Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:38 AM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Werner Schneider)
2. 05:48 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Charlie Kuss)
3. 05:48 AM - Re: Alternator help (Charlie Kuss)
4. 06:14 AM - Re: VOR antenna splitter? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:21 AM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
6. 06:23 AM - Re: CBA II (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 06:42 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 06:46 AM - Re: Evil gremlins (Eric M. Jones)
9. 07:04 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (BobsV35B@aol.com)
10. 07:25 AM - Re: Re: Race Car Load Dump? (Joel Jacobs)
11. 07:26 AM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
12. 08:00 AM - Re: Alternator help (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
13. 08:01 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 08:02 AM - Re: CBA II (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 08:28 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Richard Riley)
16. 08:42 AM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Stanley Blanton)
17. 08:44 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
18. 09:11 AM - Flaps Switch diagram (Travis Hamblen)
19. 10:25 AM - Re: Ducati regulator terminals (Gilles Thesee)
20. 10:52 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (dsvs@comcast.net)
21. 11:19 AM - Re: Alternator help (John Swartout)
22. 11:29 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
23. 11:38 AM - Re: Electronic Ignition (John Swartout)
24. 12:03 PM - Re: Alternator help (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
25. 12:04 PM - Emag/Pmag (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
26. 12:19 PM - Re: Emag/Pmag (dsvs@comcast.net)
27. 12:24 PM - Re: Alternator help ()
28. 12:49 PM - Re: Emag/Pmag (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
29. 01:33 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (James H Nelson)
30. 04:00 PM - Re: Re: Evil gremlins (Chris Horsten)
31. 04:27 PM - Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com)
32. 04:39 PM - Re: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (Matt Prather)
33. 05:15 PM - Re: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (Greg Young)
34. 05:46 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (rv-9a-online)
35. 05:56 PM - Re: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN)
36. 06:45 PM - E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders) ()
37. 07:37 PM - Re: E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders) (Wayne Sweet)
38. 08:14 PM - Collins DPU-84 Prints (Peter Davidson)
39. 09:18 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
40. 09:18 PM - Re: CBA II Good news and bad news (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
41. 09:19 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
42. 09:22 PM - Re: Alternator help (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
43. 10:05 PM - Re: Flaps Switch diagram (rv-9a-online)
44. 10:32 PM - Re: Alternator help (John Swartout)
45. 10:51 PM - Re: Alternator help (John Swartout)
46. 11:23 PM - Re: E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders) (owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.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: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
Hello Dan,
the advantage I see with the electronic ignition is, that you can much
better lean the engine and that due to the variable timing my engine is
running smoother (less vibration) and the spark plugs just stay much cleaner
then with the magnetos, fuel savings? Maybe a tad when I'm flying above 8000
ft, but also easier starting as well as the other aspects did convince me
that I did the right move.
Kind regards
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>
> John, Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I know that electronic ignition is the rage these days. I first put
> electronic ignition on my '57 Ford in 1962. I also put a breakerless CD
ignition
> system on my (circle track) race cars back in the '60s when everyone else
was
> running dual points. After becoming an electronic engineer, I designed
> electronic ignition systems for GM for 15 years. Now, I hate authorities
on any
> subject as much as most of the listers do, but I don't know any way else
to
> qualify myself to say what I have to say. Experience is a good teacher.
>
> I would caution anyone to not expect miracles from their ignition system,
> and to not go too far with their claims. I kept very accurate fuel
mileage on
> my '74 Cutlass before and after switching from a single point ignition
system
> to a High Energy Ignition having 3 times the spark energy only to be
> disappointed that my mileage didn't increase any measurable amount. You
see it only
> takes about 25 micro-joules to ignite a fuel/air mixture. Going from 50
to
> 150 milli-joules didn't help! It was still nice to get rid of the
points,
> and the fact that the wear on the rubbing block continuously retarded the
> timing until it was reset -- about once a year.
>
> Magnetos are not high energy ignition systems. Aircraft engines are not
> hard to ignite. They are run under conditions, beyond half throttle most
of the
> time, where ignition is not hard to achieve.
>
> There is probably an advantage to be able to advance the timing that the
> present magneto system does not lend itself to. This is strictly a
mechanical
> issue as far as the mags are concerned.
>
> I don't know why one couldn't put automotive plugs in a system with a
> magneto. Cost is the only advantage that I know of for using auto plugs.
As for
> making the gaps big, there is an advantage -- better lean and part
throttle
> ignition. This is not much of an advantage on an aircraft engine. The
> disadvantage is that the high voltage components -- cap, wires and coil
are stressed
> -- usually to failure with .080 gaps. GM had to back off to about .060
for
> that reason. If you eliminate the wires you still have to make a coil
that
> will stand the stress. Its not worth it in an airplane.
>
> The partial burns (we call it) are reduced by using auto fuel. This too,
is
> not that big a problem when operating the engine beyond half throttle.
> There is a lot of fuel and air in the chamber, and turbulence is mainly
something
> that helps part throttle performance. Something you need in an
automobile,
> but not so much in an airplane, unless you fly at 10 to 20 percent power
like
> you drive your car.
>
> Well, you get the point! So what ignition do I have in my RV7A? You
> guessed it. 2 Slick magnetos. Maybe someday when I get ready, I'll
design a
> system for my bird. That would be an experiment for me. I appreciate
those who
> do this kind of work, but I want to do my own experiment on my plane.
There
> is a place for it. Right now I'm just happy to be flying my new RV, and
I
> don't see the magneto ignition system(s) as that much of a disadvantage.
>
> Thanks, if you read this,
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A (Was flying -- now in the paint shop)
>
>
> In a message dated 4/6/05 2:10:35 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
> Alto_Q@direcway.com writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
> <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>
> Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some
of
> my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
> show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
>
> Ignition Systems
>
> 1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
> ignition system.
> 2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is concerned.
> Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
> requirement.
> 3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
> unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
> 4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only control
> we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the cylinder. After
it
> is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture, lean and rich, which
> would not support ignition.
> 5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and little
> turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The flame
front
> must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
> 6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would have
> the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as far to
go
> to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
> 7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
> more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
> combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
> 8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
> 9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
> come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
> heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to
the
> mixture in the combustion chamber.
> 10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they present
a
> high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult to access.
They
> must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up and pressurized
for
> use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center contact at the rotor
leads
> to unavoidable malfunction and even failure if not properly maintained.
> 11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the
state
> of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
> coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition
connection
> count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
> wire per plug has also been eliminated.
>
> 12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
> firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
> engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
> drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
> wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
>
> 13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
>
> Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
> having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
>
>
> John D. Heath
>
>
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: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 10:14 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
>--> 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 . . .
Dan
Since a magneto's output energy rises with RPMs, I suspect that this is a
bit of a non issue. The reduced manifold pressure conditions (where an
electronic ignition's spark advance comes into play) exist at cruise RPMs.
The magneto makes plenty of energy to fire a measly .018" spark plug gap
under these conditions. During ground operations, your concerns may be
valid. However, as a percentage of total engine operating time, ground ops
are a very small fraction.
Charlie Kuss
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
>--> 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
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard. You
want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator. I
suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work. Wander
the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's speed
by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some cowls, it
presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
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: VOR antenna splitter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:36 PM 4/6/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > These work good and last a long time.
> >
> >
>Probably work "well" too. :-) Sorry, couldn't resist. No offense
>intended. :-) Bob, I can't believe how well you stand up to the
>derision that flies from time to time and realize I shouldn't add to it,
>but this jumped from the screen and hit me square between the eyes.
>Thanks for all the patience and solid ideas.
You're most welcome. If it wasn't fun, I couldn't do it.
I've mentioned before, words can inform, entertain, persuade
or hurt. Personally try to avoid the last two intentions
as they are never productive in the world of simple ideas.
Thank you for that bit of information my friend, it brought
a smile too!
Bob . . .
do not archive
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Werner,
You certainly have nailed the benefits of electronic ignition. The hotter
spark should definitely help starting. I forgot about that benefit in my
original post. After all the hot starting trouble I've had with my IO-360 you'd
think I would have considered that!
As I have replied to some off list, I think its all in the timing. Being
able to advance the spark at high altitude is the other great advantage.
Anytime you can get the engine to run more efficiently, the plugs will run cleaner
-- less carbon to build up. I really don't think the spark energy does
anything to clean the plugs. IMHO of course.
I think electronic ignition is better than magnetos, actually. I just
wanted to caution people not to expect miracles. Maybe I'm being too negative.
In my case I wanted to get the airplane done and flying. The engine I bought
had 2 new Slick mags, so they are still on it. If I had to buy them vs.
going electronic, I may have gone the other way. I have plans in the back of
my
mind for a custom electronic system, but I know what a can of worms that can
turn into! Right now, my plane has other things it needs more.
Regards,
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A (Flying about 80 hours. Now being painted. Flying borrowed Warrior
to SnF, oh well.)
In a message dated 4/7/05 8:00:35 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
glastar@gmx.net writes:
Hello Dan,
the advantage I see with the electronic ignition is, that you can much
better lean the engine and that due to the variable timing my engine is
running smoother (less vibration) and the spark plugs just stay much cleaner
then with the magnetos, fuel savings? Maybe a tad when I'm flying above 8000
ft, but also easier starting as well as the other aspects did convince me
that I did the right move.
Kind regards
Werner
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:29 AM 4/6/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone
><rv8iator@earthlink.net>
>
>Gilles...
>
>I for one will be very interested in what you find in using this
>device. I hope you publish your finding here.
>
>If it works as advertised and reviewed in the Model Aviation press it
>sounds like it could be a very usefull tool to monitor actual battey
>condition (capicity) over time thus adding to A/C electrical system
>reliability.
>
>CS
>Newberg, OR
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi all,
>
>This is to say I just received the CBA II Computerized Battery Analyser
>from the English dealer Aurrora. Quick reaction and same day shipping,
>but two weeks in the meanders of French customs and postal services.....
>If memory serves me right, it was Paul Messinger who mentionned this
>device in a recent post.
>Maybe some listers will be interested in my first tests with this new
>toy. Any tips or suggestions welcome.
I purchased one right after Paul mentioned it. I went right out to
the shop and started to set it up to do some testing of my fleet
of instrumentation and test batteries. The ol' dog data acquision
computer wouldn't boot. Went down to computer purgatory and bought
a school system cast off ($20, 233 Mhz Pentium II) to replace the
current (100 Mhz 486) test computer and haven't had time to load
an new operating system in it. As soon as R11 goes to printers
I'll get my cap checker running also and we can compare notes. Paul
has already given us a favorable review. I expect we'll enjoy a repeat
of his experience.
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: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:34 AM 4/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
><lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
>Why not two electronic ignitions?
>
>Because, then your plane is electrically dependent. With one side a mag,
>you can limp home on the mag if your electronics crap out. Your engine
>keeps running. You don't fall out of the sky. AND Your electrical system
>is much simpler and less costly to install and maintain. You can tolerate a
>battery going bad or an alternator dying our your EI side making its last
>spark.
Electrical dependency is not necessarily a driver for retaining
a magneto. We discuss the variables in failure modes effects analysis
and choices of architectures offer a plan-b for loss of any component
of the electrical system and continued sweat-free flight in spite
of the failure in chapter 17. There are LOTS of electrically dependent
engines
flying with single ignition systems where one couldn't install a mag if
they wanted to. Experience and reliability studies based on good
science has shown this is not a particularly significant threat
to your well being as pilot. The VAST majority of events that
threaten life and aluminum are weather, fuel starvation, loss
of control, and close encounters of the aluminum kind, etc. I've had
several near collision experiences with other aircraft where the
outcome was happy only because of variability in timing by a few
seconds or a few feet of altitude and I've never had a catastrophic
failure of an electrical system component in flight.
>Friends are like angels who lift us to our feet
>when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly....unknown
Absolutely. There's a lot of folklore fueled by television and Hollywood
writers that tend to boost mechanical failures well above human
failures as paramount concerns for safety of flight. Working
the mechanical side here on the list of friends will help
drive those concerns to their rightful status as statistically
insignificant. Only when we can stop worrying about the mechanics of
the airplane can we concentrate on improving the mechanics and
skills of flying. Even if you DO experience an mechanical failure
that forces an unplanned arrival with the earth, your survival
is STILL mostly dependent upon skill and judgement.
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: Evil gremlins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Horsten"
<airplanes@sympatico.ca>
>Aircraft is a CH-250 with an O-300 Continental. It has a generator.
>Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at idle.
>System is charging, starts no problem.
>Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even when
>the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is connected
>to ships antenna though.
>Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now seems
>to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result of this
>problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the encoder a
>couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
>Suggestions I have had:
>Voltage regulator
>Master relay
>Sparkplugs
>Noise filters, capacitor
>Mag filters
>Airframe static
>Generator brushes
Chris--Then you need a plan.
Basic tests? Voltage? Check generator brushes, can you inspect the
commutator? Have you checked the plugs AND plug wires? Is anything hot that
shouldn't be hot? Can you have the airport graybeard look at it?
1) >Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at
idle.
>System is charging, starts no problem.
Question: Does the noise only get louder with engine RPM or does it seem to
have a component in sync with the RPM?
Rationale: Airframe static, master relay and the voltage regulator probably
have no RPM component. If the noise has a basic frequency much higher than
the engine RPM, then the generator or associated filters, wiring, etc. is
suspect
2) >Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even
when
>the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is
connected
>to ships antenna though.
Suggestion---This may be misleading info.
Test---Operated AM radio tuned to an empty channel when near the plane?
Conditions: engine not running; master OFF.
Result and comment?---
3) >Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now
seems
>to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result of
this
>problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the
encoder a
>couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
Test---Pull out the transponder and open associated CB or disconnect its
fuse?
Result and comment?---
This is a solvable problem--Take heart and you will be rewarded.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
--Princess Diana
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: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/7/2005 8:47:16 A.M. Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
I'll bet we could take a lot of $time$ out of the
manufacturing costs for that airplane.
Good Morning Bob,
This is way off topic and I will add the Do Not Archive appendage, but just
for me, when you start that Bonanza modification, start by removing the
uplatch night mare! I think it is totally unneeded and was merely added because
they had no idea why that wing failed and were told to do something!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: Race Car Load Dump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Joel Jacobs" <jj@sdf.lonestar.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Race Car Load Dump?
> The disconnect switch has a 3 ohm resistor in it. If the switch
disconnects
> the battery, the remaining resistor load is 15v / 3 ohms=4 amps at 4a x
4a
> x 3 ohm=48 watts. This loads the alternator enough to suppress the load
> dump....I suspect...since it certainly can't load the alternator enough to
> do anything else. I also suspect that race car drivers offer some very
> choice slang alternatives for "DNF".
Also remember that in a racecar, the alternator load is basically just the
ignition system so it's not likely to be putting out more than a few amps
when it's dis-connected. I doubt the 3 ohms would be sufficient to suppress
a load dump from an alternator that was cranking out allot of power.
Joel
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: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Cost...I think?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>Without a doubt though, if I was to lose the alternator and already
>having two fuel pumps to run, not having to worry about the ignition is
>attractive to me.
Then why not p-mags?
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: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Thanks Charlie,
I pulled of the serp pulley last night (Impact wrenches are
great!...:)..) and your right it is indeed a 15mm shaft. I will almost
swear it's the same pulley off my little Suzuki Samuri ND alt on my
other plane.
I have an alt shop scanning the shelves for one, little extra mail order
will be worth saving a junk yard trip.
Yes Someone sentme a pic of the 4" pulley and noted the cowl
clearance...As I'm going with the Sam James Holy cowl clearances are
likely to be even tighter so I'll start with a standard pulley if I can
find one.
This is a great list!!
Cheers
Frank
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
You want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord
alternator. I suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will
also work. Wander the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard
pulley will work. Swap that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is
15mm in diameter. Outside pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5"
in diameter. Mark Landoll markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to
reduce the alternator's speed by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the
larger pulley is, on some cowls, it presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
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: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 4/7/2005 8:47:16 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
>I'll bet we could take a lot of $time$ out of the
>manufacturing costs for that airplane.
>
>
>Good Morning Bob,
>
>This is way off topic and I will add the Do Not Archive appendage, but just
>for me, when you start that Bonanza modification, start by removing the
>uplatch night mare! I think it is totally unneeded and was merely added
>because
>they had no idea why that wing failed and were told to do something!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
I think you're right.
Actually, I'd go for independent electrical actuators on each
gear. We're seeing very compact, ball-screw actuators that talk
to each other on a serial bus and a small system interface controller
at the panel. All the gear extension/retraction hardware goes
away for a big weight savings. Rigging gets simpler too. Of course,
"latching" in the up condition becomes a non-issue since gear
position is constantly monitored by a servo system that will hold
it in any position desired.
Watch the Eclipse . . . this is a 100% actuator driven airplane
with no mechanical connections between major components of flaps,
landing gear or pitch trim. Very easy to build and maintain.
Bob . . .
do not archive
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Just started a test on a 17 a.h. battery used in the white paper
experiments posted a few weeks ago. The CBA II is very intuitive
and appears well crafted. Will have results to post this afternoon.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <Richard@Riley.net>
>
>I think you're right.
>
>Actually, I'd go for independent electrical actuators on each
>gear. We're seeing very compact, ball-screw actuators that talk
>to each other on a serial bus and a small system interface controller
>at the panel. All the gear extension/retraction hardware goes
>away for a big weight savings. Rigging gets simpler too. Of course,
>"latching" in the up condition becomes a non-issue since gear
>position is constantly monitored by a servo system that will hold
>it in any position desired.
>
>Watch the Eclipse . . . this is a 100% actuator driven airplane
>with no mechanical connections between major components of flaps,
>landing gear or pitch trim. Very easy to build and maintain.
We looked at doing that with Berkut. In fact, an electric nose gear became
standard. We didn't replace the main gear hydraulics with electric
actuators because there was no alternate gear extension mechanism - no blow
down or dump. With a pusher, a nose landing is a non-event. A main gear
up landing is expensive.
Richard
do not archive
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: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stanley Blanton" <stanb@door.net>
Does the e-mag use any advance greater than 25 degrees (same as a mag)?
Last I heard they did not. Perhaps they have changed the advance curve.
Stan Blanton
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Good points and I appreciate the discussion...Particularly as my a** is
on the line...:)
In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing exactly how much
time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because I keep mine
charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works great...Now after 5
years I just changed them...and only because the GCFI tripped supplying
the chargers and after a week my batterries were dead!
Hmmm....Kinda glad I didn't have an alternator failure on my last
flight.
Apart from my ignorance in not changing the batterries sooner on my
electrically dependant airplane I can imagine in a real alt failure not
knowing for sure how much time I had.
To me the fact I could just flip everything off except one fuel pump
(this is all weather dependant of course) and focus my gaze on the volt
meter (knowing I have some in my second battery) just seemed attractive.
At the time (Monday when I ordered the engine) I didn't see that much
more benefit in a second Lightspeed...I am limited to 25deg timing to
maintain the 2 year warranty for use with Mogas...So a Lightspeed and a
mag seemed reasonable and is a setup that lots of others have been using
successfully.
Am still wondering what the long term ownership costs of the mag
are...i.e can I save the plugs by just using the Lightspeed in cruise
etc, or am I destined for a $100 set of plugs each year?
The Pmag with auto plugs is about the same cost of a second Lightspeed
(using the hall effect unit as it is very hard to adjust the max timing
on the crank trigger setup after the warranty).
Pmag "appears" to be set to a constant timing just like a mag so
performs the same function with presumably lower ongoing costs/hassle
but without variable timing like the Lightspeed.
Decisions decisions
So how does one be sure how much reserve the battery(s) have? If there
was a way to know then I could be persuaded to a second Lightspeed.
Tahnks
Frank
Electrical dependency is not necessarily a driver for retaining
a magneto. We discuss the variables in failure modes effects analysis
and choices of architectures offer a plan-b for loss of any component
of the electrical system and continued sweat-free flight in spite
of the failure in chapter 17. There are LOTS of electrically
dependent engines
flying with single ignition systems where one couldn't install a mag
if
they wanted to.
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: | Flaps Switch diagram |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Travis Hamblen" <TravisHamblen@cox.net>
The flaps switch I got from Van's came with no pin out/diagram. Does anyone
out there have a diagram for this switch? Please e-mail it to me if you can
scan it in, or even a text description of each pin would be greatly
appreciated.
Travis
RV7A Wiring
--
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: Ducati regulator terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> I belive it was Giles who sent me some photos of a dissected
> Ducati regulator . . .
>
Yes sir.
>they didn't even bother to activly heat
> sink the most thermally stressed components and depended on
> the potting compound for heat transfer. There HAS to be somebody
> who builds a better product that will replace the Ducati regulator.
>
> What regulator are you flying Giles?
>
>
A Schicke GR 4. The supplied voltage is about 14.2 V as opposed to the
13.8 V of the Ducati. The heat sink seems much better devised.
Nevertheless, the Schicke doesn't close down when the sense wire is
grounded, so I'll have to move this wire from the bus to the capacitor
(see Fig Z 16). Thus the alternator will always see a load.
Regards,
Gilles
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
P-Mags have fully variable timing in one mode or set timing in the other mode.
They also can be maped to the manifold pressure.
The performance is supposed to be equal to the lightspeed without the additional
parts (sensors and coils ) to be mounted some where on the engine. Don
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Good points and I appreciate the discussion...Particularly as my a** is
> on the line...:)
>
> In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing exactly how much
> time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because I keep mine
> charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works great...Now after 5
> years I just changed them...and only because the GCFI tripped supplying
> the chargers and after a week my batterries were dead!
>
> Hmmm....Kinda glad I didn't have an alternator failure on my last
> flight.
>
> Apart from my ignorance in not changing the batterries sooner on my
> electrically dependant airplane I can imagine in a real alt failure not
> knowing for sure how much time I had.
>
> To me the fact I could just flip everything off except one fuel pump
> (this is all weather dependant of course) and focus my gaze on the volt
> meter (knowing I have some in my second battery) just seemed attractive.
>
> At the time (Monday when I ordered the engine) I didn't see that much
> more benefit in a second Lightspeed...I am limited to 25deg timing to
> maintain the 2 year warranty for use with Mogas...So a Lightspeed and a
> mag seemed reasonable and is a setup that lots of others have been using
> successfully.
>
> Am still wondering what the long term ownership costs of the mag
> are...i.e can I save the plugs by just using the Lightspeed in cruise
> etc, or am I destined for a $100 set of plugs each year?
>
> The Pmag with auto plugs is about the same cost of a second Lightspeed
> (using the hall effect unit as it is very hard to adjust the max timing
> on the crank trigger setup after the warranty).
>
> Pmag "appears" to be set to a constant timing just like a mag so
> performs the same function with presumably lower ongoing costs/hassle
> but without variable timing like the Lightspeed.
>
> Decisions decisions
>
> So how does one be sure how much reserve the battery(s) have? If there
> was a way to know then I could be persuaded to a second Lightspeed.
>
> Tahnks
>
> Frank
>
>
> Electrical dependency is not necessarily a driver for retaining
> a magneto. We discuss the variables in failure modes effects analysis
> and choices of architectures offer a plan-b for loss of any component
> of the electrical system and continued sweat-free flight in spite
> of the failure in chapter 17. There are LOTS of electrically
> dependent engines
> flying with single ignition systems where one couldn't install a mag
> if
> they wanted to.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Charlie, how do I get ahold of this Mark Landoll? Is that the pulley
CNC machined out of 6061-T6 aluminum that Aircraft Spruce had in the
catalog last year but no longer available? I also need a big pulley for
my 1987 Suzuki Samurai ND alternator, if I don't change my mind and put
in a $639 B&C. Thanks.
John Swartout
Zenith STOL CH-801
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
<chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
>--> 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
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
You
want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator.
I
suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work.
Wander
the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's
speed
by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some cowls,
it
presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Yeah I just saw that....An emag looks way cheaper than a Lightspeed as
well....Hmm
2 emags look pretty good at first glance...does anyone have any
experience of them in real life?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
dsvs@comcast.net
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
P-Mags have fully variable timing in one mode or set timing in the other
mode. They also can be maped to the manifold pressure.
The performance is supposed to be equal to the lightspeed without the
additional parts (sensors and coils ) to be mounted some where on the
engine. Don
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: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Stan, the Emag folks told me the units (both e- and p-) have five
user-selectable operating modes.
Mode 1: Start mode. Ignores RPM and MP inputs. Timing for starting
engine is set at zero degrees BTDC.
Mode 2: Run position #1. Also ignores inputs. Flat 20 or 25 degrees
BTDC, just like a magneto. (On the next production batch, baseline
timing is user-set before installation.)
Mode 3: Run position #2. Advances timing based only on RPM.
Mode 4: Run position #3. Advances timing based on RPM and MP. Up to
39 degrees BTDC, following a programmed RPM scale, modified by manifold
pressure.
Mode 5: Run position #4. Similar to position #3 but more conservative.
Maximum 35 degrees BTDC. Said to be useful for higher compression
engines, testing of auto fuels. Advances 5 degrees less that position
#3 pretty much throughout the band.
At full power, timing advance is reduced, possibly to the standard 25
degrees.
At least, that is how I understood the explanation. Not guaranteed.
John Swartout
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Stanley Blanton
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stanley Blanton"
<stanb@door.net>
Does the e-mag use any advance greater than 25 degrees (same as a mag)?
Last I heard they did not. Perhaps they have changed the advance curve.
Stan Blanton
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
John,
http://www.cantonracingproducts.com/alternators/alternators.html
Don't know what engine you got but the Suzuki Sam alt I have been told
is good for 18000RPM...So you may not need to slow it down.
If you have a 2 1/2 v pulley for that alt and you really don't want
it...Can I make you an offer?...It should fit my Camry alt.
Check out the link, they have 3.5 and 5" dia 15mm shaft size pulleys
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
--> <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Charlie, how do I get ahold of this Mark Landoll? Is that the pulley
CNC machined out of 6061-T6 aluminum that Aircraft Spruce had in the
catalog last year but no longer available? I also need a big pulley for
my 1987 Suzuki Samurai ND alternator, if I don't change my mind and put
in a $639 B&C. Thanks.
John Swartout
Zenith STOL CH-801
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
<chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
>--> 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
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
You
want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator.
I
suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work.
Wander
the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's
speed by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some
cowls, it presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
See my engine supplier's comments on the E/Pmags
We have no experience with the Emags as to date anyone who wanted them
has been left waiting for them. We have no idea of the support that
they offer, or how well they work. If you would like us to order the and
install them on your behalf we will, but feel at this stage you would be
little more than a "guinea pig".
Comments?
Frank
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Frank,
Bart at Aero Sport power had a problem ( he caused it) with my P-mags when he installed
them. Brad at Emagair sent him two replacement units the same day.
Bart reported to me that he was happy with the service as well as the way the
units ran once installed properly.
Brad has informed me that he will send me the latest production units to replace
my earlier versions once they get caught up, not many companies work that way.
I have not flown my units yet but the reports from Bart and the service from Brad
have me convinced that I made the right choice. Don
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> See my engine supplier's comments on the E/Pmags
>
>
> We have no experience with the Emags as to date anyone who wanted them
> has been left waiting for them. We have no idea of the support that
> they offer, or how well they work. If you would like us to order the and
> install them on your behalf we will, but feel at this stage you would be
> little more than a "guinea pig".
>
> Comments?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
John
I bought my 4" alternator pulley from another RV builder. I just "googled" Mark
Landoll and found his phone number.
MARK LANDOLL (405)392-3847
Local RV-9A builder Eddie Fernandez has one of Mark's alternator pulleys on his
project. It's a nice looking unit.
Charlie
PS The RV Yeller Pages is a great resource for experimental aviation vendors.
See
http://www.matronics.com/YellerPages/
---- John Swartout <jgswartout@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
> Charlie, how do I get ahold of this Mark Landoll? Is that the pulley
> CNC machined out of 6061-T6 aluminum that Aircraft Spruce had in the
> catalog last year but no longer available? I also need a big pulley for
> my 1987 Suzuki Samurai ND alternator, if I don't change my mind and put
> in a $639 B&C. Thanks.
>
> John Swartout
> Zenith STOL CH-801
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Charlie Kuss
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
> <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
> At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
> >--> 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
>
>
> Frank
> Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
> You
> want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator.
> I
> suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work.
> Wander
> the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
> that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
>
> pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
> markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's
> speed
> by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some cowls,
> it
> presents a clearance problem.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Interesting thanks Don
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
dsvs@comcast.net
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag/Pmag
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Frank,
Bart at Aero Sport power had a problem ( he caused it) with my P-mags
when he installed them. Brad at Emagair sent him two replacement units
the same day. Bart reported to me that he was happy with the service as
well as the way the units ran once installed properly.
Brad has informed me that he will send me the latest production units to
replace my earlier versions once they get caught up, not many companies
work that way.
I have not flown my units yet but the reports from Bart and the service
from Brad have me convinced that I made the right choice. Don
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> See my engine supplier's comments on the E/Pmags
>
>
> We have no experience with the Emags as to date anyone who wanted them
> has been left waiting for them. We have no idea of the support that
> they offer, or how well they work. If you would like us to order the
> and install them on your behalf we will, but feel at this stage you
> would be little more than a "guinea pig".
>
> Comments?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Dan,
I am going to install a IO 360 in my RV and would like to know
all about its operation and techniques. contact me directly at
RV9Jim@Juno.com
Jim
do not archive
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: Evil gremlins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Horsten" <airplanes@sympatico.ca>
Thanks for the input Eric, and again to everyone else. In the end the
aircraft has been left with the new owner for half the sales price until he
gets the problem sorted out locally. I am convinced it cannot be worse than
replacing a mag or even the generator, but probably something far less
expensive. The time will be the clincher. I hope he finds someone
knowledgeable.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Evil gremlins
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
--> <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Horsten"
<airplanes@sympatico.ca>
>Aircraft is a CH-250 with an O-300 Continental. It has a generator.
>Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at idle.
>System is charging, starts no problem.
>Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even
>when the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is
>connected to ships antenna though.
>Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now
>seems to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result
>of this problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the
>encoder a couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
>Suggestions I have had:
>Voltage regulator
>Master relay
>Sparkplugs
>Noise filters, capacitor
>Mag filters
>Airframe static
>Generator brushes
Chris--Then you need a plan.
Basic tests? Voltage? Check generator brushes, can you inspect the
commutator? Have you checked the plugs AND plug wires? Is anything hot that
shouldn't be hot? Can you have the airport graybeard look at it?
1) >Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at
idle.
>System is charging, starts no problem.
Question: Does the noise only get louder with engine RPM or does it seem to
have a component in sync with the RPM?
Rationale: Airframe static, master relay and the voltage regulator probably
have no RPM component. If the noise has a basic frequency much higher than
the engine RPM, then the generator or associated filters, wiring, etc. is
suspect
2) >Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even
when
>the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is
connected
>to ships antenna though.
Suggestion---This may be misleading info.
Test---Operated AM radio tuned to an empty channel when near the plane?
Conditions: engine not running; master OFF.
Result and comment?---
3) >Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now
seems
>to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result of
this
>problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the
encoder a
>couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
Test---Pull out the transponder and open associated CB or disconnect its
fuse?
Result and comment?---
This is a solvable problem--Take heart and you will be rewarded.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
--Princess Diana
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
In a message dated 06-Apr-05 8:51:47 Pacific Standard Time, Speedy11@aol.com
writes:
As you know, it is quite
possible to fly an aircraft at zero airspeed with a dead engine and not stall
the wing.
OK, Speedy11, I am sure you have a good explanation for this statement; it's
a curve ball to me. As I am always willing to be enlightened, I invite you to
do so.
Regards, Doug Windhorn
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: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
My plane does that for days on end... In the hangar.. :)
Think glider at the top of a hammer head. AOA=0deg - can't
stall. Can't provide any lift either, however.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
do not archive
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 06-Apr-05 8:51:47 Pacific Standard Time,
> Speedy11@aol.com writes:
> As you know, it is quite
> possible to fly an aircraft at zero airspeed with a dead engine and not
> stall the wing.
> OK, Speedy11, I am sure you have a good explanation for this statement;
> it's a curve ball to me. As I am always willing to be enlightened, I
> invite you to do so.
>
> Regards, Doug Windhorn
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Speedy's just playing mind games. A stall requires exceeding the
critical angle of attack. By definition there is no AOA at zero airspeed
since there is no flow. But with no airspeed and no engine there are no
aerodynamics at work so one could argue that it is not really flying at
all. You could pitch to vertical and achieve this state for an instant
but there is no steady state for this condition without the airframe
being anchored to something, like the ground or a skyhook.
Greg
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 06-Apr-05 8:51:47 Pacific Standard Time,
> Speedy11@aol.com
> writes:
> As you know, it is quite
> possible to fly an aircraft at zero airspeed with a dead
> engine and not stall the wing.
> OK, Speedy11, I am sure you have a good explanation for this
> statement; it's a curve ball to me. As I am always willing
> to be enlightened, I invite you to do so.
>
> Regards, Doug Windhorn
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Direct from Emagair:
-snip-
Listed below are some of the more visible refinements we are implementing in
the current series (designated E-112 and P-112). We will revise all
current orders to reflect this change in designation.
1. Overall ignition frame length will be 6.15". This is 1/3" longer than the
111 series. Previously, the nose and main case sections were threaded
together (with Locktite) which made servicing the ignitions difficult, and
in some cases impossible. It also made the orientation between these
sections hard to control. In the 112 series, they will be secured
internally with 6 bolts, which necessitates the small case extension. As
before, installations with firewall clearance issues (primarily canards)
have the option of detaching the coil from the ignition, and mounting it on
the firewall. In this configuration, the ignition is only 3" deep.
2. The Mode Switch has been moved from the connector head to a DIP switch
accessible by removing a threaded plug on the side of the ignition case.
This will facilitate more efficient manufacturing, and will better protect
the switch. The 111 series mode switch was occasionally getting damaged by
customers when the screw driver used to secure the connector scraped across
the face of the switch.
3. The aircraft harness is now offered as standard 5/8"-24 aircraft spark
plug connectors (cigarette and spring) that are pre-installed on the ends of
our auto lead kit. This has several advantages.
a. It eliminates the need (and expense) of Aircraft Coil Adapters ($45.00)
per ignition. (This charge will be deleted from affected orders.)
b. It permits the use of our low profile 90 degree connections on the coil
end. This reduces the overall length of the aircraft ignition/harness by
1.25". The length of the earlier aircraft harness was preventing some
builders who wanted to use aircraft plugs from doing so.
c. It permits greater flexibility as leads can be routed and trimmed to
length according to individual preferences. Spark plug terminals and boots
are field installed. A terminal crimping tool is included with the kit at
no extra charge. Note: Auto leads use noise suppressive wire in lieu of a
grounded shield. We've had no reports of noise problems from customers
using the auto harness. Even so, builders have the option, if needed, of
adding a shield over the leads and ground them at the spark plug connector.
4. The DIP switch referenced in 2 above will also let customers set the tack
output for either one or two pulses per revolution. Customers will no
longer need to research this item and report back so we can program an
appropriate setup. Also, if the tack is later changed to a different
style, any needed changes can be made on the spot.
5. Unlike the 111 series, the tack lead will have a pull up resistor built
into the unit. It will produce a 12 volt tack pulse. Instruments that need
a 5 volt signal will be able to reduce the voltage by adding an external
diode (not provided).
6. The DIP switch will also let customers set the baseline timing for 20 or
25 degrees at installation. This will eliminates the need for customers to
investigate and report back when ordering their ignition.
7. The mounting flange has been sized so existing magneto mounting clips can
be reused. The 111 series flange was slightly undersized which required us
to provide custom fitted clips. If you do not have mounting clips to reuse,
just let us know and we will add a set(s) to your order ($15/set).
====
Vern Little
John Swartout wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
>Stan, the Emag folks told me the units (both e- and p-) have five
>user-selectable operating modes.
>
>Mode 1: Start mode. Ignores RPM and MP inputs. Timing for starting
>engine is set at zero degrees BTDC.
>
>Mode 2: Run position #1. Also ignores inputs. Flat 20 or 25 degrees
>BTDC, just like a magneto. (On the next production batch, baseline
>timing is user-set before installation.)
>
>Mode 3: Run position #2. Advances timing based only on RPM.
>
>Mode 4: Run position #3. Advances timing based on RPM and MP. Up to
>39 degrees BTDC, following a programmed RPM scale, modified by manifold
>pressure.
>
>Mode 5: Run position #4. Similar to position #3 but more conservative.
>Maximum 35 degrees BTDC. Said to be useful for higher compression
>engines, testing of auto fuels. Advances 5 degrees less that position
>#3 pretty much throughout the band.
>
>At full power, timing advance is reduced, possibly to the standard 25
>degrees.
>
>At least, that is how I understood the explanation. Not guaranteed.
>
>John Swartout
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Stanley Blanton
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stanley Blanton"
><stanb@door.net>
>
>Does the e-mag use any advance greater than 25 degrees (same as a mag)?
>Last I heard they did not. Perhaps they have changed the advance curve.
>
>Stan Blanton
>
>
>
>
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
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: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar@3rivers.net>
AN AIRPLANE WON'T STALL AT ZERO G.
NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT MAINTAINING ALTITUDE.
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: | E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
I don't mean to be redundant, but why do you *need* two P-mags? The chance of having
total or partial electrical failure AND at the same time loosing the P-mag
is slim to none. Multi failures of two unrelated systems is not likely, so
an E-mag / P-mag combo is just fine IMHO. If you have an alternator failure and
want to conserve power you could turn the E-mag off, as the P-mag will still
be there, unless you really are having a bad day.
Also if youre electrical system can't stand the 1.0 amp draw from one E-mag ignition,
long enough to get on the ground, than electrical capacity should be increased
or a regular magneto used.
I am amazed at how complex people are making electrical systems. For the most part
we are talking about small single engine airplanes. One engine right? However,
if you feel you need two P-mags, two batteries, two alternators and OV protection,
than by golly you should install it. Keeping the single fan turning
should be one of the most important items.
Cheers George
(1) LS is about 1.2 amp at 13.8 volt each; E-mag is less than 1 amp at 13.8 volts.
>Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would think that
>finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep your plane in the
>air would be paramount. I think you would be better served by either 2 P Mags
>or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your emergency electrical loads to the fuel
>system draws (fuel pumps, injectors and computer)
>Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions simply adds an additional 3.5 to 6
amps
>current draw to your battery.
>Charlie Kuss
---------------------------------
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
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: E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
The same reason that certified airplanes have two mags. Also the engine will
start and run better.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I don't mean to be redundant, but why do you *need* two P-mags? The chance
> of having total or partial electrical failure AND at the same time loosing
> the P-mag is slim to none. Multi failures of two unrelated systems is not
> likely, so an E-mag / P-mag combo is just fine IMHO. If you have an
> alternator failure and want to conserve power you could turn the E-mag
> off, as the P-mag will still be there, unless you really are having a bad
> day.
>
> Also if youre electrical system can't stand the 1.0 amp draw from one
> E-mag ignition, long enough to get on the ground, than electrical capacity
> should be increased or a regular magneto used.
>
> I am amazed at how complex people are making electrical systems. For the
> most part we are talking about small single engine airplanes. One engine
> right? However, if you feel you need two P-mags, two batteries, two
> alternators and OV protection, than by golly you should install it.
> Keeping the single fan turning should be one of the most important items.
>
> Cheers George
>
> (1) LS is about 1.2 amp at 13.8 volt each; E-mag is less than 1 amp at
> 13.8 volts.
>
>
>>Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would think
>>that
>>finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep your plane
>>in the
>>air would be paramount. I think you would be better served by either 2 P
>>Mags
>>or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your emergency electrical loads to the
>>fuel
>>system draws (fuel pumps, injectors and computer)
> >Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions simply adds an additional 3.5
> >to 6 amps
>>current draw to your battery.
>>Charlie Kuss
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
>
>
>
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: | Collins DPU-84 Prints |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Davidson" <pdavidson@familynet.net>
Hello, does anybody happen to have at least a pinout for a Collins DPU-84?
If possible, I'd also like to find some info on all the ways it can interact
with Nav recievers.
Peter Davidson
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:26 AM 4/7/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <Richard@Riley.net>
>
>
> >
> >I think you're right.
> >
> >Actually, I'd go for independent electrical actuators on each
> >gear. We're seeing very compact, ball-screw actuators that talk
> >to each other on a serial bus and a small system interface controller
> >at the panel. All the gear extension/retraction hardware goes
> >away for a big weight savings. Rigging gets simpler too. Of course,
> >"latching" in the up condition becomes a non-issue since gear
> >position is constantly monitored by a servo system that will hold
> >it in any position desired.
> >
> >Watch the Eclipse . . . this is a 100% actuator driven airplane
> >with no mechanical connections between major components of flaps,
> >landing gear or pitch trim. Very easy to build and maintain.
>
>We looked at doing that with Berkut. In fact, an electric nose gear became
>standard. We didn't replace the main gear hydraulics with electric
>actuators because there was no alternate gear extension mechanism - no blow
>down or dump. With a pusher, a nose landing is a non-event. A main gear
>up landing is expensive.
There are electrically driven actuators being produced for
Eclipse that will fall into down and locked by pulling on
a cable attached to the gearbox. The ball screws run very
low friction so that the no-power gear extension is quite
doable.
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: CBA II Good news and bad news |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:02 AM 4/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Just started a test on a 17 a.h. battery used in the white paper
>experiments posted a few weeks ago. The CBA II is very intuitive
>and appears well crafted. Will have results to post this afternoon.
>
>Bob . . .
Just got home and took a look at results for the test I mentioned
above . . . See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
Bob . . .
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: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:42 AM 4/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stanley Blanton" <stanb@door.net>
>
>Does the e-mag use any advance greater than 25 degrees (same as a mag)?
>Last I heard they did not. Perhaps they have changed the advance curve.
check out the data at their website:
http://emagair.com/
Bob . . .
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:23 PM 4/7/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
> John
> I bought my 4" alternator pulley from another RV builder. I just
> "googled" Mark Landoll and found his phone number.
>MARK LANDOLL (405)392-3847
>Local RV-9A builder Eddie Fernandez has one of Mark's alternator pulleys
>on his project. It's a nice looking unit.
>Charlie
Why a 4" pulley on the alternator? Get the rotor balanced
and run the smaller pulley. More output at ramp idle and taxi
speeds, better cooling in the air and better cowl clearance.
Bob . . .
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: Flaps Switch diagram |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Travis,
The flap switch is symmetrical in that you can wire it up in reverse and
still have it work (but the motor may run backwards).
Here is one method of wiring that works:
Looking at the switch from behind:
Top left terminal connect to +12v AND to the bottom right terminal.
Top right terminal connect to Ground AND to the bottom left terminal.
The middle terminals connect to the flap motor wires.
If the flap motor runs backwards, reverse the flap motor wires, or the
power and ground wires.
Now, here is some food for thought: I chucked the Van's switch and
replaced it with an S700-2-5 from B&C. This switch is momentary in the
down position only, much like (some of the) Cessna flap switches.
To deploy flaps, you hold the switch down and release to stop. To
retract flaps, you flip the switch up and leave it up (you don't have to
hold it) while the flaps retract. This is very useful after landing or
a go-around when you need your right hand for other things!
You just have to remember to neutralize the switch after the flaps are
retracted. The flap mechanism has a run-out so that it won't hurt it to
leave the motor running, but it's still a good idea to switch it off.
I used a lamp bridged across the flap motor as a reminder.
Vern Little RV-9A http://www3.telus.net/aviation/flying/RV-9A/rv-9a
Travis Hamblen wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Travis Hamblen" <TravisHamblen@cox.net>
>
>The flaps switch I got from Van's came with no pin out/diagram. Does anyone
>out there have a diagram for this switch? Please e-mail it to me if you can
>scan it in, or even a text description of each pin would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>Travis
>RV7A Wiring
>
>
>
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Boy, Frank, it's hard to know what to do. I know others have left the
stock pulley on the Samurai alternator and not had trouble--but
anecdotal evidence--especially based on one or two anecdotes--doesn't
pass my internal FAA (@@).... The guys at B&C run the L40 at 10,000 rpm
or so, and say that the alternator "likes" to run at that speed & it
improves cooling significantly, but of course they balance the rotating
part, so it could probably run as fast as they want it to without
wearing out bearings.
The pulley on mine is v-belt, 2 3/4" O.D. It's going on a
Mattituck-built ECI O-360 Lycoming clone. Because I plan to put a 44"
pitch propeller on it, I'll be cruising around 2,500 rpm. That's 9,000
rpm on the alternator. Just "seems" like a lot to me, when it's
intended (on the Samurai) to turn up to maybe 6000.
Give me a little while to think about parting with my pulley. Thanks a
million for the link!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
John,
http://www.cantonracingproducts.com/alternators/alternators.html
Don't know what engine you got but the Suzuki Sam alt I have been told
is good for 18000RPM...So you may not need to slow it down.
If you have a 2 1/2 v pulley for that alt and you really don't want
it...Can I make you an offer?...It should fit my Camry alt.
Check out the link, they have 3.5 and 5" dia 15mm shaft size pulleys
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
--> <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Charlie, how do I get ahold of this Mark Landoll? Is that the pulley
CNC machined out of 6061-T6 aluminum that Aircraft Spruce had in the
catalog last year but no longer available? I also need a big pulley for
my 1987 Suzuki Samurai ND alternator, if I don't change my mind and put
in a $639 B&C. Thanks.
John Swartout
Zenith STOL CH-801
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
<chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
>--> 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
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
You
want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator.
I
suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work.
Wander
the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's
speed by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some
cowls, it presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Who would be skilled at balancing the rotor, besides B&C?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:23 PM 4/7/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
> John
> I bought my 4" alternator pulley from another RV builder. I just
> "googled" Mark Landoll and found his phone number.
>MARK LANDOLL (405)392-3847
>Local RV-9A builder Eddie Fernandez has one of Mark's alternator
pulleys
>on his project. It's a nice looking unit.
>Charlie
Why a 4" pulley on the alternator? Get the rotor balanced
and run the smaller pulley. More output at ramp idle and taxi
speeds, better cooling in the air and better cowl clearance.
Bob . . .
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
Murphy's law lurking in the background will incite me into installing two
PMags. Redundancy is a desirable safety concern, which gets implemented
depending on cost. Figure that the delta on two PMags instead of one is a
few hundred dollars, practically no weight increase, no added complexity...
If I had a total electrical failure and were running on two PMags I'd feel a
lot more comfortable than running on one only.
Michle
RV8 - Wings
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:41 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and
> suspenders)
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I don't mean to be redundant, but why do you *need* two P-mags? The chance
> of having total or partial electrical failure AND at the same time loosing
> the P-mag is slim to none. Multi failures of two unrelated systems is not
> likely, so an E-mag / P-mag combo is just fine IMHO. If you have an
> alternator failure and want to conserve power you could turn the E-mag
> off, as the P-mag will still be there, unless you really are having a bad
> day.
>
> Also if youre electrical system can't stand the 1.0 amp draw from one E-
> mag ignition, long enough to get on the ground, than electrical capacity
> should be increased or a regular magneto used.
>
> I am amazed at how complex people are making electrical systems. For the
> most part we are talking about small single engine airplanes. One engine
> right? However, if you feel you need two P-mags, two batteries, two
> alternators and OV protection, than by golly you should install it.
> Keeping the single fan turning should be one of the most important items.
>
> Cheers George
>
> (1) LS is about 1.2 amp at 13.8 volt each; E-mag is less than 1 amp at
> 13.8 volts.
>
>
> >Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would think
> that
> >finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep your plane
> in the
> >air would be paramount. I think you would be better served by either 2 P
> Mags
> >or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your emergency electrical loads to the
> fuel
> >system draws (fuel pumps, injectors and computer)
> >Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions simply adds an additional 3.5
> to 6 amps
> >current draw to your battery.
> >Charlie Kuss
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|