractical. I can still feel that 6 volt battery's weight
on my sore back!
Fast forward a few years and I saw my "invention" advertised on television
with nylon monofilament cutter line on a spool (invented long after my 1963
device), a light weight 120 volt motor -powered with an extension cord, and
years before small light weight cheap two stroke engines were available at every
hardware store.
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: APU vs Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 3/5/2005 2:57:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>One more comment; my friend, a retired FedEx 747 captain told me when I
>mentioned about this thread, that the APU on the 747 would frequently quit
>because of lack of oil, or some other maintenance issue. It only had two
>gauges, which I have forgotten what they were, but he stated the gauges did
>not indicate much about the status of the APU, other than it was running or
>not running.
>The 747 also had batteries, a 24 volt system.
>
>In the past ten years, I've never had an APU fail. I've had some that were
>inop for maintenance and were MEL'd for flight, but never had one fail once it
>was running. It's true that there are only two guages monitoring the APU and
>they basically tell you whether it's running or not and whether it's putting
>out power - but, for something that is producing electrical power for you, how
>much more info do you need? The B-737 24v aircraft battery is used ONLY to
>start the APU. Once running, the APU provides all power for electrics and bleed
>air for other systems such as starting the engines. The battery is not used
>as a backup for the electrical system as they are used in GA aircraft. An
>airliner battery is far too miniscule to power anything for very long. If one
>loses an engine (not physically), the remaining engine generator (alternator)
>powers the electrical system until the APU is started and begins powering the
>"dead" side of the electrical system.
>I had a dead battery when I got to the airplane this morning and we could not
>close the circuits to enable external power nor could we start the APU. But,
>once the APU was running, we could have removed the battery and flown away.
>The F-16 had a hydrazine-powered APU that could start within seconds such that
>if the (single) engine failed, the APU could quickly provide electric and
>hydraulic power to the "glider."
>I don't think we should write off Eric's idea as unsuitable for GA.
>Especially for experimental GA. Afterall, coloring outside the lines and stretching
>the limits of technology are what experimental aviation is all about.
>I, for one, am interested in Eric's APU idea - even if the APU had it's own
>tiny (lightweight and low cost) battery for starting - and if the APU could
>come up to operating speed very quickly. In the event of alternator failure,
in
>IMC, I would want the APU to automically start and to be running very quickly.
>Stan Sutterfield
>Tampa
>www.rv-8a.net
>
I mentioned the following earlier in my response to 'Old Bob':
If the little motor could be fitted with a starter drive gear in
addition to the alternator, it could replace the starter. The (real)
domino effect could start & by swapping the weight of the starter for
the little motor, you could reduce the battery capacity because you no
longer need high current for the starter and you have a backup
alternator. You might get by with just a little 4 or 6 AH battery &
electrical power duration limited by fuel supply.
Now, how much will altitude affect operation of a little motor like
this? If you are cruising at 10k feet & have an alt failure, how hard
will it be to start the apu?
Charlie
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: Speedy11@aol.com
Whew. Wayne you are one pessimistic dude. Your entire airplane is a
mechanical device that can fail. Perhaps you shouldn't fly at all. That would
be
the safest thing to do.
The wind powered generator is not claiming to be a new innovation. It simply
offers another option for builders to consider. And the gyros on older
airplanes were driven by a venturi tube, not by a wind-driven generator. Some
of
the old planes had WDGs added to power radios and nav lights because they
didn't have an engine-powered generator.
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 3/6/2005 2:57:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
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??
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: | Dimmer cockpit control question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Hall" <mhall67@carolina.rr.com>
Is there a dimmer control that works like a auto dimmer, that we can install?
When you turn it past the brightest dimmer setting it will turn on the cockpit
flood light?
Thanks
Mark
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: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Do you seriously consider adding yet another "engine" to do what a 12 volt
battery that is contained, no leaking, will function if charged regularly
for years, an intelligent idea???
Come on, get serious. I have had an alternator failure with my all electric
airplane. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. Flew 40 minutes back to my home airport on
the MAIN BATTERY never using the backup battery. I'll say it again; AN ALL
ELECTRIC AIRPLANE, dual LSE CDI's that need electrical power.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: APU vs Battery
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> Whew. Wayne you are one pessimistic dude. Your entire airplane is a
> mechanical device that can fail. Perhaps you shouldn't fly at all. That
> would be
> the safest thing to do.
> The wind powered generator is not claiming to be a new innovation. It
> simply
> offers another option for builders to consider. And the gyros on older
> airplanes were driven by a venturi tube, not by a wind-driven generator.
> Some of
> the old planes had WDGs added to power radios and nav lights because they
> didn't have an engine-powered generator.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 3/6/2005 2:57:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> 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??
>
>
>
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: APU vs Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
My "day" airplane is a Dash-8 which is mostly DC based (six DC busses with
automatic bus transfers depending on what else goes down). It has an APU
which provides AC output but can also drive a trickle charger for the main
and aux batteries. The APU does not provide sufficient DC output to start
the engines directly.
The aircraft engines use a electric starter/generator to spin the compressor
stages up prior to "fuel on". Normally ground power is used to start the
aircraft as the initial current draw is about 1500 amps (at 28 V) to get the
compressor spinning, etc. It takes a strong & healthy GPU to get a start and
on the road I have watched more than one GPU die in a puff of smoke as the
starter kicks in. Internal starts off the main battery are possible but must
be watched closely as a too slow spin-up can result in a very costly hot end
inspection.
Anyway, if a ground start is called for, the usual approach is to run the
APU for awhile to ensure the batteries are fully charged and then do a
battery start. The main DC generators then recharge the batteries which are
the inflight emergency power sources to support an "E-bus" like mode to get
on the ground.
This suggests one possible application for a "micro APU" on a light
aircraft. If stuck someplace with a dead battery, get the APU running with
something like a small aux battery (or how about a hand pull cord like a
lawnmower ?), use the output of the APU to re-charge the main aircraft
battery, and then start the engine normally that way. Not sure what
technology is being suggested but something like a model aircraft engine
might spin a tiny generator and provide a battery charge capability.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-6A, etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: APU vs Battery
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 3/5/2005 2:57:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> One more comment; my friend, a retired FedEx 747 captain told me when I
> mentioned about this thread, that the APU on the 747 would frequently quit
> because of lack of oil, or some other maintenance issue. It only had two
> gauges, which I have forgotten what they were, but he stated the gauges
> did
> not indicate much about the status of the APU, other than it was running
> or
> not running.
> The 747 also had batteries, a 24 volt system.
>
> In the past ten years, I've never had an APU fail. I've had some that
> were
> inop for maintenance and were MEL'd for flight, but never had one fail
> once it
> was running. It's true that there are only two guages monitoring the APU
> and
> they basically tell you whether it's running or not and whether it's
> putting
> out power - but, for something that is producing electrical power for you,
> how
> much more info do you need? The B-737 24v aircraft battery is used ONLY
> to
> start the APU. Once running, the APU provides all power for electrics and
> bleed
> air for other systems such as starting the engines. The battery is not
> used
> as a backup for the electrical system as they are used in GA aircraft. An
> airliner battery is far too miniscule to power anything for very long. If
> one
> loses an engine (not physically), the remaining engine generator
> (alternator)
> powers the electrical system until the APU is started and begins powering
> the
> "dead" side of the electrical system.
> I had a dead battery when I got to the airplane this morning and we could
> not
> close the circuits to enable external power nor could we start the APU.
> But,
> once the APU was running, we could have removed the battery and flown
> away.
> The F-16 had a hydrazine-powered APU that could start within seconds such
> that
> if the (single) engine failed, the APU could quickly provide electric and
> hydraulic power to the "glider."
> I don't think we should write off Eric's idea as unsuitable for GA.
> Especially for experimental GA. Afterall, coloring outside the lines and
> stretching
> the limits of technology are what experimental aviation is all about.
> I, for one, am interested in Eric's APU idea - even if the APU had it's
> own
> tiny (lightweight and low cost) battery for starting - and if the APU
> could
> come up to operating speed very quickly. In the event of alternator
> failure, in
> IMC, I would want the APU to automically start and to be running very
> quickly.
> Stan Sutterfield
> Tampa
> www.rv-8a.net
>
>
>
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: Interior lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
In a message dated 06-Mar-05 4:56:56 Pacific Standard Time,
mwiebe@sympatico.ca writes:
Second solution is to light that cargo bay at night, in order set up the
sleeping bag for beddy-by time, drink hot cocoa with a good book, etc.
A little LED array seems like the perfect solution (again A/S part
number 11-02882), but at a reasonable price.
Mike,
I found a small oblong 12 v LED lighting unit used for boat step lighting at
West Marine. Price was around $10 as I recall. They are made by a well known
manufacturer, but not at the hanger, and cannot recall who they are. They
come in red, white and possibly other colors. I plan to use one to shed light
on the floorboards, possibly overall cockpit lighting for that mount/dismount
activity, and possibly also for the baggage compartment.
Regards, Doug Windhorn
Regards, Doug Windhorn
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: | Small "Forest of Tabs" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
I'd like to consolidate about 8-10 grounds on my panel before
sending them off to my main ground bus. (The SPA-400 intercom wants all
headphone, mic, and switch grounds brought back to one point. It's easier
to do so at the intercom than run them all to the main bus.) I remember
seeing screwed down fans of tabs in stereo components. Does anyone know
what they're called, or where I might get them?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: APU vs Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Once microprocessor controlled ignition and direct injection
fuel delivery is standard in aircraft, I believe we may see
starter motors go away. Why, you might ask.. Well, if the
engine management system knows where each cylinder is in its
power cycle, it can squirt fuel where it belongs and fire the
correct plug, causing the engine to run. With the correct
crank timing - making it not possible to have every cylinder
simultaneously at BDC or TDC, it gets pretty easy. I believe
new Corvettes will have this in a very few years.
As an anecdote supporting this notion.. I have an old style
LSE ignition which triggers the plugs when it is power cycled.
On a hand propped airplane - my Varieze, that can be an anoying
'feature', or sometimes be labor saving. You see, the starting
ritual is to get a burnable mixture in each of the cylinders
before turning on the key. Its the standard, squirt some fuel,
pull 4 blades, set the prop and turn on the ignition. If the
engine is warm, about 10% of the time the engine starts on
its own, just via one spark event. Another 10% of the time (now
the annoying part), a cylinder fires, and disturbs the crank from
the correct position, and I have to turn off the switches, walk
around and reset the prop, then turn the switches back on, and
hope enough of the cylinders still have a burnable mixture in
them. Otherwise clearing the cylinders is required.
Regards,
Matt-
>>
>
> I mentioned the following earlier in my response to 'Old Bob':
> If the little motor could be fitted with a starter drive gear in
> addition to the alternator, it could replace the starter. The (real)
> domino effect could start & by swapping the weight of the starter for
> the little motor, you could reduce the battery capacity because you no
> longer need high current for the starter and you have a backup
> alternator. You might get by with just a little 4 or 6 AH battery &
> electrical power duration limited by fuel supply.
>
> Now, how much will altitude affect operation of a little motor like
> this? If you are cruising at 10k feet & have an alt failure, how hard
> will it be to start the apu?
>
> Charlie
>
>
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: | Small "Forest of Tabs" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
They're called numerous things, such as "ground tabs", "terminal strips",
etc.., but you can get them from me for a buck each with 10 tabs on them at
http://www.steinair.com and click on "accessories". Sorry for the shamelss
plug....
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Guy
Buchanan
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Small "Forest of Tabs"
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
I'd like to consolidate about 8-10 grounds on my panel before
sending them off to my main ground bus. (The SPA-400 intercom wants all
headphone, mic, and switch grounds brought back to one point. It's easier
to do so at the intercom than run them all to the main bus.) I remember
seeing screwed down fans of tabs in stereo components. Does anyone know
what they're called, or where I might get them?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interior lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frank & Dorothy <frankvdh@xtra.co.nz>
For those willing to roll-your-own, I recently saw a cunning design for
a 10-LED variable brightness light... an LM3914 IC is intended to drive
up to 10 LEDs as a bar graph, depending on voltage at the input. Put 10
whites LEDs on it, and a variable resistor at the input, and voila! A
lamp with 10 levels of brightness.
Frank
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! --
|