Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:17 AM - Re: Re: Precise Aircraft Manuevering (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 03:21 AM - Re: Six Pack Spacing (BobsV35B@aol.com)
3. 03:38 AM - Re: How to Wire an Aircraft (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 04:47 AM - Test (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 05:31 AM - Strictly a test (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 06:40 AM - Audio inputs... how to connect? (Matthew Brandes)
7. 10:38 AM - [Please Read!] Matronics List Server Back Online... (dralle@matronics.com (Matt Dralle))
8. 10:47 AM - Re: Printed circuit board question (D Wysong)
9. 11:23 AM - Re: Re: CBA II battery analyzer (DonVS)
10. 11:56 AM - OVP, transzorbs and diodes (rv-9a-online)
11. 02:43 PM - Re: Contact Arc Suppression (Eric M. Jones)
12. 02:49 PM - Test sent at 1648 CDT (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 05:29 PM - Re: Contact Arc Suppression (glaesers)
14. 06:54 PM - Re: Another test (George Braly)
15. 08:32 PM - Re: A for real Load Dump Fried Instrument. (George Braly)
16. 08:41 PM - Precise Aircraft Maneuvering (BobsV35B@aol.com)
17. 08:54 PM - Re: Re: Alternators (Charlie Kuss)
18. 08:54 PM - Re: Six Pack Spacing (Charlie Kuss)
19. 08:58 PM - Re: Re: CBA II battery analyzer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: Precise Aircraft Manuevering |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/9/2005 7:53:49 P.M. Central Standard Time,
glastar@3rivers.net writes:
I'd like to hear from "Old Bob" on this subject.
Best...................Buck
Good Morning Buck,
As long as you asked!
There is a gentleman named David Rodgers (sp?) who has a doctorate in
mathematics and teaches aerodynamics to the Naval Aviators at the US Naval Academy.
He also owns a Debonair which is based at an airport that has a runway
which departs over a body of water. He has developed a turn back scenario that
will allow him to get his Debonair back to the takeoff runway if the engine
should fail at an inopportune time.
Bobby Younkin takes off at airshows in his Twin Beech Model 18 and does a
beautiful aileron roll on takeoff.
I dare say that all of us could be taught to do an aileron roll on takeoff
and that all of us could be taught to make doctor Rodgers' turn back maneuver.
Is it advisable? That All Depends!
I try to teach my students something along that line. It can be done, but
the risk is generally not worth taking for most of us.
I have a strong interest in the turn back maneuver and I have done some
personal testing of the process.
Back in the "Olden Days", (spring of 1946 to be exact) I was student pilot
flying a side by side Taylorcraft when the engine quit on takeoff. I dutifully
dropped the nose, as I had been taught, and looked at a wooded area straight
ahead in an effort to find the softest spot to crash.
Something drew my attention to my left where I noted a few clearings and a
road or two. I made a ninety to the left and looked for the softest spots in
that vicinity. Once again, my peripheral vision brought my eyes to the left
and I noted that a portion of the airport from which I had just departed
seemed within reach. I made another ninety to the left, scared a J-3 pilot that
was taking off on the runway from which I had just departed and landed
downwind.
Some ten or twelve years (and four or five thousand hours flight time)
later, I had a similar experience in a TriPacer. Once again, my first choice
was
straight ahead. Did not look good. Second choice was to the left. Looked
doable. Made a turn, but then ---- a portion of the airport beckoned me. I
turned further left and landed downwind in a portion of the airport normally used
for model airplane flying.
That led me to experimenting with my Bonanza as to just what would be the
practicality of a turn back maneuver. Suffice it to say that I decided it
could be done with my early, lightweight straight model 35 bonanza if I had at
least six hundred feet and I did everything just right. I have not done the
flight tests with my current much heavier Bonanza, but I believe it could be
done after reaching a thousand feet or so.
Do I teach my students to do it?
No, I do not. I teach them to plan for straight ahead, but I do relate my
own experience and try to let them know that a turn is OK -- IF the speed is
adequate and their mental state is up to the task. My recommendation is to
land straight ahead doing the best they can with what is available. If
conditions seem really good, a turn back is not forbidden and can be safe if properly
conducted.
Nowadays, I do reference Bobby Younkin's roll on takeoff when I discuss that
almost anything can be done with an airplane if the training is adequate and
the conditions are "right".
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 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: Six Pack Spacing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/9/2005 11:40:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
hebeard@comcast.net writes:
For Tom Barter. Guru Tony Bingelis before his death recommended the minimum
distance between instrument centers for 3 1/8" instruments as 3 1/2".
Harley E.
Good Morning Harley,
That is a reasonable ball park figure. Unfortunately, it won't work for
all instruments and it is wasteful for others.
As an example, Beechcraft regularly uses three and three eighths inch on
production airplanes for the older AN style instrument cases. A Century One
combination Roll Controller and Turn Coordinator measures a full three and
one half inches side to side and top to bottom.
Personally, when space is at a premium, I decide which instruments are to be
used, measure them accurately, (I have found that manufacturers dimensions
are often in error even when the dimensions are given in .001 increments)
then place the holes so that there will be a minimum of one sixteenth of an
inch between all instruments. When measuring, be sure to consider screw heads
that protrude beyond the case itself and light trays that may extend further
than the case.
Back in WW II, the military did have standard sizes that were closely
adhered to. That is not the case today.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: How to Wire an Aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/11/2005 12:58:25 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bhester@hopkinsville.net writes:
One
day there will not be anymore wires to run and zip tie it all up and
your done. I am at the point of adding the last 3-4 wires and then I
start the zip ties.
Good Morning Bobby and Gary,
May I suggest that you consider the use of waxed tie string in lieu of Zip
Ties?
It is cheaper, lighter and does not have knobs on which other components may
foul.
With a little practice, it can be done almost as fast.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Test
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
This test is being sent at 0730 CDT.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Audio inputs... how to connect? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
I'm starting to think about my avionics and audio setup. I wasn't planning
on installing an audio panel as I'll only have a single NAV/COM, so I picked
up a basic PS PM501 Intercom. This will go along with my KX-155 and KLN-89B
(and a marker beacon indicator of some sort).
My question is how to the various components that generate audio input get
wired into an audio system? I'm talking about the add-on type goodies. For
example, I have the AE Fuel Guardian that will generate a tone in your
headset. I have an MP3 player I want to wire in. My engine monitor will
generate a tone when there is a warning. I think the GPS will generate a
tone when you reach a waypoint.
How do all this things get wired into the intercom? The PM501 has a single
"Music Input". Is there some sort of audio mixer board? Am I going to HAVE
to purchase a real audio panel to support all these devices that just
generate a tone? Do the audio panels have multiple audio inputs to support
these various tones? If I must purchase an audio panel, is there a 'basic'
audio panel that supports the multiple inputs without all the other "stuff"
that I don't need?
Confused,
Matthew Brandes,
Van's RV-9A (Finish Kit)
#90569
<http://www.n523rv.com/> http://www.n523rv.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | [Please Read!] Matronics List Server Back Online... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dralle@matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
System problems continue to plague the Matronics Email server.
Incoming List mail was being rejected from about 12am Monday morning
until about 10am PDT Monday 4/11. It is unclear at this time what is
causing the system problem, but I am feverishly working on the issue.
I had to restore a list subscriptions database from an April 6th backup
because all of the list files had been truncated. I then reran all of
the subscribe/unsubscribe requests since the 6th. You may have just
received a subscribe/unsubscribe request and the FAQ if you've
subscribed/unsubscribed since the 6th.
At this time new posts are being processed and operation should be
considered normal.
More as information developes...
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin
DO NOT ARCHIVE
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
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: Printed circuit board question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Mark -
Check out the Bussmann blocks available from www.waytekwire.com.
They're rear terminal fuse flocks that take the plastic "blade" fuses
(ATC/ATO) like those used in automobiles.
They're small (3.5" x 5"), have 20 fuse positions, and can be 'broken'
to support more than 1 bus (the standard block can feed all 20 fuses
from 1 bus OR 14 from one and 6 from another... although you could
Dremel your way into a 10 + 10 configuration without a problem). When a
fuse is installed, one side picks up the bus while the other picks up
your feed wire via a crimped terminal. Pretty clean installation!
Plenty of room for diodes in the back, too!
D Wysong
Long-EZ (generating piles o' dust!!)
-------------
Mark Hall wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Hall" <mhall67@carolina.rr.com>
>
>
> Has any one ever used a printed circuit board for a fuse block? Or made a fuse
block from a printed circuit board? What would be the problems if you did
something like this? For me it would really be nice if my connections came out
the back instead out the side like all the ones you can buy now. And it would
be nice if you could put the main bus and the essential bus on the same board
with a break between them and a spot for the diode. The wiring would be the
same as the Z13 just all in one spot. Any thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: CBA II battery analyzer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
Bob,
I bought a CBAII at about the same time as you did. Would you be willing to
share your mods so that I can make mine more likely to survive? Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: CBA II battery analyzer
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Interesting. I did a google search for the CBA II and found several people
>who sell it.
> I wonder if powerwerx.com is the source. I don't think West Mountain
> Radio has any thing to do with the design or build of the product???
>
>Mountain West Radio $99.95, Power werx $94.95
>
>The products appear to be identical.
>
> Does the actual product say who makes it?
Nothing obvious.
I've completed the dissection and analysis of the failure on
my CBA II. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WestMountain_CBAII.pdf
This isn't a really "bad" design but it is thermally marginal
with respect to meeting specifications under the inevitable
variability of hand assembled production.
I haven't heard from West Mountain . . . and even if I
do, they can't do much about it if they don't build the
thing. Perhaps the actual designers will run across my
article is a net-search and elect to revisit their design
decisions. All-in-all, it's a slick product and with some
care will perform as specified. I plan to use mine (with
modifications) a great deal.
If anyone runs across some information that suggests the
original source for this product, I'd like to hear about it.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OVP, transzorbs and diodes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
I've been thinking (always a dangerous event around here):
We've had some discussion on OVP and some discussion on relay snubber
diodes.
I accept the 'new/old' wisdom of using Transzorbs rather than diodes as
relay coil snubbers... faster turn-off and less chance for arcing.
However, in an OVP circuit consisting of an OVM-14 crowbar circuit
configured to shut down the field current *AND* turn off the S701-1
alternator B-lead contactor, it strikes me that delaying opening of the
contactor somewhat may be a good thing. It would allow the field
current to collapse and shut the alternator down 'gracefully' before
opening the B-lead.
I know that in a true overvoltage scenario, you want to get the
alternator off-line quickly, so this may be slightly counterproductive.
In a nuisance trip, or if you switch the alternator off-line with a
heavy load (pitot heat, lights), this may help prevent the (Van's)
alternator from being damaged.
Sooo.... It may make more sense to use a regular diode snubber for the
OVP contactor. The negative effects of contact arcing should be low,
because in normal operation, this contactor should only be breaking a
few amps of current during shut-down.
All of this assumes that the internal regulator is not bootstrapped by
the alternator, so that turning off the field really does shut it down.
Does anyone know if the Van's alternators can be shut off by turning off
the field current?
Vern Little
--
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: Contact Arc Suppression |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
The automotive industry has been moving gung-ho towards 42 volt systems. The
gung-ho slowed considerably when it was generally appreciated that there was
no way to make a contact arc extinguish reliably. This could lead to
horrendous consequences where switches or relays were opened and the current
just continued in a bright arc until something melted into a puddle. The
progress towards 42 volt is now more tentative.
A standard B+ contactor for disconnecting the alternator in the case of an
alternator runaway may not work if the contactor is suddenly presented with
a voltage much above 13-16 VDC, because the arc may not extinguish.
Arcing of contacts is typical of DC systems with voltages much higher than
standard automotive voltages. A huge amount of engineering has gone into
making contacts survive. Many engineers have spent their entire career on
the subject. A couple years ago Tyco engineers looked at the problem and
someone decided that this was a perfect application for their Polyswitch.
The Tyco refs are:
http://www.circuitprotection.com/appnotes/AppNote_42V_PR.pdf
Remarkably, if you choose the right polyswitch there is NO CONTACT ARC AT
ALL.
To explain how this can be
http://www.periheliondesign.com/downloads/Polyswitch.pdf --imagine a
Polyswitch across the contacts, in parallel with the contact gap. I have
used a relay to illustrate this, but it works the same in switches and
connectors. Everything is OFF. The Polyswitch in its OFF condition has a
very low resistance, thus for an instant the Polyswitch actually conducts
before going into its high resistance mode. (This is not optimal in all
circumstances but we can examine it later).
When the relay is energized, the contacts close. As a general rule, this
does not cause arcing below 330 volts or so. The Polyswitch is now shorted
or bypassed by the path through the relay contacts. As a consequence, the
Polyswitch goes cold and reverts to its Low Resistance state.
When the relay is turned off, the Polyswitch is still shorted across the
contact gap, and as a result, prevents any contact arcing. In an instant the
Polyswitch heats up and goes into its high resistance state--thus turning
off the circuit.
There will be more on this as time allows, but the key point here is that
the B+ contactor should probably be equipped with such a scheme to ensure
that the B+ line is really cut off. Contactors, relays, connectors, and
switches will last about forever with such a scheme.
Caveat: Nobody said it was easy. Some selection of the proper part is
required. Perhaps some experimenting needs doing.
If you are not convinced that this is a good idea I suggest some reading
about the micro-details of how contacts open. Terrifying reading!
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/app_pdfs/13c3203.pdf
Finally please note the bi-directional transorbs across the coils.
Perhaps Paul Messinger can post additional comments on this
subject.........ahem............
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
" If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in
my name at a Swiss bank. "
--Woody Allen
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: | Test sent at 1648 CDT |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Test
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 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: Contact Arc Suppression |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Eric,
What about your PowerLink Contactor - doesn't that technology scale up well
to 42V? (You say you can get one good for 30V - what's another few volts
among friends ;-)
Wouldn't it work as a B+ contactor for the 12V crowd - as long as you have a
WhackJack on the B lead to limit the voltage? The price is a hurdle, but it
does solve the arcing problem.
Dennis Glaeser
-------------snip------------
The automotive industry has been moving gung-ho towards 42 volt systems. The
gung-ho slowed considerably when it was generally appreciated that there was
no way to make a contact arc extinguish reliably. This could lead to
horrendous consequences where switches or relays were opened and the current
just continued in a bright arc until something melted into a puddle. The
progress towards 42 volt is now more tentative.
A standard B+ contactor for disconnecting the alternator in the case of an
alternator runaway may not work if the contactor is suddenly presented with
a voltage much above 13-16 VDC, because the arc may not extinguish.
--------------snip-------------
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: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
This is another test
George
Do not archive
---
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: A for real Load Dump Fried Instrument. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Bob,
Over the weekend, I saw an encoding altimeter get fried for real by a spike on
a load dump. The spike was about 18 to 20 volts observed on the digital indicator,
but the peaks of the spikes were probably much much higher.
There were multiple transorbs in the circuit.
This particular encoder has a warning not to power it above 16 volts.
Regards, George
---
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: | Precise Aircraft Maneuvering |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/9/2005 7:53:49 P.M. Central Standard Time,
glastar@3rivers.net writes:
I'd like to hear from "Old Bob" on this subject.
Best...................Buck
Good Morning Buck,
As long as you asked!
There is a gentleman named David Rodgers (sp?) who has a doctorate in
mathematics and teaches aerodynamics to the Naval Aviators at the US Naval Academy.
He also owns a Debonair which is based at an airport that has a runway
which departs over a body of water. He has developed a turn back scenario that
will allow him to get his Debonair back to the takeoff runway if the engine
should fail at an inopportune time.
Bobby Younkin takes off at airshows in his Twin Beech Model 18 and does a
beautiful aileron roll on takeoff.
I dare say that all of us could be taught to do an aileron roll on takeoff
and that all of us could be taught to make doctor Rodgers' turn back maneuver.
Is it advisable? That All Depends!
I try to teach my students something along that line. It can be done, but
the risk is generally not worth taking for most of us.
I have a strong interest in the turn back maneuver and I have done some
personal testing of the process.
Back in the "Olden Days", (spring of 1946 to be exact) I was student pilot
flying a side by side Taylorcraft when the engine quit on takeoff. I dutifully
dropped the nose, as I had been taught, and looked at a wooded area straight
ahead in an effort to find the softest spot to crash.
Something drew my attention to my left where I noted a few clearings and a
road or two. I made a ninety to the left and looked for the softest spots in
that vicinity. Once again, my peripheral vision brought my eyes to the left
and I noted that a portion of the airport from which I had just departed
seemed within reach. I made another ninety to the left, scared a J-3 pilot that
was taking off on the runway from which I had just departed and landed
downwind.
Some ten or twelve years (and four or five thousand hours flight time)
later, I had a similar experience in a TriPacer. Once again, my first choice
was
straight ahead. Did not look good. Second choice was to the left. Looked
doable. Made a turn, but then ---- a portion of the airport beckoned me. I
turned further left and landed downwind in a portion of the airport normally used
for model airplane flying.
That led me to experimenting with my Bonanza as to just what would be the
practicality of a turn back maneuver. Suffice it to say that I decided it
could be done with my early, lightweight straight model 35 bonanza if I had at
least six hundred feet and I did everything just right. I have not done the
flight tests with my current much heavier Bonanza, but I believe it could be
done after reaching a thousand feet or so.
Do I teach my students to do it?
No, I do not. I teach them to plan for straight ahead, but I do relate my
own experience and try to let them know that a turn is OK -- IF the speed is
adequate and their mental state is up to the task. My recommendation is to
land straight ahead doing the best they can with what is available. If
conditions seem really good, a turn back is not forbidden and can be safe if properly
conducted.
Nowadays, I do reference Bobby Younkin's roll on takeoff when I discuss that
almost anything can be done with an airplane if the training is adequate and
the conditions are "right".
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 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: RE: Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 12:32 AM 4/11/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 11:41 PM 4/9/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
> <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
> >
> >At 10:49 PM 4/9/2005, you wrote:
> >
> > >Thanks John, this site is fantastic!
> > >I did a search for Mitsubishi alternators that I have directions to for
> > >making externally regulated and came up with part # ALT 3056 a 75 amp unit
> > >for $139.99 NEW PRICE, not reman.
> > >
> > >Also, found a Nippondenso 70 amp NSA #Alt 5067 70 amp Toyoda for $137.79,
> > >again NEW PRICE
> > >
> > >And my favorite, for my Sebring......a 125 amp honker NSA #ALT 6090,
> > >EXTERNALLY regulated for $150.79
> > >
> > >All nice options.....but it appears one needs to change the pulley
> out. Then
> > >there is the matter of making a mount assuming Van's doesn't
> fit. Also, I'm
> > >not familiar with the NSA brand and can't say anything about their
> quality.
> > >
> > >What I really want is an externally regulated 60~75 amp, light weight
> > >Nippondenso unit.
> > >
> > >Marty
>
> Marty, do you really NEED all that snort? The largest full-up IFR
> load analysis I've done on an RV type aircraft has been 28 amps
> which leaves 13 left over for battery maintenance. Unless you're
> planning to run electric seats or toe warmers, the smaller machine
> may suffice nicely.
>
>
> >Marty,
> > If you want a 60 amp ND externally regulated alternator with a V belt
> >pulley, you can ask for one from a 1981-1983 (last years for external
> >regulators) Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. Be sure to specify WITH air
> >conditioning (otherwise you'll get a 40 amp unit) This will get you an
> >alternator that will work with no modifications, right out of the box.
> > The down side of this is: Where do you think all those cars are now?
> >Right, they are in the junk yard! How long do you suppose the parts stores
> >will continue to stock these units? (If you can find one in stock now??)
> >When my alternator releases it's magic smoke in Dubuque, Iowa on a Saturday
> >or Sunday afternoon, I want the parts man to hand me a replacement right
> >away. WHY? Because I don't care to spend 1 or 2 nights at the local motel
> >(plus FedEx overnight shipping charges) while I wait in a strange town for
> >a replacement. I prefer to use an alternator from a vehicle new enough that
> >I can get a replacement for it in 5-8 years. Just something else to
> >consider. Hey, if you don't travel cross country, it's not a big issue.
> >See, I've got this friend........ his name is Murphy. Maybe you know
> him? :-)
> > My current plan is to convert my internally regulated 60 amp ND for an
> >external regulator. However, Bob, Eric Jones & perhaps Paul M. will soon
> >make me change my plans.
>
> Don't understand. If specifying an COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) device
> with external regulation is risky due to scarcity of parts, how is
> modification of another COTS part any less risky? If it has to be
> modified
> before it can be placed in service, it seems that either approach is not
> going to be attractive at the Timbuktu Airdrome.
>
> On the other hand, if one takes the time to craft an alternator with
> a service record approaching or equal to that which B&C sells, then
> perhaps worries about off-home-airport repairs become insignificant
> whether the alternator is modified but plentiful -or- scarce but
> useable out of the box.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
Using a high quality unit like the B & C alternator is a viable approach.
However, I have to marshal my financial resources closely, so the B & C
unit is outside my financial consideration. As a professional mechanic, I
can disassemble an alternator and change out an internal regulator in about
15 minutes. As others have differing mechanical & electrical talent levels,
obviously, this may not be for everyone. I would prefer not to have to
modify anything. I am watching & awaiting developments in this area.
Charlie Kuss
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: Six Pack Spacing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
To expand on Dan's observations below, for the builder using or planning an
upgrade to a Dynon or BMA EFIS Lite G3, I would suggest a spacing of 3
3/4". This will ensure that there is both physical clearance and "visual"
clearance. These units extend rearward from the panel. Allowance must be
made for this, so that the extension of these units doesn't obscure the
pilot's view of neighboring instruments.
Charlie Kuss
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>Something to keep in mind is that a lot of people are "upgrading" to Dynons
>or Blue Mountains and what not. While these instruments do simply "slide
>into" a 3 1/8" hole, they are much larger than most people have left space
>for. Unless you have pretty significant spacing, they might overlap
>adjacent instruments.
>
>Anyway, food for thought in your layout planning.
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <hebeard@comcast.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Six Pack Spacing
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: hebeard@comcast.net
> >
> > For Tom Barter. Guru Tony Bingelis before his death recommended the
>minimum distance between instrument centers for 3 1/8" instruments as 3
>1/2".
> > Harley E.
> >
> >
> > <SCRIPT language=javascript>postamble();</SCRIPT>
> > For Tom Barter. Guru Tony Bingelis before his death recommended the
>minimum distance between instrument centers for 3 1/8" instruments as 3
>1/2".
> >
> >
> > Harley E.
> >
> >
>
>
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: CBA II battery analyzer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:22 AM 4/11/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
>
>Bob,
>I bought a CBAII at about the same time as you did. Would you be willing to
>share your mods so that I can make mine more likely to survive? Don
Hang loose guys. I just had a brief telephone conversation with
Del at West Mountain Radio and I've just sent him a lengthy
e-mail. He's a long-ez pilot -AND- a licensed ham radio operator.
I think we're going to get along just fine.
He told me today that problems with the present design have been
rare. But I wonder if most of his customers use it at much lower
power settings. We'll see . . . and for sure, we'll figure out
how to integrate this really slick idea into our OBAM aircraft
bag of tricks.
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
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! --
|