Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:49 AM - install manuals for kx155 (rd2@evenlink.com)
2. 05:38 AM - Re: Alternator help (Charlie Kuss)
3. 05:58 AM - Re: install manuals for kx155 (Peter Mather)
4. 06:36 AM - Re: Alternator help (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 07:03 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:33 AM - Battery life ()
7. 07:46 AM - Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (Speedy11@aol.com)
8. 07:46 AM - Re: install manuals for kx155 (Mike Larkin)
9. 08:01 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
10. 08:03 AM - Re: Battery life (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
11. 08:07 AM - Re: CBA II Good news and bad news (Mark Banus)
12. 08:09 AM - Re: CBA II Good news and bad news (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (Bret Smith)
14. 08:23 AM - Re: install manuals for kx155 (rd2@evenlink.com)
15. 08:25 AM - Re: Re: CBA II Good news and bad news (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 08:34 AM - Re: Alternator help (Eric M. Jones)
17. 08:42 AM - Re: Re: Alternator help (BobsV35B@aol.com)
18. 09:03 AM - Re: Re: Alternator help (Ken)
19. 09:04 AM - Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (Speedy11@aol.com)
20. 09:45 AM - Re: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (Richard Riley)
21. 09:45 AM - Re: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (Chuck Jensen)
22. 09:51 AM - Re: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (Craig P. Steffen)
23. 10:47 AM - Re: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (rv6n6r@comcast.net)
24. 10:47 AM - Re: Alternator help (Eric M. Jones)
25. 11:05 AM - Re: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed (BobsV35B@aol.com)
26. 11:16 AM - Re: Re: Alternator help (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
27. 12:36 PM - Re: Battery life (John Swartout)
28. 01:00 PM - Re: Battery life (Harley)
29. 01:09 PM - Re: Battery life (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
30. 01:46 PM - Re: Re: Alternator help (John D. Heath)
31. 02:05 PM - Balance, Was: Alternator help (BobsV35B@aol.com)
32. 02:07 PM - Re: Alternator help (n801bh@netzero.com)
33. 03:17 PM - Alternators (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
34. 04:28 PM - Prop Balance, was: Balance, Was: Alternator help (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
35. 05:34 PM - Re: Alternator help (Robert McCallum)
36. 06:01 PM - Re: Alternator help (mprather)
37. 06:14 PM - Nuckoll's Paper on Electrical System Reliability (J. Mcculley)
38. 07:42 PM - Re: Alternator help (Robert McCallum)
39. 08:14 PM - Re: Alternator help (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
40. 08:22 PM - EL Panel Lights (Stein Bruch)
41. 09:33 PM - Re: Alternator help (John Swartout)
42. 09:40 PM - Re: Alternators (John Swartout)
43. 10:12 PM - Re: Alternator help (John Swartout)
44. 10:26 PM - Re: Battery life (John Swartout)
45. 10:54 PM - Re: Alternator help (n801bh@netzero.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: | install manuals for kx155 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Hi all,
I'll be installing an overhauled kx155 (to replace kx170b), but cannot find
an install manual for the 155.
Can anyone point me to the appropriate URL to download it from? I tried the
King site, did searches, but the only manual/s that turned up as pdfs were
of 165.
Rumen
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 12:21 AM 4/8/2005, you wrote:
>--> 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 . . .
Because I don't need the extra RPMs at ramp idle. I'm installing a 60 amp
unit. On my RV-8A, clearance can be achieved without modifying the cowl. I
simply have to move the alternator as far inboard as it will go and use a
36 inch belt. I'd prefer to simply swap pulleys, if the alternator ever
needs replacement, rather than have to balance the new rotor as well. Just
my personal preference. Your way works too.
Charlie
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: install manuals for kx155 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Mather" <peter@mather.com>
Rumen
The install manual I bought off Essco covers both 155 and 165 but there is very
little in it over and above the pinouts. I could scan one of the diagrams and
email it to you if that would help. Let me know which indicator you are using
so I get the right one.
Best regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: rd2@evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: install manuals for kx155
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> Hi all,
> I'll be installing an overhauled kx155 (to replace kx170b), but cannot find
> an install manual for the 155.
> Can anyone point me to the appropriate URL to download it from? I tried the
> King site, did searches, but the only manual/s that turned up as pdfs were
> of 165.
>
> Rumen
>
>
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: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/8/2005 6:34:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
jgswartout@earthlink.net writes:
Who would be skilled at balancing the rotor, besides B&C?
John
Aircraft Systems, Rockford, Illinois, has the requisite skills and equipment.
815 399-0225 E-Mail: _ACS5187@hotmail.com_ (mailto:ACS5187@hotmail.com)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>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.
Lack of hard data on this point plagues almost every pilot
who experiences alternator failure. This is why we advocate
active preventative maintenance of batteries and lucid
energy management policies in crafting procedures for
alternator-out operations. It's not hard to do, just takes
some time and understanding.
>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.
Without doing a simple analysis of loads and acquiring knowledge
of battery condition, one cannot depend on any battery only
operations . . . See chapter 17 at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
>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.
Pmags and Emags can be set up for either fixed timing to
emulate a magneto or you can hook up the manifold pressure
sense line and take advantage of spark advance at lower
manifold pressures. The option can be added/deleted at
will.
>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.
It's called load analysis. Calculate or measure the real loads
required for sustained flight sans-alternator, decide what
endurance you want to maintain (some folks fly comfortably
with a 30 minute reserve . . . this strikes me as being
an "emergency" mode of operation). We've suggested and demonstrated
many times that practical electrical endurance approaching or
exceeding fuel limited endurance is possible.
I just tested a 17 a.h. battery that I've had laying around the
shop for a number of years. I thought it was about 3 years old.
Turns out to have a 1999 date code on it. Test results on this
battery for a 4A load are shown at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
There are simple techniques and low cost tools for KNOWING and
PLANNING for comfortable margins during battery-only operations.
But better yet, put an SD-8 or larger on the vacuum pump pad
and battery sizing and maintenance issues are considerably
reduced.
There are no excuses for an electrical system that is capable
of producing an "emergency" situation in response to component
failure.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
<<......skip......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!>>
4/8/2005
Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
OC
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: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
I'll contact you offline. I doubt others want to listen to basic
aerodynamics.
Do Not Archive
Stan
In a message dated 4/8/2005 5:53:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.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.
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: | install manuals for kx155 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
I will send you the pin outs to your email address....
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Mather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: install manuals for kx155
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Mather"
<peter@mather.com>
Rumen
The install manual I bought off Essco covers both 155 and 165 but there
is very little in it over and above the pinouts. I could scan one of the
diagrams and email it to you if that would help. Let me know which
indicator you are using so I get the right one.
Best regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: rd2@evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: install manuals for kx155
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> Hi all,
> I'll be installing an overhauled kx155 (to replace kx170b), but cannot
find
> an install manual for the 155.
> Can anyone point me to the appropriate URL to download it from? I
tried the
> King site, did searches, but the only manual/s that turned up as pdfs
were
> of 165.
>
> Rumen
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
--
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I agree with this and thats what I thought I did on my plane, I had at
least an hours worth of flight on a VFR only plane based on 3AH of
reserve in the second batt...It all came down to how many AH did I
really have in the battery considering it was almost dead after a week
without charging...Probably not 3AH I would guess.
Needless to say I have two fresh batteries installed asof now..:)
Having said all that I am now seriously considering a dual Emag (only 1
amp each?) setup and two 17AH batts if I can test them each year for
degradation...Havent read your article yet Bob but maybe this tester is
a way to do this reasonably ecomnomically?
The Emag turns out to be Way cheaper than a Hall effect lightspeed and I
have some 6 to 9 months before I fly so even with leadtime it may well
be the way to go.
Thanks
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: Emag/mag timing question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>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.
Lack of hard data on this point plagues almost every pilot
who experiences alternator failure. This is why we advocate
active preventative maintenance of batteries and lucid
energy management policies in crafting procedures for
alternator-out operations. It's not hard to do, just takes
some time and understanding.
>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.
Without doing a simple analysis of loads and acquiring knowledge
of battery condition, one cannot depend on any battery only
operations . . . See chapter 17 at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
>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.
Pmags and Emags can be set up for either fixed timing to
emulate a magneto or you can hook up the manifold pressure
sense line and take advantage of spark advance at lower
manifold pressures. The option can be added/deleted at
will.
>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.
It's called load analysis. Calculate or measure the real loads
required for sustained flight sans-alternator, decide what
endurance you want to maintain (some folks fly comfortably
with a 30 minute reserve . . . this strikes me as being
an "emergency" mode of operation). We've suggested and demonstrated
many times that practical electrical endurance approaching or
exceeding fuel limited endurance is possible.
I just tested a 17 a.h. battery that I've had laying around the
shop for a number of years. I thought it was about 3 years old.
Turns out to have a 1999 date code on it. Test results on this
battery for a 4A load are shown at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
There are simple techniques and low cost tools for KNOWING and
PLANNING for comfortable margins during battery-only operations.
But better yet, put an SD-8 or larger on the vacuum pump pad
and battery sizing and maintenance issues are considerably
reduced.
There are no excuses for an electrical system that is capable
of producing an "emergency" situation in response to component
failure.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
keen prices.
The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
believe and the backup EI system.
FRank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
<<......skip......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!>>
4/8/2005
Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
OC
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: CBA II Good news and bad news |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
Bob,
Thanks for the update. I have held off purchasing one until you have finished
"experimenting".
Mark Banus
Glasair Super II FT
Crimping Wires in VA Beach
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CBA II Good news and bad news |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:18 PM 4/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> 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 . . .
Opened the "smoked" CBA III . . . here's a picture of
the internals.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/CBA2_2.jpg
Turns out that the little guy in the center is an
International Rectifier IRL2910. Ratings for this
device can be found at:
http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irl2910.pdf
This device is NOT capable of performing under
the range of test conditions advertised for the
CBA II. I am completely mystified as to the selection
of this part when there are so many others offered by
International Rectifier and others that would do the job.
For the moment, I have to advise caution with respect
to purchase and use of this product for testing large
batteries. It would probably be fine for small, single
cells. The software is nicely crafted (which is the
real hard part). I'm going to suggest they add some
features to do constant power and constant resistance
discharge tests. It would also be more meaningful if
the battery's capabilities were stated both in ampere
hours and watt-seconds.
By the way. The plastic on the IRL2910 was so damaged
as to make the printing unreadable under ordinary light.
I carry a blue-white LED pocket light in my nerd-pack.
There's a quality of this light source that I've discovered
makes otherwise hidden surface features visible. In this
case, shinning the light on the uniformly black surface
of the transistor raised the letters out of the "fog"
and they became quite readable.
I hope to hear from West_Mountain soon to begin
detailed discussions. There's great potential here but
right now, it's not ready for prime time.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bret Smith" <smithhb@tds.net>
Stan,
This is intriguing...please indulge us. Just throw in a reference to
"crowbar" or "OVP"
Bret
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> I'll contact you offline. I doubt others want to listen to basic
> aerodynamics.
> Do Not Archive
> Stan
>
>
> In a message dated 4/8/2005 5:53:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.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.
>
>
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: | install manuals for kx155 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Thanks, Mike
Rumen
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Mike Larkin; Date: 07:46 AM 4/8/2005
-0700)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
I will send you the pin outs to your email address....
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Mather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: install manuals for kx155
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Mather"
<peter@mather.com>
Rumen
The install manual I bought off Essco covers both 155 and 165 but there
is very little in it over and above the pinouts. I could scan one of the
diagrams and email it to you if that would help. Let me know which
indicator you are using so I get the right one.
Best regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: rd2@evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: install manuals for kx155
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> Hi all,
> I'll be installing an overhauled kx155 (to replace kx170b), but cannot
find
> an install manual for the 155.
> Can anyone point me to the appropriate URL to download it from? I
tried the
> King site, did searches, but the only manual/s that turned up as pdfs
were
> of 165.
>
> Rumen
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
--
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: CBA II Good news and bad news |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:09 AM 4/8/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
>
>Bob,
>
> Thanks for the update. I have held off purchasing one until you have
> finished "experimenting".
>
>Mark Banus
>Glasair Super II FT
>Crimping Wires in VA Beach
I've just updated the .pdf on the website. Go get the latest
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
Bob . . .
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>In a message dated 4/8/2005 6:34:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>jgswartout@earthlink.net writes:
>Who would be skilled at balancing the rotor, besides B&C?
>John
>Aircraft Systems, Rockford, Illinois, has the requisite skills and
equipment.
I keep their phone number right next to my elephant stick. Who can balance
alternators? Nippondenso, Delco, Bosch, Konlen, Ningbo, Unipoint, all those
other Chinese guys, Ford, Mitsubishi, all those other Japanese guys, Iskra,
Lucas....okay, so maybe not Lucas.
The point is that balancing alternators is like the "special sealer" the
dealer want to charge you $375 for when you buy a new car--a way to earn
their Salesmanship merit badge!
If I were selling alternators I think I would start with ones that didn't
need balancing. Am I making too much sense?
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
--Clint Eastwood
Message 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: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/8/2005 10:36:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
emjones@charter.net writes:
If I were selling alternators I think I would start with ones that didn't
need balancing. Am I making too much sense?
Good Morning Eric,
Wouldn't it be nice if we could count on all manufactured products being
fault free?
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.
I have no idea whether or not any of those units you list are well balanced.
I do know that the gentleman had asked where such balancing could be done.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
I'd be very interested in the results (before and after balance specs)
from one or more Nippondenso's (or any brand) sent to these guys.
Ken
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>
>>In a message dated 4/8/2005 6:34:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>>jgswartout@earthlink.net writes:
>>Who would be skilled at balancing the rotor, besides B&C?
>>John
>>Aircraft Systems, Rockford, Illinois, has the requisite skills and
>>
>>
>equipment.
>
>I keep their phone number right next to my elephant stick. Who can balance
>alternators? Nippondenso, Delco, Bosch, Konlen, Ningbo, Unipoint, all those
>other Chinese guys, Ford, Mitsubishi, all those other Japanese guys, Iskra,
>Lucas....okay, so maybe not Lucas.
>
>The point is that balancing alternators is like the "special sealer" the
>dealer want to charge you $375 for when you buy a new car--a way to earn
>their Salesmanship merit badge!
>
>If I were selling alternators I think I would start with ones that didn't
>need balancing. Am I making too much sense?
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>Phone (508) 764-2072
>Email: emjones@charter.net
>
>"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
> --Clint Eastwood
>
>
Message 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: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
I was trying to do all responses off list, but with Greg's comments I'm
forced to respond on list.
Actually, I'm not trying to play mind games. I'm trying to point out that
there is a common misconception among pilots (especially new pilots) that if the
engine quits they will stall. That simply is not true. The original
question was from Michele' and was regarding concern about the PMag not producing
a
spark below 800 RPM. Another lister said, "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." My answer was that is not necessarily true.
I can show you 5 to 8 seconds of zero airspeed (airborne) in a C-172 without
stalling the wing. In fact, depending on the calibration of the airspeed
indicator, I can show you zero airspeed in level, unaccelerated flight in a C-172.
The wing will still be flying, but due to calibration errors and the angle
of attack of the pitot tube to the relative wind, the airspeed indicator will
indicate zero, or very near zero. Don't believe me? Talk to me at the BMA
booth at Sun n Fun on Tues, Wed, or Thur. I don't work for them, just helping.
I can also demonstrate that it is SAFE to lose all power in a C-150 at 200'
AGL and land on the runway from which you departed. It is based on certain
flying techniques and accurate knowledge of and control of AOA. The FAA
suggestion to land straight ahead is the safest action for most GA pilots, however,
there are other, safe valid options if the pilot PLANS for an engine failure on
each takeoff, has PRACTICED, and PROPERLY EXECUTES the maneuver. The
technique can be applied to all airplanes, but the minimum altitude at which the
engine can fail and the pilot still be able to land on the departure runway will
change. The variables are: type of airplane, altitude achieved at power loss,
length of runway, airspeed at power loss, wind direction and strength, and
pilot proficiency.
So, no mind games here. I enjoy teaching other pilots how to optimally
operate an airplane. Wish I had more time to do it. The flying part is easy,
now,
if only I could learn the best design for an electrical system and wire it.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 4/8/2005 5:53:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
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.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <Richard@Riley.net>
Another one for the bit bucket. Mailing lists are getting as bad as usenet.
Do not archive
At 07:45 AM 4/8/05, Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
>I'll contact you offline. I doubt others want to listen to basic
>aerodynamics.
>Do Not Archive
>Stan
>
>
>In a message dated 4/8/2005 5:53:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.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.
>
>
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: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Speedy,
I can't stand the suspense. What are the engine out maneuvers w/engine out on
TO? And, how is one to gauge what the appropriate minimum altitude is for a particular
aircraft? Glide ratio? Wing loading? It may be a little off topic,
though I would think most of the people on this list are pilots and would be
at least mildly interested.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Speedy11@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
I was trying to do all responses off list, but with Greg's comments I'm
forced to respond on list.
Actually, I'm not trying to play mind games. I'm trying to point out that
there is a common misconception among pilots (especially new pilots) that if the
engine quits they will stall. That simply is not true. The original
question was from Michele' and was regarding concern about the PMag not producing
a
spark below 800 RPM. Another lister said, "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." My answer was that is not necessarily true.
I can show you 5 to 8 seconds of zero airspeed (airborne) in a C-172 without
stalling the wing. In fact, depending on the calibration of the airspeed
indicator, I can show you zero airspeed in level, unaccelerated flight in a C-172.
The wing will still be flying, but due to calibration errors and the angle
of attack of the pitot tube to the relative wind, the airspeed indicator will
indicate zero, or very near zero. Don't believe me? Talk to me at the BMA
booth at Sun n Fun on Tues, Wed, or Thur. I don't work for them, just helping.
I can also demonstrate that it is SAFE to lose all power in a C-150 at 200'
AGL and land on the runway from which you departed. It is based on certain
flying techniques and accurate knowledge of and control of AOA. The FAA
suggestion to land straight ahead is the safest action for most GA pilots, however,
there are other, safe valid options if the pilot PLANS for an engine failure on
each takeoff, has PRACTICED, and PROPERLY EXECUTES the maneuver. The
technique can be applied to all airplanes, but the minimum altitude at which the
engine can fail and the pilot still be able to land on the departure runway will
change. The variables are: type of airplane, altitude achieved at power loss,
length of runway, airspeed at power loss, wind direction and strength, and
pilot proficiency.
So, no mind games here. I enjoy teaching other pilots how to optimally
operate an airplane. Wish I had more time to do it. The flying part is easy,
now,
if only I could learn the best design for an electrical system and wire it.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 4/8/2005 5:53:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
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.
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: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen" <craig@craigsteffen.net>
Stan,
> there is a common misconception among pilots (especially new pilots)
> that if the
> engine quits they will stall.
But pilots who have completed their training know that's not true.
It's the zero airspeed without a stall that had people squawking.
> stalling the wing. In fact, depending on the calibration of the airspeed
> indicator, I can show you zero airspeed in level, unaccelerated
> flight in a C-172.
> The wing will still be flying, but due to calibration errors and the angle
> of attack of the pitot tube to the relative wind, the airspeed
> indicator will
> indicate zero, or very near zero.
So what you're saying is that you can be at zero INDICATED airspeed
and not be stalled, which is completely different than at zero
airspeed (which implies zero TRUE airspeed). I can fly a plane just
fine too at zero indicated, just put a piece of tape over the pitot
tube before takeoff.
> I can also demonstrate that it is SAFE to lose all power in a C-150 at 200'
> AGL and land on the runway from which you departed.
> So, no mind games here. I enjoy teaching other pilots how to optimally
> operate an airplane. Wish I had more time to do it. The flying
> part is easy, now,
Stan: before people start bickering about this information, let's get
some basics down:
What are you pilot certifications?
How many hours do you have?
Are you a flight instructor? If so, how many people have received
their PPL under your instruction?
Do you have a video of this turn-around maneuver upon power loss on
takeoff?
Craig Steffen
[I do not have a pilot's license, nor any formal education in
aeronautical engineering]
--
craig@craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
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: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv6n6r@comcast.net
I think you missed the original point. The way I read it, the original poster was
saying that at 'normal' approach speeds (and presumably reasonable AOA),
your engine/prop will spin faster than 800RPM even at engine idle power. The
issue isn't whether engine power alone will keep you from stalling (duh) but
whether maintaining normal airspeed/attitude will keep enough air going
through the prop to 'encourage' it above 800RPM even at idle. I kinda think
it will in my RV-6 -- on the ground it idles at about 500RPM but at flying
speeds even at idle it's higher for obvious reasons.
I've never explored that concept to the edges of the envelope however. Maybe
we could discuss it from that angle?
Randall Henderson
I think you missed the original point. The way I read it, the original poster was
saying that at 'normal' approach speeds (and presumably reasonable AOA),
your engine/prop will spin faster than 800RPM even at engine idle power. The
issue isn't whether engine power alone will keep you from stalling (duh) but
whether maintaining normal airspeed/attitude will keep enough air going
through the prop to 'encourage' it above 800RPM even at idle. I kinda think
it will in my RV-6 -- on the ground it idles at about 500RPM but at flying
speeds even at idle it's higher for obvious reasons.
I've never explored that concept to the edges of the envelope however. Maybe
we could discuss it from that angle?
Randall Henderson
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: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>I'd be very interested in the results (before and after balance specs)
>from one or more Nippondenso's (or any brand) sent to these guys.
>Ken
Ken,
You have an excellent point.
Another is that if you really want to balance something try THE PROPELLER,
then the engine, then the wheels, then the checkbook.
These are far more important.
Eric
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: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/8/2005 12:49:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Speedy11@aol.com writes:
So, no mind games here. I enjoy teaching other pilots how to optimally
operate an airplane. Wish I had more time to do it. The flying part is
easy, now,
if only I could learn the best design for an electrical system and wire it.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
_www.rv-8a.net_ (http://www.rv-8a.net)
Good Afternoon Stan,
Just as there really is no BEST way to handle an engine failure on takeoff,
there is no BEST design for your electrical system.
As Always, It All Depends!
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I agree,
If you look at the diameter of the rotating mass of the alt it is tiny
in comparison to the prop.
Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell you the results can be
dramatic!
Frank
You have an excellent point.
Another is that if you really want to balance something try THE
PROPELLER, then the engine, then the wheels, then the checkbook.
These are far more important.
Eric
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: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Frank, what model Facet pump is it? I've been wondering where to find
out how much mine draws. It came from Aircraft Spruce without any
documentation. Facet No. 478360. Haven't been able to figure out how
to use my el cheapo multitester to measure draw, and don't know if it
would hurt the pump to run it dry, or if it would draw the same dry as
pushing fuel.
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: Battery life
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
keen prices.
The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
believe and the backup EI system.
FRank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
<<......skip......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!>>
4/8/2005
Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
OC
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: Battery life |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Afternoon, John....
>>I've been wondering where to find out how much mine draws.<<
I did a quick search on Google, using "Facet 478360 current draw" as the
search terms, and BINGO! ... It pointed me to someplace called the
Aeroelectric Connection! Imagine that! <G>
Anyway...here's what it said:
The *478360* draws 1 amp max. The 40108 draws 1.4 amps max
Harley Dixon
John Swartout wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
>Frank, what model Facet pump is it? I've been wondering where to find
>out how much mine draws. It came from Aircraft Spruce without any
>documentation. Facet No. 478360. Haven't been able to figure out how
>to use my el cheapo multitester to measure draw, and don't know if it
>would hurt the pump to run it dry, or if it would draw the same dry as
>pushing fuel.
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
>for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
>same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
>keen prices.
>
>The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
>believe and the backup EI system.
>
>FRank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>bakerocb@cox.net
>To: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
><<......skip......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!>>
>
>4/8/2005
>
>Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
>
>OC
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Mine are 40106. This is the 4 to 6psi pump without a checkvalve. It's
the little square solid state unit. Incidently these are sold by most of
the autoparts shops under the Purolator name....Useful if one should die
500 miles away from home.
I can't quite remember but I think mine were about 1 to 1.5 amps. They
will draw more current pumping fuel I think.
Running these types dry does not seem to hurt them. I am told the
rotovane high pressure FI pumps must not be run dry...Not that I have
ever sucked a tank dry in 350 hours o flying nor do I intend to.
You'll need a ammeter shunt for your multimeter to measure the current
draw.
Facet has a web site (do a google search) with lots of tech info. They
may have what your looking for.
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: Battery life
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
--> <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Frank, what model Facet pump is it? I've been wondering where to find
out how much mine draws. It came from Aircraft Spruce without any
documentation. Facet No. 478360. Haven't been able to figure out how
to use my el cheapo multitester to measure draw, and don't know if it
would hurt the pump to run it dry, or if it would draw the same dry as
pushing fuel.
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: Battery life
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
keen prices.
The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
believe and the backup EI system.
FRank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
<<......skip......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!>>
4/8/2005
Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
OC
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: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
I agree,
(For the most part)
I do have about 2 cents I like to throw in
There have been a number of alternator bracket, bracket to case bolt, and
other failures disclosed by this list.
In this installation, the alternator is running around 11,000 RPM on take
off and climb, and just under 10,000 RPM at cruise. No problem for the
alternator but if it is out of balance and is sympathetic with some other
rotating mass there can be a problem between them. Like the bracket and
bolts between the Alternator and the Engine case.
If I thought I had an out of balance alternator, I would first remove it,
hold in the palm of my hand and rotate it as best I could. This would detect
any bearing problems, but doubt you could detect any balance problems. Bad
bearings are the main source of alternator vibrations. The best way to make
sure you don't have bearing problems is put new ones in. If you're confident
that bearings were most likely not the source of the vibration, you can work
on detecting the balance problem.
While the Alternator is torn down for bearings look for bright spots on
the Rotor poles where they have been hitting the windings inside the case.
If you find them, stop there reassemble, and use it for core on a new
alternator. If you don't find bright spots, Clean or better, have the rotor
cleaned by a shop, then suspend the rotor, at the points where the bearings
ride, on two leveled straight edges. Mark it so you can detect any tendency
of the heavy side to always settle down. If it has a heavy side once again
you got yourself a good core there. Don't try to balance it yourself.
Investigation of suspected vibration sources is worthwhile in that
vibrations hurt things and that where the real expense comes in.
Something else for the balance list, wheel pants, they are harmonic with
some rotating mass on the aircraft and can really give some problems at
times.
I hope this gives some insight. The English language is a beautiful thing
but sometimes it just doesn't lend itself well to communication.
John D.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator help
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> I agree,
>
> If you look at the diameter of the rotating mass of the alt it is tiny
> in comparison to the prop.
>
> Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell you the results can be
> dramatic!
>
> Frank
>
>
> You have an excellent point.
>
> Another is that if you really want to balance something try THE
> PROPELLER, then the engine, then the wheels, then the checkbook.
>
> These are far more important.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
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: | Balance, Was: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/8/2005 3:43:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
frank.hinde@hp.com writes:
I agree,
If you look at the diameter of the rotating mass of the alt it is tiny
in comparison to the prop.
Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell you the results can be
dramatic!
Frank
Good Afternoon Frank,
I have absolutely no idea of how good the balance is for automotive
alternators. I do know and have experience with poorly balanced aircraft alternators.
The Permold case Continental engines have gear driven front mounted
alternators. There are many problems with that arrangement other than just the
balance. We have found many alternators that came brand new directly from
Continental that were badly out of specification. There was a very low quality
bearing on the "back" end of the alternator that was prone to failure. That bearing
has been superceded by a more robust bearing, but balancing has helped that
alternator a lot.
There were several different manufacturers of alternators for that
application. all of them had some problem with the small bearing. Some were worse
than others. Balancing a small component like an alternator that is turning
less than eight thousand RPM may not seem important. Fact is, it may not be,
unless that imbalance causes a fifty cent bearing to fail and that failure
causes the gear to start grinding up the engine.
I was flying a friend's airplane at seventeen thousand feet when that
bearing failed. We landed within thirty minutes of the failure. The engine was
trashed, metal in all the bearing surfaces. It was a brand new Boutique built
engine with only thirty-five hours since the installation.
I am still not enamored with having that front mounted gear driven
alternator, but the engine is such a good engine that I will live with a poor
drive
setup until someone comes up with a better arrangement. Meanwhile, I do
everything I can to assure myself that the alternator is running as true as it
can
be made to run. Cheap insurance.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
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
Hmmm..
A 44" pitch prop on an Zenith 801 with a 0-360... I think that might be a little
under propped. It will accelerate good though.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Ok still can't find a standard ND alternator pulley (2 1/2) but I can
find an aftermarket 3 1/4" pulley. At say 1000 RPM on a long IFR decent
with everything running the alt will be turning at 2600RPM with this
pulley.
Is there a way to tell easily if this Toyota Camry will pump out enough
amps at this speed?...Is there a chart somewhere that shows amps vs RPM
for this unit??
Thanks
Frank
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: | Prop Balance, was: Balance, Was: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 04/08/2005 3:06:47 PM Central Standard Time,
BobsV35B@aol.com writes:
Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell you the results can be
dramatic!
>>>>
Agreed! Just had mine done by Rodney Douglas at Douglas Aviation, Muhlenberg
Co. KY (M21) and the results are worth every $$$.
Mark Phillips - no commision, just a happy camper...
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: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
John
Not sure where you are getting you "normal" alternator speeds as
intended by the auto manufacturer. My van turns approximately 3300 RPM @
75 MPH highway speeds. The alternator pulley is 2-3/8 " and the crank
pulley is 7-3/8 ". This gives an alternator speed "as intended by
Chrysler" of 7-3/8 / 2-3/8 X 3300 = 10,250 RPM at highway speeds and @ a
500 RPM idle of approx. 1500 RPM. During "hard" acceleration when the
transmission shifts near 4500 RPM or even more, the alternator is
turning at least 14,000 RPM. These numbers are for a totally stock Dodge
van 5.9 litre (360 cu in) engine, with 3.90 diff ratio and 137 amp
factory original Denso alternator . Small four cylinder cars will
obviously rev faster but I don't know the pulley ratios for them so
can't comment on alternator RPM. I suspect the pulley ratios would be
adjusted accordingly such that the alternator RPM is approximately the
same as my truck. I guess what I'm saying is that for the Chrysler built
trucks that I've been driving for the past 25 years the 9000 RPM you
seem to worry about as being "high" is quite well within the "normal"
range. With your 2-3/4 " pulley and a max. engine speed of 2500 RPM you
could have a crank pulley of 11-1/4 " and be within the speeds chosen by
Chrysler.
Just as a side note with respect to internally vs externally regulated
alternators, Chrysler has incorporated the voltage regulator within the
engine control computer on this vehicle and the alternator has both ends
of the field windings present as terminals on the outside as well as the
"B" lead making this a three terminal alternator with all functional
connections readily accessible. This is an observation that not "all"
automotive alternators are going with internal regulation.
Bob McC
John Swartout wrote:
>--> 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
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: mprather <mprather@spro.net>
This sounds like it might be THE alternator for electron hungry airplane
systems installations..
What year is this vehicle?
Thanks for sharing the info.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
Robert McCallum wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>John
>
>Not sure where you are getting you "normal" alternator speeds as
>intended by the auto manufacturer. My van turns approximately 3300 RPM @
>75 MPH highway speeds. The alternator pulley is 2-3/8 " and the crank
>pulley is 7-3/8 ". This gives an alternator speed "as intended by
>Chrysler" of 7-3/8 / 2-3/8 X 3300 = 10,250 RPM at highway speeds and @ a
>500 RPM idle of approx. 1500 RPM. During "hard" acceleration when the
>transmission shifts near 4500 RPM or even more, the alternator is
>turning at least 14,000 RPM. These numbers are for a totally stock Dodge
>van 5.9 litre (360 cu in) engine, with 3.90 diff ratio and 137 amp
>factory original Denso alternator . Small four cylinder cars will
>obviously rev faster but I don't know the pulley ratios for them so
>can't comment on alternator RPM. I suspect the pulley ratios would be
>adjusted accordingly such that the alternator RPM is approximately the
>same as my truck. I guess what I'm saying is that for the Chrysler built
>trucks that I've been driving for the past 25 years the 9000 RPM you
>seem to worry about as being "high" is quite well within the "normal"
>range. With your 2-3/4 " pulley and a max. engine speed of 2500 RPM you
>could have a crank pulley of 11-1/4 " and be within the speeds chosen by
>Chrysler.
>
>Just as a side note with respect to internally vs externally regulated
>alternators, Chrysler has incorporated the voltage regulator within the
>engine control computer on this vehicle and the alternator has both ends
>of the field windings present as terminals on the outside as well as the
>"B" lead making this a three terminal alternator with all functional
>connections readily accessible. This is an observation that not "all"
>automotive alternators are going with internal regulation.
>
>Bob McC
>
>
>John Swartout wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | Nuckoll's Paper on Electrical System Reliability |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja@starpower.net>
Bob,
Your referenced paper is excellent on all counts and clearly spells out
the logic you have long advocated.
You might want to note that Figure 17-7 (referenced on page 17-12,
second paragraph)is missing. It appears that the referenced figure
should be the one shown as Figure 17-8. Changing the existing figure
17-8 to 17-7 would appear to fix this.
In Figure 17-1, shouldn't the "F" and "B" markings at the Alternator
symbol be swapped?
There are also a few scattered editorial/typo comments I can offer
"off-list" if you let me know whether you are interested. Please
understand none of my comments are in any way meant to be criticism.
I stand in awe of the wealth and substance of material you continuously
generate on this list. I only wonder if you ever sleep!!
Jim McCulley
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: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Matt;
It's a 1996 Dodge B2500 Wagon (full size window van with seats) Dual air
conditioning, SLT luxury trim package, power everything, trailer towing
package and heated rear window. Depending on the options, Chrysler
installed either 81 A, 117 A, or 137 A alternators on these vehicles,
which is why I mention the options above. According to the factory
service manual, all of these alternators are a similar configuration and
all are Denso brand. In further reading the shop manual it seems that
there is a temperature sensor for the battery also connected to the
engine control computer, so the voltage regulator may be fairly
sophisticated, taking into account battery temperature to decide on what
the correct charge voltage should be. I don't know if it bears any
relevance but this is a Canadian built vehicle.
Bob McC
mprather wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: mprather <mprather@spro.net>
>
>This sounds like it might be THE alternator for electron hungry airplane
>systems installations..
>
>What year is this vehicle?
>
>Thanks for sharing the info.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Notall alternators are created equal....I bought the ND Toyota Camry
unit because it has a stella reputation...Not all of them do.
Now can someone find me a pulley?...:)...My local junkyard has a pile of
cores that I can search thru apparently...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
--> <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Matt;
It's a 1996 Dodge B2500 Wagon (full size window van with seats) Dual air
conditioning, SLT luxury trim package, power everything, trailer towing
package and heated rear window. Depending on the options, Chrysler
installed either 81 A, 117 A, or 137 A alternators on these vehicles,
which is why I mention the options above. According to the factory
service manual, all of these alternators are a similar configuration and
all are Denso brand. In further reading the shop manual it seems that
there is a temperature sensor for the battery also connected to the
engine control computer, so the voltage regulator may be fairly
sophisticated, taking into account battery temperature to decide on what
the correct charge voltage should be. I don't know if it bears any
relevance but this is a Canadian built vehicle.
Bob McC
mprather wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: mprather <mprather@spro.net>
>
>This sounds like it might be THE alternator for electron hungry
>airplane systems installations..
>
>What year is this vehicle?
>
>Thanks for sharing the info.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
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 |
|
"AEROELECTRIC" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi Guys,
I'm not out stumping here, but just a quick note to let everyone know that I
now have the Elecroluminescent light strips in stock. These are 1" x 36"
flatlite EL strips in the natural 'blue/green' color, that can be trimmed to
a shorter length if you desire. The light draws very little current, and
comes with a nice smal 1" square 12VDC inverter. This light can be dimmed
using your regular dimmer as well.
Just an FYI, and my apologies in advance for the intrusion. There were just
a LOT of people that wanted to know when we finally got these things in
stock.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, Minneapolis
Do Not Archive
http://www.steinair.com
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner->aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
n801bh@netzero.com
>Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:06 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com"
><n801bh@netzero.com>
>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
>Hmmm..
>A 44" pitch prop on an Zenith 801 with a 0-360... I think that might be
a >little under propped. It will accelerate good though.
>Ben Haas
>N801BH
>www.haaspowerair.com
Hi Ben. My rationale for the 44" pitch is this--tell me you think it's
erroneous:
The factory demonstrator has a 56" prop. When I took a demo ride, I
never saw more than 95 mph on the ASI. That was about 6 years ago.
Since then, they tell me, they are seeing 110 mph in cruise. I don't
know if this is due to the strut fairings, tweaking of the slats,
tweaking of the flaperons, or all or none of the above, or whether it is
indeed true. But A C-172 with less hp cruises 115+ with a 56" prop.
Alaskan bush pilots use mostly Borer props on their Supercubs--pitched
at 41 to 44 inches. With the stock prop, (also 56" IIRC) Supercubs
cruise around 100-105 mph. With the Borer, they run 2500 rpm and cruise
about 95-100. But takeoff time and distance is substantially better.
The 801 and the Supercub are both slow STOL airplanes, about the same
size and similar performance. I also will be flying mostly on floats.
My theory is that an airplane as draggy as the 801 is not using the 56"
prop very efficiently. I think by reducing the pitch and increasing the
diameter to the maximum that ground clearance will allow (I know of one
with an 82" diameter prop), the prop will be more efficient and probably
cruise at 95 mph, on wheels or floats.
What do you think?
Are you flying yours yet? How's your speed?
John
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: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
My new ND 55 amp came with an output graph. FWIW, it starts making
juice at about 1200 rpm, and output climbs rapidly to 27 amps at 2000
rpm. Then the rate of increase begins to diminish with increasing
speed.
39 amps at 3000
47 amps at 4000
51 amps at 5000
53 amps at 6000
that's as high as the graph goes.
Can't ASSume other ND alternators would have a similar profile, much
less Toyota alternators, but maybe it suggests something.
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: AeroElectric-List: Alternators
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Ok still can't find a standard ND alternator pulley (2 1/2) but I can
find an aftermarket 3 1/4" pulley. At say 1000 RPM on a long IFR decent
with everything running the alt will be turning at 2600RPM with this
pulley.
Is there a way to tell easily if this Toyota Camry will pump out enough
amps at this speed?...Is there a chart somewhere that shows amps vs RPM
for this unit??
Thanks
Frank
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Oops-- Sorry Bob, you caught me in an ASSumption. Since the alternator
comes with an output graph which ends at 6000 rpm, I assumed that this
is a reasonable limit which OEM wouldn't mess with. But I realize,
since you brought me up short, that one can't assume anything. Maybe
the graph ends at 6000 rpm because by then it has reached advertised
capacity, and won't put out any more no matter how fast you turn it.
Interesting that the very nice document that came with the alternator
does not have a DO NOT EXCEED speed.
I haven't any idea who wrote it, but my generic alternator bracket from
Aircraft Spruce came with a sheet suggesting some automotive alternators
that make reasonably good--and cheap, if you are daring enough to get
them at a junkyard(@@)--airplane alternators. This anonymous writer said
that some builders feel more comfortable using a larger pulley, or
getting a smaller ring gear for their engine. An air pump pulley from a
mid-70's Chevy Camaro, which is a deep-V 4" pulley which apparently
requires some "slight modification," whatever that means, was suggested
as a replacement for the alt pulley.
Believe me, the term "experimental aviation" is appropriate. Once you
leave the certified reservation, you are in the wilderness, and reliable
guides are hard to find and hard to qualify. All information, opinions,
and particularly testimony (which springs from authority, my college
speech teacher told me)is welcome.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
<robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
John
Not sure where you are getting you "normal" alternator speeds as
intended by the auto manufacturer. My van turns approximately 3300 RPM @
75 MPH highway speeds. The alternator pulley is 2-3/8 " and the crank
pulley is 7-3/8 ". This gives an alternator speed "as intended by
Chrysler" of 7-3/8 / 2-3/8 X 3300 = 10,250 RPM at highway speeds and @ a
500 RPM idle of approx. 1500 RPM. During "hard" acceleration when the
transmission shifts near 4500 RPM or even more, the alternator is
turning at least 14,000 RPM. These numbers are for a totally stock Dodge
van 5.9 litre (360 cu in) engine, with 3.90 diff ratio and 137 amp
factory original Denso alternator . Small four cylinder cars will
obviously rev faster but I don't know the pulley ratios for them so
can't comment on alternator RPM. I suspect the pulley ratios would be
adjusted accordingly such that the alternator RPM is approximately the
same as my truck. I guess what I'm saying is that for the Chrysler built
trucks that I've been driving for the past 25 years the 9000 RPM you
seem to worry about as being "high" is quite well within the "normal"
range. With your 2-3/4 " pulley and a max. engine speed of 2500 RPM you
could have a crank pulley of 11-1/4 " and be within the speeds chosen by
Chrysler.
Just as a side note with respect to internally vs externally regulated
alternators, Chrysler has incorporated the voltage regulator within the
engine control computer on this vehicle and the alternator has both ends
of the field windings present as terminals on the outside as well as the
"B" lead making this a three terminal alternator with all functional
connections readily accessible. This is an observation that not "all"
automotive alternators are going with internal regulation.
Bob McC
John Swartout wrote:
>--> 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
>
>
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>
Hmmm. Lately my Google searches have been producing a lot of fluff and
not much of what I'm looking for. I tried a search for "alternator
pulley" and found practically nothing of value, yet Frank turned me on
to this:
http://www.cantonracingproducts.com/alternators/alternators.html, which
has exactly what I'm looking for. This was the 17th item the search
turned up--I just gave up too soon.
Anyway thanks for the dope on the fuel pump.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Harley
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley
<harley@agelesswings.com>
Afternoon, John....
>>I've been wondering where to find out how much mine draws.<<
I did a quick search on Google, using "Facet 478360 current draw" as the
search terms, and BINGO! ... It pointed me to someplace called the
Aeroelectric Connection! Imagine that! <G>
Anyway...here's what it said:
The *478360* draws 1 amp max. The 40108 draws 1.4 amps max
Harley Dixon
John Swartout wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
<jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
>Frank, what model Facet pump is it? I've been wondering where to find
>out how much mine draws. It came from Aircraft Spruce without any
>documentation. Facet No. 478360. Haven't been able to figure out how
>to use my el cheapo multitester to measure draw, and don't know if it
>would hurt the pump to run it dry, or if it would draw the same dry as
>pushing fuel.
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
>for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
>same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
>keen prices.
>
>The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
>believe and the backup EI system.
>
>FRank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>bakerocb@cox.net
>To: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
><<......skip......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!>>
>
>4/8/2005
>
>Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
>
>OC
>
>
>
>
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: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
The 801 and the Supercub are both slow STOL airplanes, about the same
size and similar performance. I also will be flying mostly on floats.
My theory is that an airplane as draggy as the 801 is not using the 56"
prop very efficiently. I think by reducing the pitch and increasing the
diameter to the maximum that ground clearance will allow (I know of one
with an 82" diameter prop), the prop will be more efficient and probably
cruise at 95 mph, on wheels or floats.
What do you think?
Are you flying yours yet? How's your speed?
John
Hi John. Your rationale is correct. You didn't mention increasing the diameter
as the bigger "disc" of air being moved will definately pull the motor rpms down
to an acceptable range. I was running a 84" dia Ivo magnum series paddle design
and had it cut down to 80" to increase my take off rpm. As a rough figure
you gain 110 rpm for every inch of decrease of dia on this style of prop. I have
60+ hours on my plane and it is a VERY draggy plane for sure. My redrive ratio
is 1.43 and just this last week I removed my restrictor plate to increase
the power of my motor a little now that I know the plane isn't trying to break
in half at the firewall. I probably shouldn't have installed a engine with several
times the rated HP needed for the 801 but after all it is an "experimental".
Ha. Go to my website for more info on the fire breathing monster and if
ya got any more questions contact me off list or use <stol83001> on yahoo messenger.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
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! --
|