Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:56 AM - Re: Zeftronics transistor (Charlie Kuss)
2. 06:15 AM - Two independent systems (Fred Mahan)
3. 06:32 AM - Well Bob you win (Jay Brinkmeyer)
4. 07:37 AM - Re: Two independent systems (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:39 AM - Re: P-Mag Excess Amps response (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:51 AM - Re: Re: OVP, grounds, resistive loads (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:05 AM - Re: Looking for a B&C oil pressure switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:50 AM - Re: Two independent systems (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 10:06 AM - Re: Two independent systems (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 10:46 AM - Re: Two independent systems (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 10:58 AM - Re: Bottom Line - Seeds of Z-20 are planted! (Speedy11@aol.com)
12. 10:59 AM - Re: OVP debate (P. Van Caulart)
13. 11:31 AM - Re: OVP debate (William Yamokoski)
14. 11:31 AM - Re: Re: Bottom Line - Seeds of Z-20 are planted! (Jerry Grimmonpre)
15. 12:35 PM - Re: Re: OVP debate (cecilth@juno.com)
16. 01:01 PM - Re: Re: OVP debate (Dj Merrill)
17. 01:47 PM - Re: PMags and RPM (Charlie Brame)
18. 02:14 PM - Re: Re: PMags and RPM (Harley)
19. 02:20 PM - Re: Re: PMags and RPM (Harley)
20. 04:12 PM - Uncovered circuit boards? (Kevin Horton)
21. 05:20 PM - Re: Uncovered circuit boards? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 06:02 PM - Re: Re: PMags and RPM (Charlie Kuss)
23. 06:08 PM - Re: Uncovered circuit boards? (Kevin Horton)
24. 06:14 PM - Re: Uncovered circuit boards? (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
25. 06:56 PM - Emag/mag timing question (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
26. 07:06 PM - emag/mag timing question (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
27. 07:15 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 07:16 PM - Re: Uncovered circuit boards? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 07:17 PM - Re: Two independent systems (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 07:19 PM - Re: Two independent systems (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 07:31 PM - Re: Dear Bob (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 07:43 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Wayne Sweet)
33. 07:44 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (George Braly)
34. 07:56 PM - Alternator help (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
35. 08:03 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Dj Merrill)
36. 08:03 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (DonVS)
37. 08:13 PM - Re: OVP, grounds, resistive loads (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
38. 08:13 PM - Re: VHF tape antenna (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
39. 08:57 PM - The ULTIMATE ground loop . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
40. 09:39 PM - Re: PMags and RPM (Speedy11@aol.com)
41. 10:14 PM - Re: Race Car Load Dump? (Speedy11@aol.com)
42. 10:27 PM - Re: Re: PMags and RPM (Matt Prather)
43. 11:41 PM - Re: Two independent systems (BobsV35B@aol.com)
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: | Zeftronics transistor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 10:08 PM 4/4/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Kraut"
><brian.kraut@engalt.com>
>
>This one supposedly has protection against shorts on the field wire, oh
>well. I guess an intermittent short for a long time was just a little too
>much.
>
>I did call today and ask for tech support and got someone with an accent. I
>guess that was Femmi. He gave me a flat out "no" when I asked for the part
>number. Nothing really secret about it since the number was on the part
>before it burned up. Guess it is a liability thing.
>
>I can figure out something that will work fine easily enough, it just sure
>would be nice if someone had the correct part number though.
>
>Brian Kraut
>Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
>www.engalt.com
Brian & Listers,
Perhaps another lister with a Zeftronics regulator could obtain the info
you need??
Charlie Kuss
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: | Two independent systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Mahan" <mahan@cfl.rr.com>
Bob and all --
How would you wire an airplane with two complete, independent electrical
systems? The aircraft is a Defiant -- two engines, two batteries, two
alternators, the dashboard goodies split between the two systems. What
I'm looking for is a good way to back up one system with the other,
should one fail. I wouldn't want to carry around the cable that would
allow, say, the front engine to start on the rear battery. Just
interested in a good lashup that would allow one system to run
everything in a pinch while in flight. Which diagram would I start
with, and how would I modify it? What would I need to isolate in the
failed system? Or would I just use a switch to connect the two systems?
The two systems do share a common aircraft ground. Thanks!
Fred
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: | Well Bob you win |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
Whatever. You both need a timeout, so take it offline or arrange a dual or
something to spare the rest of us.
Jay
Time: 02:01:37 PM PST US
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Well Bob you win
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I cannot continue to spend the time when its clear we have such different
backgrounds and backgrounds of experience. There is simply no common ground
to a discussion.
... snip, and deposit in trash...
__________________________________
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: Two independent systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:13 AM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Mahan" <mahan@cfl.rr.com>
>
>Bob and all --
>
>How would you wire an airplane with two complete, independent electrical
>systems? The aircraft is a Defiant -- two engines, two batteries, two
>alternators, the dashboard goodies split between the two systems. What
>I'm looking for is a good way to back up one system with the other,
>should one fail. I wouldn't want to carry around the cable that would
>allow, say, the front engine to start on the rear battery. Just
>interested in a good lashup that would allow one system to run
>everything in a pinch while in flight. Which diagram would I start
>with, and how would I modify it? What would I need to isolate in the
>failed system? Or would I just use a switch to connect the two systems?
>The two systems do share a common aircraft ground. Thanks!
See figure Z-14.
Bob . . .
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: P-Mag Excess Amps response |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:19 PM 4/4/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Joe & Jan Connell"
><jconnell@rconnect.com>
>
>
<snip>
>Hello Bob:
>
>1. The P-MAG power supply is designed to be as isolated as possible from
>the aircraft. There is no provision for exporting excess current.
>
>2. The P-MAG alternator is sized to match the needs of the ignition
>system. Yes, the power output of the alternator does increase with rpm,
>but so does the demand for spark energy. There is little surplus,
>regardless of engine speed.
>
>I hope that helps.
>
>Kindest Regards,
>
>Brad Dement
>
>
>I read Aerolectric posts but I cannot make a posting because I am not a
>subsciber (don't want to be because it fills up my email box). So I
>thought you might find the above information from Brad Dement
>interesting....and if so you might like to post it to the Aeroelectric
>list because I'm sure others would also find it interesting.
Bob, thanks for posting this. I'm surprised that anyone
was thinking that p-mags were designed or intended to
power any ship's systems other than the ignition system
in that p-mag only.
Bob . . .
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: OVP, grounds, resistive loads |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:33 PM 4/4/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo"
><trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
>
>
>AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone
><rv8iator@earthlink.net>
>
>.......
>
>2. I am using a single point ground for all grounds per above
>description. Z-13 shows a firewall ground, instrument ground and avionics
>ground. I don't see any reason not to combine all these to a single
>point. Am I missing something?
The single point ground block on the firewall is the recommended
minimum number of ground locations. If you want to run everything
there it would be okay . . . but be sure to read the new chapter 18
on audio systems going to press this week. It offers options and
a rationale for selecting them.
>3. Pure resistive loads (heater elements)should not be a source of
>electrical noise. That said, I am locally grounding the pitot heat and
>seat heaters. Again, am I missing anything here?
Nope.
>4. The wire feeding the main bus is shown unprotected. In my ship this
>is four feet of AWG 6 that goes from the bat side of the starter contactor
>to the main fuse block. I realize that turning off the master turns
>this off, but a short to ground along this wire run could be
>disastrous! Do I need to be concerned?
This is an excellent example of designing for the worst case
analysis and then trimming away some actions based on
statistical and practical realities. FARs have relieved
certified aircraft designers from having to protect those
leads electrically because they're easy to protect mechanically
and are extremely unlikely to participate in a hard fault. For
example FAR 23 states:
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
>......
>I appeal to the experts of this list to please answer Chris Stone's
>questions, because I am also very interested on the answers.
The wires under discussion are easy to install with attention
to mechanical prevention of hard faults.
Bob . . .
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: Looking for a B&C oil pressure switch |
pinout...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
pinout...
At 12:26 PM 4/4/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
>
> >>they are marked P, S, and I...<<
>
>Interesting...on the B&C website, the picture of that switch shows the
>same terminology, but when clicking on the wiring diagram for it, it
>shows, as you said, NC, NO and C!
>
>If you do contact Tim, suggest that they change the wiring diagram!
>
>Anyway, it sounds like you have a meter or a continuity device of some
>kind to be able to determine that P and S are continuous with no
>pressure, so one of them must be the common, and the other is the NC
>terminal.
>
>To determine which, I'd just put about 10 pounds of air pressure on it,
>while having my meter leads connected to I and S, then again with I and
>P...whichever one gives you continuity, is the common. And of course, there
>is the NO lead.
>
>Harley Dixon
The repeatable experiment that yields data upon which good decisions
can be made . . . good idea!
Bob . . .
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: Two independent systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/5/2005 9:57:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mahan@cfl.rr.com writes:
Bob and all --
How would you wire an airplane with two complete, independent electrical
systems? The aircraft is a Defiant -- two engines, two batteries, two
alternators, the dashboard goodies split between the two systems. What
I'm looking for is a good way to back up one system with the other,
should one fail. I wouldn't want to carry around the cable that would
allow, say, the front engine to start on the rear battery. Just
interested in a good lashup that would allow one system to run
everything in a pinch while in flight. Which diagram would I start
with, and how would I modify it? What would I need to isolate in the
failed system? Or would I just use a switch to connect the two systems?
The two systems do share a common aircraft ground. Thanks!
Fred
Good Morning Fred,
Different Bob here and one who has very little knowledge of such things, but
I do remember early twin engine certificated airplanes that had dual
electrical systems.
Some of them had single pole double throw switches installed in such a
manner that the power could come from one or the other of the systems.
No interconnection was ever involved. Seemed to work reasonably well.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: Two independent systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:49 AM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 4/5/2005 9:57:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>mahan@cfl.rr.com writes:
>
>Bob and all --
>
>How would you wire an airplane with two complete, independent electrical
>systems? The aircraft is a Defiant -- two engines, two batteries, two
>alternators, the dashboard goodies split between the two systems. What
>I'm looking for is a good way to back up one system with the other,
>should one fail. I wouldn't want to carry around the cable that would
>allow, say, the front engine to start on the rear battery. Just
>interested in a good lashup that would allow one system to run
>everything in a pinch while in flight. Which diagram would I start
>with, and how would I modify it? What would I need to isolate in the
>failed system? Or would I just use a switch to connect the two systems?
>The two systems do share a common aircraft ground. Thanks!
>
>Fred
>
>
>Good Morning Fred,
>
>Different Bob here and one who has very little knowledge of such things, but
>I do remember early twin engine certificated airplanes that had dual
>electrical systems.
>
>Some of them had single pole double throw switches installed in such a
>manner that the power could come from one or the other of the systems.
>
>No interconnection was ever involved. Seemed to work reasonably well.
Interesting! Can you recall a model? My hands on experience with
the Wichita crop of spam cans is limited and dates back to my
days of working production jobs in the 60's. I don't think anything
we did here offered total redundancy . . . in fact, our BIG emphasis
was accurately paralleling two generators (and later alternators)
to share the loads while driving a single battery and bus. I'd
be interested in knowing the history of any alternatives to that
philosophy in certified ships.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Two independent systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/5/2005 12:07:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
Interesting! Can you recall a model? My hands on experience with
the Wichita crop of spam cans is limited and dates back to my
days of working production jobs in the 60's. I don't think anything
we did here offered total redundancy . . . in fact, our BIG emphasis
was accurately paralleling two generators (and later alternators)
to share the loads while driving a single battery and bus. I'd
be interested in knowing the history of any alternatives to that
philosophy in certified ships.
Bob . . .
Good Afternoon Bob,
It was back when I was a line boy (1945/46) and occasional shop flunky.
Later on, I went into the USMC and was trained as an Aviation Electricians Mate
(That meant I got to change batteries and light bulbs. Anything more serious
was sent to A&R (Assembly and Repair))
While in AME school, I was introduced to the intricacies of balancing the
generators via the carbon pile voltage regulators. That brought back memories
of the airplane I had seen that had the isolated systems with transfer
switches for certain components.
In the far recesses of my mind, I think the airplane was one that preceded
the ones you are now working on, the very early Beech 18. It could have been
something else, but I remember it as being big and made of aluminum. It was
also equipped with big round engines. There was one battery in each wing
behind each nacelle. One on the right and one on the left.
The airplane could have been a Lockheed or even a Boeing 247, but I recall
it more as being smaller and, most likely, a Beech Aircraft Corporation
product.
The method of being able to run equipment from one side or the other by
using a double pole double throw switch was pointed out to me as an excellent
idea by the mechanic in charge of that shop where I was a flunky. When I saw
the balanced system used in military aircraft, I was very impressed!
I will be visiting the Beech Museum next month. While I am there, I will
check on construction number eleven model 18 and see how it is set up. The
trouble is, all of the museum aircraft have been modified so often that you
can't really tell if the systems are as they left the factory or not. In most
cases, they are not!
Is there any possibility that Raytheon has documentation that would tell us
how the first 18s were set up?
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bottom Line - Seeds of Z-20 are planted! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Thank you. This sounds like progress.
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 4/5/2005 4:05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>All the details of busses and batteries need to be worked out. But this is a
>core part. No crowbar, no OVP, no alternator contactor, no battery
>contactor, no external regulator, no field breaker, no load dump concerns,
>maximum reliability, minimum cost and weight.
Thank you sir! Let me take these words and begin to craft Z-20. I'll
publish the drawing as soon as I can and you can start feeding me errata
and we can begin to discuss the companion notes that will help the
neophyte builder achieve the perceived performance levels.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "P. Van Caulart" <etivc@iaw.on.ca>
I see there is a conclusion to the OVP issue with Bob and Eric to work
out a Z-20 protocol. I look forward to its development.
I also see that Paul M. has decided to withdraw, not surprised. It's
unfortunate that with his professed engineering ability and many
industry awards and commendations he has not learned empathy or
humility. I have observed the same behavior and outcome from him in
other web groups. His behavior is called "narcissistic entitlement" (see
the web for an explanation).
Compare the last statements of Paul's final post to the identifiable
characteristics of the disorder, to see what I mean.
The "Well Bob you win" quote of Paul's final post really says it all. It
was never about winning, Paul!
PeterVC
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk@lakemichigancollege.edu>
Great! Now we're making a diagnosis based on email. And I naively
thought you had to actually examine a patient in order to do that.
This virtual world is really something! Boy am I glad I haven't been
following this thread. Wonder what my own personality disorder is
going to turn out to be. I can't wait for the results.
Bill Yamokoski, N4970Y
470 hrs on the Eggensoob, still fighting radio transmission noise
>>> etivc@iaw.on.ca 4/5/2005 1:59:00 PM >>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "P. Van Caulart"
<etivc@iaw.on.ca>
. I have observed the same behavior and outcome from him in
other web groups. His behavior is called "narcissistic entitlement"
(see
the web for an explanation).
Compare the last statements of Paul's final post to the identifiable
characteristics of the disorder, to see what I mean.
PeterVC
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: Bottom Line - Seeds of Z-20 are planted! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Bravo Bob and to others as well ...
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Bottom Line - Seeds of Z-20 are planted!
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> Thank you. This sounds like progress.
> Stan Sutterfield
> www.rv-8a.net
>
>
> In a message dated 4/5/2005 4:05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>>All the details of busses and batteries need to be worked out. But this is
>>a
>>core part. No crowbar, no OVP, no alternator contactor, no battery
>>contactor, no external regulator, no field breaker, no load dump concerns,
>>maximum reliability, minimum cost and weight.
>
> Thank you sir! Let me take these words and begin to craft Z-20. I'll
> publish the drawing as soon as I can and you can start feeding me errata
> and we can begin to discuss the companion notes that will help the
> neophyte builder achieve the perceived performance levels.
>
> 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: cecilth@juno.com
I think Paul is a person that knows quite a bit about something and
pretends to know the rest and likes to pull someones chain.
He needs to get his own list to prove his concepts. Instead of trying to
pull Bobs character down.
I have had dinner with Bob and he is a very knowledgeable fellow that is
putting his own time in to help others to build a safe plane to fly.
Thanks Bob, remember "sticks and stones Etc."
Cecil
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:29:41 -0400 "William Yamokoski"
<yamokosk@lakemichigancollege.edu> writes:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Yamokoski"
> <yamokosk@lakemichigancollege.edu>
>
> Great! Now we're making a diagnosis based on email. And I
> naively
> thought you had to actually examine a patient in order to do that.
> This virtual world is really something! Boy am I glad I haven't
> been
> following this thread. Wonder what my own personality disorder is
> going to turn out to be. I can't wait for the results.
> Bill Yamokoski, N4970Y
> 470 hrs on the Eggensoob, still fighting radio transmission noise
>
> >>> etivc@iaw.on.ca 4/5/2005 1:59:00 PM >>>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "P. Van Caulart"
> <etivc@iaw.on.ca>
>
> . I have observed the same behavior and outcome from him in
> other web groups. His behavior is called "narcissistic entitlement"
> (see
> the web for an explanation).
>
> Compare the last statements of Paul's final post to the identifiable
>
> characteristics of the disorder, to see what I mean.
>
>
> PeterVC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
<various comments snipped>
From working in the computing field, I know a lot of people
that are excellent tech-heads, but do not have great
interpersonal and/or communications skills.
I don't know Paul or Bob other than from e-mail lists,
but my personal opinion is that Paul has a good technical
understanding, but perhaps sometimes has trouble communicating
those ideas in terms such that others grasp the real meaning.
It is sometimes even more difficult to understand someone in
in an e-mail discussion versus face-to-face in real life.
What I would truly like to see is a schematic of
what Paul is suggesting posted to the mailing list.
A schematic will show in no uncertain terms what he is
trying to tell us without the sometimes ambigious English
language getting in the way. A picture (schematic) is
worth a thousand words, as the saying goes, and I think
it definitely holds true in this case.
Since I am seriously considering a Subaru conversion,
I am very interested in seeing and understanding what
he is proposing, and also having independant reviews
of such a proposal. I'm not an expert in these matters,
but I am learning (or at least trying).
Thanks,
-Dj
do not archive
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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: PMags and RPM |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion.
If I understand the E-mag /P-mag setup, both provide electronic ignition
(EI) with an engine driven magneto back up. The EI module in either
provides a hotter spark and a computer derived spark advance like any
other EI system. In the fall back magneto mode, both provide a standard,
25 BTDC, spark.
If the E-mag loses aircraft electrical power (either low voltage or
complete failure) then it reverts to a standard engine driven magneto.
All that is lost is the EI module.
The P-mag has its own alternator which is independent of the aircraft
electrical system. If the P-mag alternator fails to provide sufficient
voltage, due to low RPM or any other reason, it also reverts to an
engine driven magneto. In a low RPM situation, it is probably safe to
say that the EI is already back to a 25 BTDC spark, thus loss of the
P-mag EI due to low RPM is a non-event.
The beauty of the E-mag/P-mag setup, as I understand it, is that one can
have dual EI systems, each backed up by an engine driven magneto, which
negates any need for a backup battery or a standby electrical system
just to power the EI.
Am I wrong?
Charlie
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
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: PMags and RPM |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Afternoon, Charlie...
Go here for a very good description of the e-mag and P-mag systems.
>>emagair.com/NextGen.htm<<
They are purely electronic ignition systems, and are not magnetos. They
mount directly in the holes where the magnetos went on the engine, and
use the gear for engine timing, RPM monitoring, etc. They also have a
port that accepts manifold pressure for further monitoring and more
accurate ignition timing if one chooses to use it.
There is nothing mechanical in them to produce a spark as a magneto has.
They rely on the battery/alternator system for power and for spark.
The P-mag has an additional alternator built in to power itself in the
event the aircraft's electrical power system totally fails. As has been
discussed, this alternator inside the P-mag can provide enough energy to
keep the engine running on one unit as long as the RPM is above 800 or
so. If it drops below that, then you have no operating ignition system.
I imagine that under these circumstances, the engine will run as it
normally does on one magneto.
Harley
Charlie Brame wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
>
>Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion.
>
>If I understand the E-mag /P-mag setup, both provide electronic ignition
>(EI) with an engine driven magneto back up. The EI module in either
>provides a hotter spark and a computer derived spark advance like any
>other EI system. In the fall back magneto mode, both provide a standard,
>25 BTDC, spark.
>
>If the E-mag loses aircraft electrical power (either low voltage or
>complete failure) then it reverts to a standard engine driven magneto.
>All that is lost is the EI module.
>
>The P-mag has its own alternator which is independent of the aircraft
>electrical system. If the P-mag alternator fails to provide sufficient
>voltage, due to low RPM or any other reason, it also reverts to an
>engine driven magneto. In a low RPM situation, it is probably safe to
>say that the EI is already back to a 25 BTDC spark, thus loss of the
>P-mag EI due to low RPM is a non-event.
>
>The beauty of the E-mag/P-mag setup, as I understand it, is that one can
>have dual EI systems, each backed up by an engine driven magneto, which
>negates any need for a backup battery or a standby electrical system
>just to power the EI.
>
>Am I wrong?
>
>Charlie
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
>
>
>
>
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: PMags and RPM |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Oh, one more thing, Charlie...you can use one e-mag (or P-mag) with one
normal magneto if you wish. In that case, you have one purely
electronic ignition,, and one old fashioned magneto.
Harley Dixon
Harley wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
>
>Afternoon, Charlie...
>
>Go here for a very good description of the e-mag and P-mag systems.
>
> >>emagair.com/NextGen.htm<<
>
>They are purely electronic ignition systems, and are not magnetos. They
>mount directly in the holes where the magnetos went on the engine, and
>use the gear for engine timing, RPM monitoring, etc. They also have a
>port that accepts manifold pressure for further monitoring and more
>accurate ignition timing if one chooses to use it.
>
>There is nothing mechanical in them to produce a spark as a magneto has.
>They rely on the battery/alternator system for power and for spark.
>
>The P-mag has an additional alternator built in to power itself in the
>event the aircraft's electrical power system totally fails. As has been
>discussed, this alternator inside the P-mag can provide enough energy to
>keep the engine running on one unit as long as the RPM is above 800 or
>so. If it drops below that, then you have no operating ignition system.
>I imagine that under these circumstances, the engine will run as it
>normally does on one magneto.
>
>Harley
>
>
>Charlie Brame wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
>>
>>Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion.
>>
>>If I understand the E-mag /P-mag setup, both provide electronic ignition
>>(EI) with an engine driven magneto back up. The EI module in either
>>provides a hotter spark and a computer derived spark advance like any
>>other EI system. In the fall back magneto mode, both provide a standard,
>>25 BTDC, spark.
>>
>>If the E-mag loses aircraft electrical power (either low voltage or
>>complete failure) then it reverts to a standard engine driven magneto.
>>All that is lost is the EI module.
>>
>>The P-mag has its own alternator which is independent of the aircraft
>>electrical system. If the P-mag alternator fails to provide sufficient
>>voltage, due to low RPM or any other reason, it also reverts to an
>>engine driven magneto. In a low RPM situation, it is probably safe to
>>say that the EI is already back to a 25 BTDC spark, thus loss of the
>>P-mag EI due to low RPM is a non-event.
>>
>>The beauty of the E-mag/P-mag setup, as I understand it, is that one can
>>have dual EI systems, each backed up by an engine driven magneto, which
>>negates any need for a backup battery or a standby electrical system
>>just to power the EI.
>>
>>Am I wrong?
>>
>>Charlie
>>RV-6A N11CB
>>San Antonio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | Uncovered circuit boards? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
I will be fabricating two small circuits for my RV-8. One will
contain a ULQ-2004A darlington array to control some annunciator
lights, and the other will be some sort of 12V to 28V DC-DC
converter, possibly based on the LM3478 evaluation board from
National Semiconductor.
Both these circuit boards will be mounted somewhere behind the
instrument panel. Should I plan to fabricate some sort of enclosure
for each board, is it is acceptable to mount them uncovered, provided
suitable care is taken to ensure that nothing can short against them?
Enclosed boards look more finished, an enclosure will add weight,
cost and time that I would rather not invest. If the potential for
airborne dust on the boards is a concern, is there any other way to
protect the boards other than by using an enclosure?
Thanks for your advice.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: Uncovered circuit boards? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:08 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
>I will be fabricating two small circuits for my RV-8. One will
>contain a ULQ-2004A darlington array to control some annunciator
>lights, and the other will be some sort of 12V to 28V DC-DC
>converter, possibly based on the LM3478 evaluation board from
>National Semiconductor.
>
>Both these circuit boards will be mounted somewhere behind the
>instrument panel. Should I plan to fabricate some sort of enclosure
>for each board, is it is acceptable to mount them uncovered, provided
>suitable care is taken to ensure that nothing can short against them?
>Enclosed boards look more finished, an enclosure will add weight,
>cost and time that I would rather not invest. If the potential for
>airborne dust on the boards is a concern, is there any other way to
>protect the boards other than by using an enclosure?
Are these etched boards or hard wired? If etched,
coat them with a clear urethane varnish. 2 or 3 light coats.
Make sure you have a good way to bring wires on and off the
board. D-subs are my favorite.
Our LVWarn/ABMM modules are open boards. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/9005Assy.jpg
Bob . . .
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: PMags and RPM |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 04:45 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
>
>Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion.
>
>If I understand the E-mag /P-mag setup, both provide electronic ignition
>(EI) with an engine driven magneto back up. The EI module in either
>provides a hotter spark and a computer derived spark advance like any
>other EI system. In the fall back magneto mode, both provide a standard,
>25 BTDC, spark.
>
>If the E-mag loses aircraft electrical power (either low voltage or
>complete failure) then it reverts to a standard engine driven magneto.
>All that is lost is the EI module.
>
>The P-mag has its own alternator which is independent of the aircraft
>electrical system. If the P-mag alternator fails to provide sufficient
>voltage, due to low RPM or any other reason, it also reverts to an
>engine driven magneto. In a low RPM situation, it is probably safe to
>say that the EI is already back to a 25 BTDC spark, thus loss of the
>P-mag EI due to low RPM is a non-event.
>
>The beauty of the E-mag/P-mag setup, as I understand it, is that one can
>have dual EI systems, each backed up by an engine driven magneto, which
>negates any need for a backup battery or a standby electrical system
>just to power the EI.
>
>Am I wrong?
>
>Charlie
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
Charlie
The E Mag is an electronic ignition. It is similar to the ElectroAir and
Lightspeed units, except that it is packaged as a single unit. The P Mag
adds a dynamo (they call it an alternator) to provide an internal power
source, independent of the ship's normal power. If this dynamo were to
fail, it can still be run from the ship's main power supply.
Charlie Kuss
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: Uncovered circuit boards? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 07:08 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>>
>>I will be fabricating two small circuits for my RV-8. One will
>>contain a ULQ-2004A darlington array to control some annunciator
>>lights, and the other will be some sort of 12V to 28V DC-DC
>>converter, possibly based on the LM3478 evaluation board from
>>National Semiconductor.
>>
>>Both these circuit boards will be mounted somewhere behind the
>>instrument panel. Should I plan to fabricate some sort of enclosure
>>for each board, is it is acceptable to mount them uncovered, provided
>>suitable care is taken to ensure that nothing can short against them?
>>Enclosed boards look more finished, an enclosure will add weight,
>>cost and time that I would rather not invest. If the potential for
>>airborne dust on the boards is a concern, is there any other way to
>>protect the boards other than by using an enclosure?
>
> Are these etched boards or hard wired? If etched,
> coat them with a clear urethane varnish. 2 or 3 light coats.
> Make sure you have a good way to bring wires on and off the
> board. D-subs are my favorite.
>
> Our LVWarn/ABMM modules are open boards. See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/9005Assy.jpg
I'm not sure what you mean by a hard wired board. The ULQ-2004A will
be on a BusBoard-3U-CONN. The board layout is such that I will need
some jumper wires to connect the four lamp power leads to one power
line (although I could do that off-board if that made for a more
reliable system). There will be no wires between the ULQ-2004A and
the DB-25 connector, as the board has copper traces in the
configuration I need to tie them together.
http://www.busboard.net/bps-bb3uc.htm
The DC-DC converter is on a custom evaluation board from National
Semiconductor. It is a work of art, with tiny surface-mount
components. I need to find someone who can change out several of the
resistors and capacitors to adjust the operating voltage.
http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-1204.pdf
I think both these are etched boards, so I could just coat them with
urethane. The only question is the jumper wires I need. I'll plan
to use insulated jumpers, and coat the exposed portions.
Thanks for the advice. I don't know how you find the time to do all
this in your "spare" time.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: Uncovered circuit boards? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
I don't know what your Canadian bureaucracy would say but we can in the US.
My *old style* LC-40 light controller is 'exposed'. The new ones have a outer
case. Maybe that's a hint that it might be worth it to make it covered regardless.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>
> I will be fabricating two small circuits for my RV-8. One will
> contain a ULQ-2004A darlington array to control some annunciator
> lights, and the other will be some sort of 12V to 28V DC-DC
> converter, possibly based on the LM3478 evaluation board from
> National Semiconductor.
>
> Both these circuit boards will be mounted somewhere behind the
> instrument panel. Should I plan to fabricate some sort of enclosure
> for each board, is it is acceptable to mount them uncovered, provided
> suitable care is taken to ensure that nothing can short against them?
> Enclosed boards look more finished, an enclosure will add weight,
> cost and time that I would rather not invest. If the potential for
> airborne dust on the boards is a concern, is there any other way to
> protect the boards other than by using an enclosure?
>
> Thanks for your advice.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
I don't know what your Canadian bureaucracy would say but we can in the US.
My *old style* LC-40 light controller is 'exposed'. The new ones have a outer case.
Maybe that's a hint that it might be worth it to make it covered regardless.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM>
I will be fabricating two small circuits for my RV-8. One will
contain a ULQ-2004A darlington array to control some annunciator
lights, and the other will be some sort of 12V to 28V DC-DC
converter, possibly based on the LM3478 evaluation board from
National Semiconductor.
Both these circuit boards will be mounted somewhere behind the
instrument panel. Should I plan to fabricate some sort of enclosure
for each board, is it is acceptable to mount them uncovered, provided
suitable care is taken to ensure that nothing can short against them?
Enclosed boards look more finished, an enclosure will add weight,
cost and time that I would rather n
ot invest. If the potential for
airborne dust on the boards is a concern, is there any other way to
protect the boards other than by using an enclosure?
Thanks for your advice.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
I have some experience in electronic ignition design, and there is a nagging
question in my mind. Apparently I know just enough to be confused!
Assume a system with one electronic ignition system and one magneto.
When the timing is advanced on the plug being controlled by the electronic
ignition, doesn't the cylinder pressure cause electrical stress on the magneto
system -- the coil, cap and plug wiring? Isn't the KV requirement of the
magneto significantly increased by the increased pressure in the chamber after
the fuel has been ignited by the earlier firing electronic ignition?
If some ignition gurus could address this question, I would really
appreciate it.
Thanks,
Dan Hopper
hopperdhh at aol.com
Walton, IN
RV-7A (Flying since last July. Now being painted.)
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: | emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
I have some experience in electronic ignition design, and there is a nagging
question in my mind. Apparently I know just enough to be confused!
Assume a system with one electronic ignition system and one magneto.
When the timing is advanced on the plug being controlled by the electronic
ignition, doesn't the cylinder pressure cause electrical stress on the magneto
system -- the coil, cap and plug wiring? Isn't the KV requirement of the
magneto significantly increased by the increased pressure in the chamber after
the fuel has been ignited by the earlier firing electronic ignition?
If some ignition gurus could address this question, I would really
appreciate it.
Thanks,
Dan Hopper
hopperdhh at aol.com
Walton, IN
RV-7A (Flying since last July. Now being painted.)
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: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:55 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>
>I have some experience in electronic ignition design, and there is a nagging
>question in my mind. Apparently I know just enough to be confused!
>
>Assume a system with one electronic ignition system and one magneto.
>
>When the timing is advanced on the plug being controlled by the electronic
>ignition, doesn't the cylinder pressure cause electrical stress on the
>magneto
>system -- the coil, cap and plug wiring? Isn't the KV requirement of the
>magneto significantly increased by the increased pressure in the chamber
>after
>the fuel has been ignited by the earlier firing electronic ignition?
If it does, the effects must be insignificant. Yes, when at low manifold
pressures, the electronic ignition will advance and pressure in the
cylinder
will no doubt be on the rise when the johnny-come-lately mageneto fires.
The pressures may indeed be so great the a spark never materializes across
the plug's electrodes.
The OBAM community has been flying one-mag/one-electronic now for over 15
years. I have to believe that if the phenomenon you've identified was
a significant problem that we would have heard about it by now. Why
not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
is pretty attractive.
Bob . . .
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Uncovered circuit boards? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> <snip>
>
>I think both these are etched boards, so I could just coat them with
>urethane. The only question is the jumper wires I need. I'll plan
>to use insulated jumpers, and coat the exposed portions.
I think what you've proposed will live happily behind the panel
un-housed if you give it some decent moisture/dust protection.
Bob . . .
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: Two independent systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:45 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 4/5/2005 12:07:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
>Interesting! Can you recall a model? My hands on experience with
>the Wichita crop of spam cans is limited and dates back to my
>days of working production jobs in the 60's. I don't think anything
>we did here offered total redundancy . . . in fact, our BIG emphasis
>was accurately paralleling two generators (and later alternators)
>to share the loads while driving a single battery and bus. I'd
>be interested in knowing the history of any alternatives to that
>philosophy in certified ships.
>
>Bob . . .
>
>
>Good Afternoon Bob,
>
>It was back when I was a line boy (1945/46) and occasional shop flunky.
>Later on, I went into the USMC and was trained as an
>Aviation Electricians Mate
>(That meant I got to change batteries and light bulbs. Anything more serious
>was sent to A&R (Assembly and Repair))
>
>While in AME school, I was introduced to the intricacies of balancing the
>generators via the carbon pile voltage regulators. That brought
>back memories
>of the airplane I had seen that had the isolated systems with transfer
>switches for certain components.
>
>In the far recesses of my mind, I think the airplane was one that preceded
>the ones you are now working on, the very early Beech 18. It could
>have been
>something else, but I remember it as being big and made of aluminum. It was
>also equipped with big round engines. There was one battery in each wing
>behind each nacelle. One on the right and one on the left.
>
>The airplane could have been a Lockheed or even a Boeing 247, but I recall
>it more as being smaller and, most likely, a Beech Aircraft Corporation
>product.
>
>The method of being able to run equipment from one side or the other by
>using a double pole double throw switch was pointed out to me as an
>excellent
>idea by the mechanic in charge of that shop where I was a flunky. When
>I saw
>the balanced system used in military aircraft, I was very impressed!
>
>I will be visiting the Beech Museum next month. While I am there, I will
>check on construction number eleven model 18 and see how it is set up. The
>trouble is, all of the museum aircraft have been modified so often that you
>can't really tell if the systems are as they left the factory or not. In
>most
>cases, they are not!
>
>Is there any possibility that Raytheon has documentation that would tell us
>how the first 18s were set up?
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Airpark LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8502
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Two independent systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>Good Afternoon Bob,
>
>It was back when I was a line boy (1945/46) and occasional shop flunky.
>Later on, I went into the USMC and was trained as an
>Aviation Electricians Mate
>(That meant I got to change batteries and light bulbs. Anything more serious
>was sent to A&R (Assembly and Repair))
>
>While in AME school, I was introduced to the intricacies of balancing the
>generators via the carbon pile voltage regulators. That brought
>back memories
>of the airplane I had seen that had the isolated systems with transfer
>switches for certain components.
>
>In the far recesses of my mind, I think the airplane was one that preceded
>the ones you are now working on, the very early Beech 18. It could
>have been
>something else, but I remember it as being big and made of aluminum. It was
>also equipped with big round engines. There was one battery in each wing
>behind each nacelle. One on the right and one on the left.
>
>The airplane could have been a Lockheed or even a Boeing 247, but I recall
>it more as being smaller and, most likely, a Beech Aircraft Corporation
>product.
>
>The method of being able to run equipment from one side or the other by
>using a double pole double throw switch was pointed out to me as an
>excellent
>idea by the mechanic in charge of that shop where I was a flunky. When
>I saw
>the balanced system used in military aircraft, I was very impressed!
>
>I will be visiting the Beech Museum next month. While I am there, I will
>check on construction number eleven model 18 and see how it is set up. The
>trouble is, all of the museum aircraft have been modified so often that you
>can't really tell if the systems are as they left the factory or not. In
>most
>cases, they are not!
>
>Is there any possibility that Raytheon has documentation that would tell us
>how the first 18s were set up?
I've asked for weirder stuff and got answers. I'll ask tomorrow.
I'd really like to see the wiring diagrams for the first Bonanzas
too.
Bob . . .
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> <snip>
>
>Bob, at what point do you stop repeating yourself and realize your request
>for clarification is not being addressed? At what point to you stop doing
>work to disprove or quantify accusers unsupported and vague claims? When
>should they be responsible for SUPPORTING data behind a critique, OR EVEN
>CLEARLY ARTICULATING said critique?
I'm the eternal optimist. I really had hopes of engaging Paul
in some useful dialog that would ultimately result in the publication
of lucid documents to describe his vision. I've lived in
the wild and wooly world of DO160/M704 for decades and I'm quite
comfortable with it. It would be really nice if the new kids on the
block had a gentler and friendlier electrical environment to live in.
I don't know that it cannot be achieved . . . but we need to
be careful lest a quest to relieve a perceived obstacle somewhere
doesn't have unforeseen and unhappy fallout later.
I had two rounds of e-mail exchanges with Greg after I stopped appending
them to the review of "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People" . . . again,
I never received an answer to a single question. I happily gave up on that
one but I'm not happy about Paul. His vision is attractive and if it
can be supported in physics and practical processes, it would be a
grand addition to OBAM aircraft's collective bag of tricks.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 09:55 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>>
>>
>>I have some experience in electronic ignition design, and there is a
>>nagging
>>question in my mind. Apparently I know just enough to be confused!
>>
>>Assume a system with one electronic ignition system and one magneto.
>>
>>When the timing is advanced on the plug being controlled by the electronic
>>ignition, doesn't the cylinder pressure cause electrical stress on the
>>magneto
>>system -- the coil, cap and plug wiring? Isn't the KV requirement of the
>>magneto significantly increased by the increased pressure in the chamber
>>after
>>the fuel has been ignited by the earlier firing electronic ignition?
>
> If it does, the effects must be insignificant. Yes, when at low
> manifold
> pressures, the electronic ignition will advance and pressure in the
> cylinder
> will no doubt be on the rise when the johnny-come-lately mageneto
> fires.
> The pressures may indeed be so great the a spark never materializes
> across
> the plug's electrodes.
>
> The OBAM community has been flying one-mag/one-electronic now for over
> 15
> years. I have to believe that if the phenomenon you've identified was
> a significant problem that we would have heard about it by now. Why
> not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
I agree and did exactly that, since the mag was along for the ride anyway,
not contributing anything unless
the CDI was turned off.
> is pretty attractive.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Why
not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
is pretty attractive.
Bob . . .
Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an electronic system
than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
Regards, George
---
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Hello there,
I was listening to an urban legend that told me the best hi output
alternator for use on a Lycoming clone was from a 1987 Toyota Camry. I
went to Autozone and bought said alternator and found it has a
serpentine belt pulley on it.
Clearly this is not correct so now I am wondering if the Camry unit
really is the right one and where one can buy a v groove pulley to match
the Lyc...I don't have the engine yet either so I'm sure even if I do go
get a v pulley if it will be the correct profile...Like are all V
pulleys the same?
I have a 1987 Suzuki Samuri unit on my existing plane but this unit will
not have enough output for my IFR equipped RV.
Any help greatly appreciated.
Frank
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: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
George Braly wrote:
> Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an electronic
system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
>
> Regards, George
Hi George,
The electronic systems generally use automotive spark
plugs, which are significantly cheaper (an order of magnitude)
than the aircraft spark plugs. You'd have to go through
10 auto spark plugs to equal the cost of a single
aircraft spark plug, so the savings is significant
even if you replaced them 4-5 times more often than
an aircraft spark plug (which I don't think is the case).
At least, I think that is what he is referring to... :-)
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
George,
I think that plug life was not the reason for the cost savings. The use of
automotive plugs is the big cost savings. Don (P-mags on ac plugs)So I
guess I do not save any money(G)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of George
Braly
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Why
not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
is pretty attractive.
Bob . . .
Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
Regards, George
---
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: OVP, grounds, resistive loads |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:33 PM 4/3/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone
><rv8iator@earthlink.net>
>
>Bob...
>
>Thanks for a great 'lectric seminar in Independence, OR! You are more
>then patient with answering my many questions. As with any educational
>endevour it has made me question some assumptions and added to a better
>understanding of others. Again... Thank you!
Thank you sir. I'm always gratified with people's appreciation for
the seminars but it's I who is indebted to you. It's my JOB to produce
those programs. You could have walked out of that seminar and told me
that it wasn't worth what I was asking, and I wouldn't have charged
you for it. You would have wasted a couple of days but my years of
preparation would have been found wanting. Your perception of my product
as being worthy of your $time$ says we have a good supplier/customer
relationship which ratifies what I've produced thus far. Further, it
encourages me to look for ways to increase the value of what I offer.
>As I get deeper into the wiring of the first of two RV 8s the discussions
>of OVP here seem to raise more questions then answers.
>
>1. I am using the Fig. Z-13/8 as a template with the addition of an
>avionics master in between the main bus and endurance bus. A Nippondenso
>40 Amp alt. with internal regulator and a three terminal alternator
>disconnect contactor. A B&C OVM-14. The OVM-14 sense lead is connected
>directly to the master sw (faston crimped onto the uncut yellow
>lead). The black lead is butt spliced to a six foot AWG 20 ground that
>connects to the forest of fastons bolted to the firewall and connected to
>the bat neg. by 8 ft of AWG 2 welding cable. After reading your white
>paper on OVP wire resistance appears to be a variable that may add to the
>current spike across the 5A breaker. Is this acceptable?
Actually, the additional wire significantly REDUCES the crowbar
event current. In fact, most builders have installed it as the
Z-figures suggest and the longer ground wire exists in most of
the airplanes using the OVM-14 as you've described.
I believe my inquiries to Eaton/Cutler-Hammer will confirm my
suspicions that opening the CB with more that 1000% of rated
current is a service life issue and not a catastrophic failure
issue. However, having said that, I have to note that decreasing
CB opening current makes it take longer to open. Adding this time
on top of opening time of the b-lead contactor puts the contactor
itself at-risk for a post-trip fire between the contactor's major
conductors.
So, if anyone DOES have a true ov condition that has been brought
under control by an OVM-14/b-lead contactor, I'd REALLY like to get
the contactor back to look at. As soon as I can get my own alternator
stand running, I'll look into this supposition in more detail. In
the mean time, I don't perceive any reason to rip out what you have
in favor of replacing it with something "more suitable." This is
mostly because I'm not sure what is really more suitable.
If we could identify a particular internally regulated alternator that's
as "reliable as prop bolts", then the ideas proffered by Eric and
Paul are pretty attractive.
My critical design review response is, "If such an combination
exists, let's identify it with sufficient accuracy that the
neophyte builder can be reasonably expected to acquire the right
device." Folks have suggested that a "high quality" rebuild
is what we're looking for . . . don't know what that is. If
I walk into any parts store and ask for a "high quality" alternator,
I'm sure they'll assure me that whatever they have to offer will
meet my needs.
>2. I am using a single point ground for all grounds per above
>description. Z-13 shows a firewall ground, instrument ground and avionics
>ground. I don't see any reason not to combine all these to a single
>point. Am I missing something?
No . . . but there may be considerable convenience realized
from an "avionics ground" on the panel. Wait until chapter 18
comes out in R11 and let's revisit this topic.
>3. Pure resistive loads (heater elements)should not be a source of
>electrical noise. That said, I am locally grounding the pitot heat and
>seat heaters. Again, am I missing anything here?
Nope, you can ground such devices locally to airframe . . . also
nav lights, pitot heat, landing lights, and even the strobe power
supply.
>4. The wire feeding the main bus is shown unprotected. In my ship this
>is four feet of AWG 6 that goes from the bat side of the starter contactor
>to the main fuse block. I realize that turning off the master turns
>this off, but a short to ground along this wire run could be
>disastrous! Do I need to be concerned?
No, even the FARS exempt these fat feeders from special
protection . . . just take some care to insure their mechanical
integrity and freedom from physical compromise.
>Per the ongoing discussions here by Paul, Eric et al one valid issue
>raised is system reliability by virtue of simplicity. The simplicity of
>an internally regulated alternator vs an externally regulated alternator
>with the additional wiring and connections required to connect the
>external voltage regulator would seem to favor the internally regulated
>"one piece" charging system.
Absolutely! All other things being equal, lower parts count
produces lower failure rates. The talented designer's goals
are to deduce equivalency, illuminate failure mode effects,
and discover the ultimate reliability of any and all parts
used. My approach for the neophyte builder has been to ASSUME
all parts are capable of failure . . . and crafting a minimum
parts count system to address this. Since I'm not privy to
internal workings of all regulator products, I cannot say of
my own knowledge that they are either 10 to the minus whatever
reliable nor can I deduce failure modes. Therefore my designs
err on the side of worst case assumptions.
>At this point I am going to use the crowbar OVP due to it's simplicity
>albeit the brute force approach.
I'm going to continue to look into the issues that Paul raised
and will publish my findings here along with any recommendations
for replacing (or more tightly controlling) the installations
so as to reduce risk.
I'm just not ready to jump on a band-wagon to advocate
any changes at present because I simply don't have all the
questions answered yet.
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: VHF tape antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>Cheers, all,
> I am building the same kit as Kingsley and am using the supplied
>copper tape per the instructions. As Bob says, the tape widens the range of
>frequencies available but is susceptible to cracking if stuck to epoxy
>stuff.
> I slid the tape into an envelope of polythene and epoxied That
>to the fin close-out, leaving the last two inches each end for trimming in
>situ. Seems to work............
Slick . . . no pun intended.
Bob . . .
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: | The ULTIMATE ground loop . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
We slew the dragon today . . .
A bizjet with a nose-mounted air conditioning compressor brings
power and ground through a pair of twisted trios of 2AWG wire
all the way from the tail.
This same airplane has a rather sophisticated (read complex)
ground fault detection system that features really twitchy
detectors . . . they are prone to trip when uninteresting things
happen in the airplane.
This airplane has been down for months. Customer techs worked on
it for about 6 weeks. A/C soft start module (a variable duty
cycle ramp-up controller used on golf cart motors) goes into
fits of apoplexy when you try to turn it on. Just turning on
the battery master switch causes lots of things in the airplane
to react in unusual ways . . . including the ground fault detectors
which will trip the system off almost immediately. Now, just plug
in a ground power cart and the problem goes away for bringing the
battery on line . . . the cart doesn't have to be turned on, just
plugged in. Attaching a battery right across the (+) and (-) terminal
at the A/C will let it start up and run too. Opening various
bus feeder breakers will make things get "better" but not
serviceable.
I put a 'scope on the (+) and (-) feeders to the A/C and
measured astounding 60 volt pk-pk, 30 Khz noises on both wires
. . . noise that far exceed DO160/M704 suggestions.
Finally ferried the airplane to Wichita. Several experiments
to bypass various fat-wires in the system produced positive
results. Running a separate (+) wire to the A/C made things
much better, running a separate (-) wire made ALL problems
go away.
Okay, start ripping up the floorboards.
Just damn . . . found a too-long screw holding down a floor
board panel that was cutting into the insulation on the A/C
power (-) line. No sparks, no fire, just an artificially
induced GROUND LOOP that put huge circulating currents into
the airframe when the (1) battery was switched on or (2) when
we tried to power up the A/C. I measured artifacts of the soft start
module's switching signature on just about every wire in the
airplane. Seems this ground wire with two grounds runs parallel
and tightly coupled magnetically to some major power feeders.
Really sad part about this is that we were not the first
to discover it. There was a silicone rubber tape repair to the
damaged wire covering an earlier case of mounting screw intrusion
on the OTHER side. The most astounding thing was that the
offending screw was STILL TOO LONG and therefore primed and
enabled to attack the OTHER side of the repaired-once wire.
This is an extreme example but nicely illustrates the degree
of risk one assumes when ground systems are not carefully
considered or understood. In this case, the ground loop
and problems it generated were induced by installation
errors. The interference was so great that it was noticed
by a lot of ship's systems. We've seen other ground loop problems
get DESIGNED into a system by an inattentive engineer.
It also illustrates how a simple lack of craftsmanship in
installation of a 10 cent screw can cost tens of thousands
of dollars to find and fix. In this case, funding for
the extraordinary experiment in trouble shooting science
came from taxpayer pockets . . . what the heck, they've got
lots of money. They'll never miss what it cost to fix this one.
Got to help ferret out a poor mounting technique on an AHRS
system last week. Another case of a $100 error growing into
a hundred thousand dollar safari into the physics jungle. This
one was a DESIGN error and the customer was a first time
turbo-prop buyer who may never buy another RAC product . . .
and will be sure to advice his friends to do likewise. We
have a recall-retrofit to do on a bunch of airplanes.
Bagged two dragons in two weeks; two GREAT days.
Too bad they were so expensive. Incidentally, both were
STONE-SIMPLE conditions as they always tend to be.
There's no substitute for craftsmanship and understanding.
We've been regulated to the eyeballs, ISO approved head
to toe and have long shelves of policy and procedure documents
but they haven't prevented really simple conditions from costing
folks tons of dollars and generating a lot of customer ill-will.
Be your own best supplier of quality goods and carefully
crafted services. Strive to seek the same quality from others.
Bob . . .
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: PMags and RPM |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Negative. Stalling the wing has nothing to do with the engine RPM - or with
having an engine at all.
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 4/2/2005 3:57:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
I don't know about fixed pitch props, but with a c/s, if your rpm was down
to 800, you would probably have already stalled due to low airspeed. Flight
idle at approach speeds is well above 800.
Alex Peterson
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: Race Car Load Dump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
I was looking at manual battery switches when I noticed the following. Guess
the racing guys want OV/Load Dump protection also.
Part No. 4430 has three sets of contacts for cars with alternators. The main
contacts disconnect the battery while the auxiliary contacts disconnect the
ignition coil and short the alternator output to ground through a 3 ohm resistor
that is furnished with the switch.
It can be found at
http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/ProductDetails.asp?RecId=1464
Stan Sutterfield
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: PMags and RPM |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Stan,
Respectfully, I don't think you got Alex's point.. With idle throttle
setting, but without changes in propellor pitch, engine RPM IS related to
airspeed. On an airplane with a constant speed prop, at idle throttle
setting, and the prop set at max, the governor will allow the blades to go
to a very flat pitch setting. The effect this has is to cause the RPM to
remain relatively high, even though the engine is essentially not putting
out any power. In order to get the engine RPM to fall to 800RPM on an
aircraft with c/s prop, the airspeed has to be VERY low. Probably below
the VS0...
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> Negative. Stalling the wing has nothing to do with the engine RPM - or
> with having an engine at all.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 4/2/2005 3:57:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> I don't know about fixed pitch props, but with a c/s, if your rpm was
> down to 800, you would probably have already stalled due to low
> airspeed. Flight idle at approach speeds is well above 800.
>
> Alex Peterson
>
>
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: Two independent systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/6/2005 1:15:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
I've asked for weirder stuff and got answers. I'll ask tomorrow.
I'd really like to see the wiring diagrams for the first Bonanzas
too.
Bob . . .
Good Evening Bob,
I do have a relatively early copy of a Beech maintenance manual that covers
serial numbers from D-1 up through the C35. Last revision date was January 1,
1951. I am not sure just how accurately it portrays the actual production
electrical systems, but they are listed. There sure were a lot of
modifications on the early airplanes.
My first Bonanza was D-10. When I had it (circa 1954) the fabric covered
flaps had been replaced by magnesium ones , but the ailerons were still fabric
covered.
Very nice flying airplane. Unfortunately, I have no recollection at all of
the electrical details.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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! --
|