Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:25 AM - Re: PIDG Crimp Connections (Richard Talbot)
2. 03:33 AM - Re: PIDG Crimp Connections (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 03:59 AM - Re: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 04:38 AM - Re: Battery hard failures (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 05:02 AM - Re: Re: Diodes across relay coils (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 05:05 AM - Re: CBA II battery analyzer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 05:30 AM - Re: Re: CBA II battery analyzer (Gilles Thesee)
8. 05:42 AM - Re: Re: CBA II battery analyzer (John Schroeder)
9. 05:53 AM - Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Eric M. Jones)
10. 06:15 AM - Re: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? (owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com)
11. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: CBA II battery analyzer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 06:45 AM - Re: Re: Diodes across relay coils (George Braly)
13. 06:55 AM - FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Richard Talbot)
14. 07:04 AM - Re: PIDG Crimp Connections (cgalley)
15. 07:43 AM - Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Dj Merrill)
16. 08:07 AM - SD-20 vs L-40 (Peter Mather)
17. 08:15 AM - Re: Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (CozyGirrrl@aol.com)
18. 09:43 AM - Re: Precise Aircraft Maneuvering (Speedy11@aol.com)
19. 10:13 AM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Leo Corbalis)
20. 02:07 PM - Aerospace Logic Molex Tool (R. Craig Chipley)
21. 02:32 PM - Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Jim Jewell)
22. 03:54 PM - Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Greg Young)
23. 04:40 PM - Re: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 05:04 PM - Re: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
25. 06:37 PM - Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Frank & Dorothy)
26. 07:09 PM - Re: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 07:12 PM - Re: SD-20 vs L-40 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 07:33 PM - Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 07:53 PM - Re: Large wire ring terminals was PIDG (Charlie Kuss)
30. 08:25 PM - Re: Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Cecil T Hatfield)
31. 10:03 PM - Re: Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Jim Jewell)
32. 10:35 PM - Re: PIDG Crimp Connections (Guy Buchanan)
33. 10:52 PM - Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Richard Talbot)
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: | PIDG Crimp Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
Thanks Bob,
As always, your recommendations make a lot of sense.
One question: Is there any area of the aircraft these crimps are not
recommended? i.e. in the engine bay?
Richard
-----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: PIDG Crimp Connections
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:00 PM 4/18/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
><rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
>
>I'm wondering if anyone could let me in on when I should use insulated
>versus non-insulated PIDG crimp lugs? I have heard a few builders say
>that they thought the non-insulated lugs were easier to install etc.
Please review the information available at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles.html
but more specifically articles at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf
When you run across anyone who offers suggestions
contrary to the simple-ideas offered above, please
have him/her visit my website and then advise me
where I've gone wrong. If there are modifications
in order for anything published there, I'd be very
pleased to know of it.
>In addition, what should I look for in a tool? Some tools specifically
>say they are not for insulated or non-insulated connectors... Some
>tools are $250, some are $40 (as per the B&C unit). I'm confused as to
what I need.
Since B&C's bread and butter for sales of tools and supplies
to the OBAM aircraft community, aside from price of the tool,
what are your reasons for doubt?
They've been in business quite a long time and their warranty is
"no unhappy customers" . . . When it comes to value, I'm more
suspicious of a four-color catalog describing a warehouse full
of "stuff" presided over by hoards of stock-pickers and packing
clerks who know virtually nothing of their products or customer's needs.
>I am prepared to spend money on tools where there is value, but if the
>$40 unit will do the job properly for one (or two) airplanes that is
>all I am really after.
>
>Also, is is best to stick with the AMP lugs or is there a cheaper
>alternative that has been proven to work well?
How cheap do you want to get? Keep in mind that the
differences in performance between PIDG and Plasti-Grip
terminals at half the price is pretty profound.
If you're ready to buy 1000 lots of any part from
any supplier, the prices can get attractive . . .
but when you need bags of 10 and boxes of 100,
the costs of handling and packing start to pile
onto the piece price.
There is also the issue of tools working well with
the terminals. About a year ago, a local supplier
sent me samples of some less expensive terminals . . .
about 2/3 price of AMP in small quantity. Here's how
they worked in tools we sold and recommend.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/JST_Samples_2.jpg
They were mechanically and electrically secure but
looked like @#$@. Get the $40 tool and use the money
you saved from buying a $250 tool to buy good terminals
instead. You won't go wrong with AMP PIDG or Waldom
Avicrimp. B&C strives to have their tools match
their parts . . . and if they don't, they too
would be pleased to know about it so that it can
be fixed.
Bob . . .
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: | PIDG Crimp Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:20 PM 4/19/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
><rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>As always, your recommendations make a lot of sense.
>
>One question: Is there any area of the aircraft these crimps are not
>recommended? i.e. in the engine bay?
>
>Richard
No, properly crimped and properly soldered terminals are
interchangeable from the perspective of getting a gas-tight
joint between terminal and wire. The the next issue is to
support the wire over the transition area where stranding
has become "solid" out to where it is still stranded. This
is a good idea whether the wire is crimped or soldered. This
practice can be relaxed for larger wires like 4 and 2AWG
because the high stress point for vibration moves from the
wire to the terminal flag with the bigger wires . . . adding
support for the wire-terminal interface is easy. Internal melting wall
heat shrink (available from B&C) works good. But the
terminal-stud interface will be most likely to fail at the
transition from wire barrel to flag. This is why large wires
attached to engine mounted accessories benefit from mechanical
support of the wire within a few inches of the terminal.
Bob . . .
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: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:22 PM 3/7/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Bob, the clinic this weekend was entertaining as well as enlightening. I
>took away two quotes. Bus failures = snipes :o) that was one. The other
>had to do with P-Mags by EMag. As I remember it (and there were
>witnesses ) you said with some enthusiasm, "I gotta call these guys and
>talk to them, looks like the real deal" or something to that effect.
>
> http://www.emagair.com/P-MAG.htmOne
>
>I waited until Bart at Aerosport had a chance to try one and he blessed it
>so I ordered one(1) on the engine he is building for me. If you would talk
>to these guys and give them a double blessing, I would think really hard
>about replacing the other mag as well. I think there are a LOTS of folks
>who would be really interested in your comments after that call.
Already have. I'm still hoping to visit their facility soon but
in several conversations and emails I'm convinced that they're
on the right track and have a high probability of success for
achieving their goals. If I were building an airplane, it would
be fitted with Z-13 and a pair of pmags.
Bob . . .
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: Battery hard failures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>Anyone know where the trip setting of 16.2 +/- comes from? Sure its above
>any working alternator but higher sat 17+ or 18V will also seem to be just
>as safe.
Yes, the value was derived from interpretations of Mil-Std-704
for DC power quality and customer requirements (Beech, Cessna,
et als). An excerpt from 704 can be found at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Mil-Std-704/704_excerpts.pdf
Cut voltage values in half for a 14v system. The ov trip point for
ov protection design has two qualities. Static DC trip level (16.2
selected as just above the 31.5/15.7 volt steady state values in Figure
14) and step response (50 milliseconds for a 14-25 or 28 to 50 volt
step per Figure 14).
The OVM-14 is probably faster than 50 mS but I don't recall now
just what it worked out to. It might be made longer and still attractive
to the Spam-Can worlds.
A higher static setpoint was considered way back when but all
designs of the era (1975) considered the battery to be on-line and
customers didn't want to wait until the bus was forced to a
higher value as the runaway alternator pushed the battery
voltage up.
It's all a matter of what the system designer is offering to
the customer and what the customer is willing to embrace. The
numbers weren't pulled out of a dark place . . .
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Diodes across relay coils |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
George Braly wrote:
>BTW... I have a nice variable speed alternator test stand - - with an ND
>set up on it and it is available if you want to fly down some Saturday
>morning and see what we can do to blow up some transorbs or other components.
May have to do that. The alternator test stand I bought isn't
going to work. I've got the parts to build a nice one but
it all takes time. Eventually I'll need to have this capability
in house but it might be useful to craft some initial investigations
and get the data in your shop.
There are a number of drive stands available here in ICT too,
we've got a bunch at RAC. Just need time . . .
I'm planning to fly down to visit the p-mag guys this year.
Will stop by an see you on that trip.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 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
I've had my replacement CBA-II in hand for several days. I've
had 24/7 battery tests running since. Several discharges at
max power have been successfully conducted. You can proceed
with confidence that (1) the device will probably work as advertised
and (2) if you do have a problem, the folks at West Mountain
Radio will make it right.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CBA II battery analyzer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> I've had my replacement CBA-II in hand for several days. I've
> had 24/7 battery tests running since. Several discharges at
> max power have been successfully conducted. You can proceed
> with confidence that (1) the device will probably work as advertised
> and (2) if you do have a problem, the folks at West Mountain
> Radio will make it right.
>
>
Bob,
Thank you for sharing with us.
I must confess I delayed the test until further info.
Regards,
Gilles
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: CBA II battery analyzer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Bob -
I missed the original thread. Could you tell us exactly how one would set
up and use this critter in an airplane and why?
Is it a permanently mounted device or used to periodically check the
battery's capacity in the airplane or on the bench?
Would the battery have to be disconnected from the ship's electrical
system?
Thanks,
John
> You can proceed with confidence that (1) the device will probably work
> as advertised
> and (2) if you do have a problem, the folks at West Mountain Radio
> will make it right.
>
> Bob . . .
>
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: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
>I suspect that it will work just fine, as long as my hand can be braced
against something while it is entering data.
Indeed!
Seems that many designers only imagine still air. When I see panels with
touch screens or those fancy displays with buttons on the picture frame, I
always wish they would put handrail-type stabilizers where they need to be.
(do not archive)
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
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: | Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
Bob - and here I've been thinking in terms of a Z-14 and 2 PMags. Would Z-14
be overkill since the PMags can supply their own current?
What I liked about the Z-14 is battery rotation, each every two years, plus
all the redundancy. I suppose that with Z-13 you'd change batteries every
year or is this being too conservative - I know it's all a question of
opinion.
As for Z-13, would replacing the permanent magnet generator with a small
Alternator deteriorate the safety level somewhat, and would such a
replacement militate in favor of a second battery, thus bringing us back to
Z-14?
Thanks,
Michle Delsol
RV8 - Fuselage
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls,
> III
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:56 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ?
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:22 PM 3/7/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
> ><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> >Bob, the clinic this weekend was entertaining as well as enlightening. I
> >took away two quotes. Bus failures = snipes :o) that was one. The
> other
> >had to do with P-Mags by EMag. As I remember it (and there were
> >witnesses ) you said with some enthusiasm, "I gotta call these guys and
> >talk to them, looks like the real deal" or something to that effect.
> >
> > http://www.emagair.com/P-MAG.htmOne
> >
> >I waited until Bart at Aerosport had a chance to try one and he blessed
> it
> >so I ordered one(1) on the engine he is building for me. If you would
> talk
> >to these guys and give them a double blessing, I would think really hard
> >about replacing the other mag as well. I think there are a LOTS of folks
> >who would be really interested in your comments after that call.
>
> Already have. I'm still hoping to visit their facility soon but
> in several conversations and emails I'm convinced that they're
> on the right track and have a high probability of success for
> achieving their goals. If I were building an airplane, it would
> be fitted with Z-13 and a pair of pmags.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
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 battery analyzer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:41 AM 4/19/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
><jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
>Bob -
>
>I missed the original thread. Could you tell us exactly how one would set
>up and use this critter in an airplane and why?
>
>Is it a permanently mounted device or used to periodically check the
>battery's capacity in the airplane or on the bench?
>
>Would the battery have to be disconnected from the ship's electrical
>system?
>
>Thanks,
>
>John
The CBA-II is a test tool, not an aircraft accessory. It's one
of several tools for doing DEFINITIVE tests on battery capacity.
You CAN use it with the battery in place, but it takes a computer
with Windows installed to manage the test and plot the data.
I bought a junker 233 Pentium II for $20 and use it just for
testing in the shop.
You COULD test and recharge the battery in-place on the aircraft
but it's easier to do on the bench. If you don't subscribe to the
new-battery-every-year philosophy then the alternative is $time$
to test the battery you have against your e-bus endurance requirements
to deduce when battery replacement is called for. Personally,
if I can buy a new battery for $40, then it's not worth my time
to take the battery out, test it, recharge it and put it back
in the airplane. Further, if you do this several times before the
battery is finally determined un-airworthy, then you may have
purchased a new battery several times over.
Of course, your own economics have to apply. If you elect to
do periodic battery testing, the CBA-II is a good way to
go about it.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Diodes across relay coils |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Any time... just need some minimal notice.
-----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: Re: Diodes across relay coils
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
George Braly wrote:
>BTW... I have a nice variable speed alternator test stand - - with an ND
>set up on it and it is available if you want to fly down some Saturday
>morning and see what we can do to blow up some transorbs or other components.
May have to do that. The alternator test stand I bought isn't
going to work. I've got the parts to build a nice one but
it all takes time. Eventually I'll need to have this capability
in house but it might be useful to craft some initial investigations
and get the data in your shop.
There are a number of drive stands available here in ICT too,
we've got a bunch at RAC. Just need time . . .
I'm planning to fly down to visit the p-mag guys this year.
Will stop by an see you on that trip.
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: | FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
Bob and list,
I have been looking at installing a SD8 standby alternator in my aircraft
along with a 40/60A unit to be used as a primary. I am only considering
installing one battery at this stage. The dual alternator, dual battery
configuration seems to add additional complexity and require the pilot to do
something in the event of a failure. (close the contactor between the
systems and shed load). My primary objective is to build a fault tollerant
system that requires NO pilot intervention in order to arrive safely at the
destination.
I also would like to avoid installing dual voltmeter and ammeter in the
aircraft. With a single battery I have only one place that I need to
measure voltage. Also a single shunt and ammeter should get the job done.
Replacing the battery at annual should take care of any issues on this
front.
As I understand it the system should work like this (At this stage we are
looking at Z-11 in the book):
1. Install both alternator units with their associated regulators
2. Setup regulator on the SD8 cut in approximately 1V under the primary
alternator as per 17-12 in the book. Say 12.5V.
3.
Now if my primary alternator fails or the voltage sags due to
exceeding capacity of the primary the SD8 will kick in and supply up to 8
amps to the system.
If the primary alternator fails, one electronic ignition (lightspeed at this
stage), electric fuel pump (if needed should the mechanical one fail on my
IO-360), AI (Dynon) and basic instrument lights are my only concern in that
order. These live on the essential and permanent buses. I want to make
sure these will NEVER be unavailable. The SD8 should handle that OK at
cruise RPM. Assume that the battery will have sufficent charge to deliver
enough power to get on the ground after reducing rpm for descent.
Questions assuming the above is correct:
How do I test the primary and standby alternators are working during
preflight without blowing things up or inducing load dump etc? I suspect
start with the primary alternator off, confirm charging, switch on the
primary alternator.
What are the implications of having two crowbar OV protection systems (one
connected to each alternator)?
Now, As I am looking for complete simplicity in the electrical system and I
want to ensure if the pilot does nothing that the fuel levels will be of
concern before the electrical system. Ideally my main bus should drop
offline automatically and leave me on the essential and permanent buses (I
have a glass panel and all electric engine). Can this be done fairly
simply? Looking at it the
What else is going to bite me with this setup?
Options I have considered:
Dual battery - really don't like it.
P-Mags, may be an option not proven yet. I have 18 months or so to go
untill I have to make this decision
Install a single mag - Don't like mags. I'm just stubborn and I don't want
one.
Thanks
Richard
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: PIDG Crimp Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
When temperature is a problem in the engine compartment, you have a fire
from another source.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: PIDG Crimp Connections
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:20 PM 4/19/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
>><rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
>>
>>Thanks Bob,
>>
>>As always, your recommendations make a lot of sense.
>>
>>One question: Is there any area of the aircraft these crimps are not
>>recommended? i.e. in the engine bay?
>>
>>Richard
>
> No, properly crimped and properly soldered terminals are
> interchangeable from the perspective of getting a gas-tight
> joint between terminal and wire. The the next issue is to
> support the wire over the transition area where stranding
> has become "solid" out to where it is still stranded. This
> is a good idea whether the wire is crimped or soldered. This
> practice can be relaxed for larger wires like 4 and 2AWG
> because the high stress point for vibration moves from the
> wire to the terminal flag with the bigger wires . . . adding
> support for the wire-terminal interface is easy. Internal melting wall
> heat shrink (available from B&C) works good. But the
> terminal-stud interface will be most likely to fail at the
> transition from wire barrel to flag. This is why large wires
> attached to engine mounted accessories benefit from mechanical
> support of the wire within a few inches of the terminal.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Jim Jewell wrote:
> I have not as yet chosen a path on this subject and hope to get some input
> pro and con re- PDA based GPS and flight data versus the mainstream portable
> GPS and fight data systems.
I can see where using the touch screen may be a challenge
while flying. Have you considered the new Garmin iQue 3600a PDA?
http://www.garmin.com/products/iQue3600a/
It has a cradle that has buttons similar to their 295/296 line,
so you don't need to use the touch screen while flying, but
you can still use it once on the ground for setting up the
flight info.
Just a thought - I haven't used one of these myself.
I have a 295 and am pretty happy with it, but I'd really
like the terrain features of the 296 and/or the iQue 3600a.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Mather" <peter@mather.com>
Bob et al
I'm building a VFR RV9A with a twin mag IO-320-B1A up front. I'm looking for suggestions
as to the pros and cons of a conventional belt drive alternator such
as the L-40 compared to the direct drive SD-20. I don't need the extra 20 amps
for normal running and with twin mags don't need it to keep the fan turning
:-)
The aircraft will be electric only - no vacuum.
All input gratefully received
Best regards
Peter
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: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
In a message dated 4/19/2005 7:55:02 AM Central Daylight Time,
emjones@charter.net writes:
Seems that many designers only imagine still air. When I see panels with
touch screens or those fancy displays with buttons on the picture frame, I
always wish they would put handrail-type stabilizers where they need to be.
Dear Eric,
Thats why I designed the BMA EFIS/One with well defined finger notches and
large buttons. Also why Greg limited it to 4 buttons and no soft keys so that
the 4 buttons do the same thing all the time.
I am still working on a remote for our E1 installation so that the 4 buttons
and 2 concentric knobs are mirord on the throttle handle.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
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: Precise Aircraft Maneuvering |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
In a message dated 4/19/2005 3:02:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
You may do what you would like, but a turn-around maneuver done
poorly will kill you.
Mike,
No argument there!
Except I would substitute "may" in place of "will."
I would also say a turn-around maneuver done properly may save your life.
Further, I would say that landing straight ahead may kill you.
It all depends on the situation.
Regardless, you are right that planning, practice and proficiency are
critical to successfully completing an emergency landing after takeoff.
But, then, I suppose that is true of anything to do with flying.
Stan Sutterfield
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: flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
Just use the select voltage from the flip-flop to run a 556 dual oscillator
giving a hi tone for the top transceiver and a lower tone beep for the lower
one.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flip-flop tone generator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
> <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for your input. The leaders I fly with always kick the formation
> out
> to cruise/route before changing freqs and doing ops checks. No worries
> there.
>
> Regardless of being in cruise spread, I don't always visually check the
> radio to see that the flip-flop has been done. Yes, I should...but
> realistically, that's the point of the flip-flop switch on the stick imho.
> Not having to look, not having to touch.
>
> I'm just looking for simple feedback when I push the switch.
>
> do not archive
> )_( Dan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flip-flop tone generator
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>>
>> Dan -
>>
>> I don't know about the leaders you fly with, but channel changes in close
>> formation are dumb. The formation should be kicked out to spread for such
>> things as fuel checks and radio changes. There are very rare times when
>> one has to do things like this in close formation, but I doubt if they
>> apply to the type of flying you do. A formation instrument approach in
>> weather is one - and one never does those unless separate approaches are
>> impossible (electrical failure or pitot/static problems at the drome of
>> last resort). I certainly would talk it over with your leader.
>>
>> This is my humble opinion based on hundreds of hours of day weather and
>> night weather formation.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:41:02 -0700, Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > - I fly formation all the time, and I'm staring at lead 99% of the
>> > time. I
>> > pre-load my frequencies. When I click flip-flop, it would be nice if
> the
>> > change was accompanied by an aural cue to confirm that it took effect.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Aerospace Logic Molex Tool |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "R. Craig Chipley" <mechtech81@yahoo.com>
Hey all, Has anybody installed a Aerospace Logic
CHT? And if so, did you crimp the splices with the
right crimper? And please tell me the P/N of the
crimper. Thanks, Craig C
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: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Dj,
Thanks for the input. And thanks also to the several others that have
responded. so far about a dozen inputs are counted.
As it stands, the unscientific consensus has one "negative" report a few
"conditional in favours" and an overall majority of "favourable" responses.
I was impressed with the iQUE 3600a when it first showed up on the scene.
However direct enquiries to Garmin have disclosed that this unit in its
presently available form does not output suitable code for driving autopilot
devices. The absence of the code for Navaid etc. non certified devices
commonly used in homebuilt aircraft eliminates it from my list at present.
Why Garmin chose to go that way is a mystery to me. Who knows?! Maybe it's
another typical example of a big ship company steering clumsily to avoid
legal sand bars I suppose. Or maybe big G. is suffering some reluctance to
open the door into in-house product competition.
I have been hoping that someone would devise a work around for the Garmin
shortcoming but have not seen any evidence of such as yet.
Now, if someone took the concept of the cradle with the more convenient
pre-programmed interface buttons and added it to the current iPAQ flight
systems offerings such as Anywhere Map etc.?.. I think there might be a
market for it.
In the meantime I think a solution for the rough flight touch screen issue
might be dealt with or at least minimized by installing a hand rest next to
or into a mounting for the iPAQ as was mentioned by Eric M Jones.
Thanks again,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: touch screen pdas in rough air?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill
> <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
>
> Jim Jewell wrote:
>
>> I have not as yet chosen a path on this subject and hope to get some
>> input
>> pro and con re- PDA based GPS and flight data versus the mainstream
>> portable
>> GPS and fight data systems.
>
> I can see where using the touch screen may be a challenge
> while flying. Have you considered the new Garmin iQue 3600a PDA?
> http://www.garmin.com/products/iQue3600a/
> It has a cradle that has buttons similar to their 295/296 line,
> so you don't need to use the touch screen while flying, but
> you can still use it once on the ground for setting up the
> flight info.
>
> Just a thought - I haven't used one of these myself.
> I have a 295 and am pretty happy with it, but I'd really
> like the terrain features of the 296 and/or the iQue 3600a.
>
> -Dj
>
> --
> Dj Merrill
> deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
>
> "TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
>
>
>
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: | touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Jim,
You might look for a Bluetooth keypad that could work with a BT-enabled
PDA. I spent a lot of time at SnF trying to figure out what to get to
replace my rapidly decaying old Ipaq running AWM. After looking at
everything else, including the Garmin PDA's and all the dedicated units,
I found the relatively new (to me anyway) 4705 Ipaq with a gorgeous 4
inch VGA screen. If you haven't seen this screen you should check it
out. A little bigger & 4 times the resolution makes a world of
difference. I need the PDA anyway, already subscribe to AWM and only
needed $20 for a new GPS connector and mount tray to make the switch.
I've never had a real problem with the touch screen on my current Ipaq
but having Bluetooth on the new one opens other avenues to explore -
such as a keypad.
Regards,
Greg Young
>
> I have been hoping that someone would devise a work around
> for the Garmin shortcoming but have not seen any evidence of
> such as yet.
>
> Now, if someone took the concept of the cradle with the more
> convenient pre-programmed interface buttons and added it to
> the current iPAQ flight systems offerings such as Anywhere
> Map etc.?.. I think there might be a market for it.
>
> In the meantime I think a solution for the rough flight touch
> screen issue might be dealt with or at least minimized by
> installing a hand rest next to or into a mounting for the
> iPAQ as was mentioned by Eric M Jones.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
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: | Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:13 PM 4/19/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
>Bob - and here I've been thinking in terms of a Z-14 and 2 PMags. Would Z-14
>be overkill since the PMags can supply their own current?
>
>What I liked about the Z-14 is battery rotation, each every two years, plus
>all the redundancy. I suppose that with Z-13 you'd change batteries every
>year or is this being too conservative - I know it's all a question of
>opinion.
>
>As for Z-13, would replacing the permanent magnet generator with a small
>Alternator deteriorate the safety level somewhat, and would such a
>replacement militate in favor of a second battery, thus bringing us back to
>Z-14?
Michle, you may be getting sucked into the more-is-better trap . . .
there are various levels of complexity offered in Figures Z-11
through Z-14 that speak to increasing levels of requirements.
So far, the only airplane I've worked with that really could
USE the capabilities of Z-14 was a Lancair IVP with full
up dual efis on both sides.
It was the DESIGN GOAL of this builder to have fully redundant
systems that would support everything except electric air
conditioning with a main-alternator out.
First, since you're building an airplane with parts YOU
specify instead of parts you're regulated to buy, you can
assemble a figure Z-11 installation with modern alternator
like the B&C L40 and and RG battery and you've already
jumped far ahead of most of what's certified.
Do you rent airplanes? Are there airplanes in the local
rental fleet that you would fly on missions you plan for
your OBAM aircraft? I have no problems with rentals
because the way I fly and the manner in which I expect
the airplanes to perform do not cause me to worry about
the reliability of the certified electrical system.
So, step 1, if you do nothing OTHER than Figure Z-11
with the aforementioned modern components + e-bus,
then your several cuts above the spam cans you're already
comfortable with renting.
Now, if all electric interests you, you can still go
all electric with Z-11 and have equal to or better
reliability than most spam cans. However, having taken
10+ pounds of suck system out of the airplane, it
seems a good value to stuff the vacuum pump pad hole
with a little alternator. Shucks, it's cheap, light
works good and lasts a long time.
Now, how do you perceive the operation of your project
to be any better with any other system? Where does
Z-13 fall short of your requirements? What requirement
drives your interest in two batteries?
Let's not drive off into the added costs and complexities
without knowing that they really add value to your airplane.
Bob . . .
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: | Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Sounds like "cheap" (as it applies to a standby alt in the vacuum pad
hole) is a relative term....Arn't those things like 700 bucks?
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: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:13 PM 4/19/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
>Bob - and here I've been thinking in terms of a Z-14 and 2 PMags. Would
>Z-14 be overkill since the PMags can supply their own current?
>
>What I liked about the Z-14 is battery rotation, each every two years,
>plus all the redundancy. I suppose that with Z-13 you'd change
>batteries every year or is this being too conservative - I know it's
>all a question of opinion.
>
>As for Z-13, would replacing the permanent magnet generator with a
>small Alternator deteriorate the safety level somewhat, and would such
>a replacement militate in favor of a second battery, thus bringing us
>back to Z-14?
Michle, you may be getting sucked into the more-is-better trap . .
.
there are various levels of complexity offered in Figures Z-11
through Z-14 that speak to increasing levels of requirements.
So far, the only airplane I've worked with that really could
USE the capabilities of Z-14 was a Lancair IVP with full
up dual efis on both sides.
It was the DESIGN GOAL of this builder to have fully redundant
systems that would support everything except electric air
conditioning with a main-alternator out.
First, since you're building an airplane with parts YOU
specify instead of parts you're regulated to buy, you can
assemble a figure Z-11 installation with modern alternator
like the B&C L40 and and RG battery and you've already
jumped far ahead of most of what's certified.
Do you rent airplanes? Are there airplanes in the local
rental fleet that you would fly on missions you plan for
your OBAM aircraft? I have no problems with rentals
because the way I fly and the manner in which I expect
the airplanes to perform do not cause me to worry about
the reliability of the certified electrical system.
So, step 1, if you do nothing OTHER than Figure Z-11
with the aforementioned modern components + e-bus,
then your several cuts above the spam cans you're already
comfortable with renting.
Now, if all electric interests you, you can still go
all electric with Z-11 and have equal to or better
reliability than most spam cans. However, having taken
10+ pounds of suck system out of the airplane, it
seems a good value to stuff the vacuum pump pad hole
with a little alternator. Shucks, it's cheap, light
works good and lasts a long time.
Now, how do you perceive the operation of your project
to be any better with any other system? Where does
Z-13 fall short of your requirements? What requirement
drives your interest in two batteries?
Let's not drive off into the added costs and complexities
without knowing that they really add value to your airplane.
Bob . . .
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: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frank & Dorothy <frankvdh@xtra.co.nz>
My intention is to wire up joystick-top switches to communicate with my
PDA. I figure 6 switches: 4 for cursor control (a coolie-hat would be
ideal) , 1 for select, and 1 for escape. Maybe one more switch to select
between 'talk to PDA' and another bunch of functions like trim and PTT
for the radio... this switch wouldn't need to be on the stick.
This is a long-term plan -- first I have to get the plane built!
Frank
Greg Young wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
>Jim,
>
>You might look for a Bluetooth keypad that could work with a BT-enabled
>PDA. I spent a lot of time at SnF trying to figure out what to get to
>replace my rapidly decaying old Ipaq running AWM. After looking at
>everything else, including the Garmin PDA's and all the dedicated units,
>I found the relatively new (to me anyway) 4705 Ipaq with a gorgeous 4
>inch VGA screen. If you haven't seen this screen you should check it
>out. A little bigger & 4 times the resolution makes a world of
>difference. I need the PDA anyway, already subscribe to AWM and only
>needed $20 for a new GPS connector and mount tray to make the switch.
>I've never had a real problem with the touch screen on my current Ipaq
>but having Bluetooth on the new one opens other avenues to explore -
>such as a keypad.
>
>Regards,
>Greg Young
>
>
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: | Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:02 PM 4/19/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Sounds like "cheap" (as it applies to a standby alt in the vacuum pad
>hole) is a relative term....Arn't those things like 700 bucks?
>
>Frank
The SD-8 WITH regulator is $430
The SD-20 is $695 and needs a regulator.
Bob . . .
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SD-20 vs L-40 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:06 AM 4/19/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Mather" <peter@mather.com>
>
>Bob et al
>
>I'm building a VFR RV9A with a twin mag IO-320-B1A up front. I'm looking
>for suggestions as to the pros and cons of a conventional belt drive
>alternator such as the L-40 compared to the direct drive SD-20. I don't
>need the extra 20 amps for normal running and with twin mags don't need it
>to keep the fan turning :-)
>The aircraft will be electric only - no vacuum.
If you can get by with 20A, go for it. The L-40 is
less expensive and gives you enough snort to run
an IFR or Night/VFR load. 20A might be pushing it
and you won't get the rapid recharge of the battery
during ground operations. I'd go for the L-40
Bob . . .
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:54 PM 4/19/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
><rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
>
>
>Bob and list,
>
>I have been looking at installing a SD8 standby alternator in my aircraft
>along with a 40/60A unit to be used as a primary. I am only considering
>installing one battery at this stage. The dual alternator, dual battery
>configuration seems to add additional complexity and require the pilot to do
>something in the event of a failure. (close the contactor between the
>systems and shed load). My primary objective is to build a fault tollerant
>system that requires NO pilot intervention in order to arrive safely at the
>destination.
I don't understand this. Safe operation of an airplane assumes a
LOT of knob twisting, switch flipping and manipulation of controls
in addition to mixing well in the environment with other airplanes.
The elimination of controls just for the sake of eliminating
controls should be considered carefully.
>I also would like to avoid installing dual voltmeter and ammeter in the
>aircraft. With a single battery I have only one place that I need to
>measure voltage. Also a single shunt and ammeter should get the job done.
>Replacing the battery at annual should take care of any issues on this
>front.
Why dual anything. One instrument of each type can be switched
to read any number of sources. Further, why ANY ammeter or
voltmeter. If your ACTIVE notification of low voltage light is
out, you know about as much as a pilot is interested in for
management of the flight. All the other gages only get you
off on the right track to figure out what's broke after you
get on the ground.
>As I understand it the system should work like this (At this stage we are
>looking at Z-11 in the book):
>
>1. Install both alternator units with their associated regulators
>
>2. Setup regulator on the SD8 cut in approximately 1V under the primary
>alternator as per 17-12 in the book. Say 12.5V.
>
>3. Now if my primary alternator fails or the voltage sags due to
>exceeding capacity of the primary the SD8 will kick in and supply up to 8
>amps to the system.
>
>If the primary alternator fails, one electronic ignition (lightspeed at this
>stage), electric fuel pump (if needed should the mechanical one fail on my
>IO-360), AI (Dynon) and basic instrument lights are my only concern in that
>order. These live on the essential and permanent buses. I want to make
>sure these will NEVER be unavailable.
Run them from the battery bus . . .
>The SD8 should handle that OK at
>cruise RPM. Assume that the battery will have sufficent charge to deliver
>enough power to get on the ground after reducing rpm for descent.
Why ASSUME anything. Do you plan to KNOW what your battery is
capable of doing for you under the various configurations?
If you can hypothesize some scenarios that drive decisions about
which hardware to install and how to get it powered given any
single failure (Failure Mode Effects Analysis) then its only
a short step beyond that to craft a load analysis and battery
maintenance program that leaves nothing to assumptions.
>Questions assuming the above is correct:
>
>How do I test the primary and standby alternators are working during
>preflight without blowing things up or inducing load dump etc? I suspect
>start with the primary alternator off, confirm charging, switch on the
>primary alternator.
Use externally regulated main alternator. It's only internally
regulated alternators that get suffer from switch-induced load dumping.
The SD=8 can be switched on/off any time. Just flip the switches and
watch the loadmeter or voltmeter or low votlage warning light.
>What are the implications of having two crowbar OV protection systems (one
>connected to each alternator)?
If you have an ov condition with the main alternator and the aux
alternator is on also, they'll probably both trip. You'll need
to reset the aux alternator breaker.
>Now, As I am looking for complete simplicity in the electrical system and I
>want to ensure if the pilot does nothing that the fuel levels will be of
>concern before the electrical system. Ideally my main bus should drop
>offline automatically and leave me on the essential and permanent buses (I
>have a glass panel and all electric engine). Can this be done fairly
>simply? Looking at it the
I don't see how you've simplified anything. If we're talking
about Figure Z-13, what controls have you eliminated?
>What else is going to bite me with this setup?
Not sure what the setup is. Describe what changes you're proposing
to Z-13, what items run on each bus and what controls you're changing
and why.
>Options I have considered:
>
>Dual battery - really don't like it.
Why consider it at all? What has anyone recommended that you do
with a second battery? Do you plan some accessories not designed
to live in the real world of airplanes? Ignition system, EFIS,
FADEC, engine monitor, etc that wanders off into the weeds when
you start the engine. If so, then a second battery is NOT optional.
Otherwise, I'm not sure why you've considered it at all.
>P-Mags, may be an option not proven yet. I have 18 months or so to go
>untill I have to make this decision
>Install a single mag - Don't like mags. I'm just stubborn and I don't want
>one.
I wouldn't want one either. I wouldn't want an electronic
ignition system that's falling rapidly behind the times
technologically and has demonstrated repeated mechanical
failures of electronic components due to design defect.
Order p-mags. If you don't find them suited to your task
by the time you're ready to fly, I'll buy them from you.
Bob . . .
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Large wire ring terminals was PIDG |
Crimp Connections
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Crimp
Connections
At 06:29 AM 4/19/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 07:20 PM 4/19/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
> ><rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
> >
> >Thanks Bob,
> >
> >As always, your recommendations make a lot of sense.
> >
> >One question: Is there any area of the aircraft these crimps are not
> >recommended? i.e. in the engine bay?
> >
> >Richard
>
> No, properly crimped and properly soldered terminals are
> interchangeable from the perspective of getting a gas-tight
> joint between terminal and wire. The the next issue is to
> support the wire over the transition area where stranding
> has become "solid" out to where it is still stranded. This
> is a good idea whether the wire is crimped or soldered. This
> practice can be relaxed for larger wires like 4 and 2AWG
> because the high stress point for vibration moves from the
> wire to the terminal flag with the bigger wires . . . adding
> support for the wire-terminal interface is easy. Internal melting wall
> heat shrink (available from B&C) works good. But the
> terminal-stud interface will be most likely to fail at the
> transition from wire barrel to flag. This is why large wires
> attached to engine mounted accessories benefit from mechanical
> support of the wire within a few inches of the terminal.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob & listers,
I'd like to pass on a suggestion for large gauge wire terminals. I
mentioned to a friend (who's an IT tech and former aviation avionics tech)
that I'd like to find some sturdy, crimp on terminals for my large gauge
wires. He directed me to what are referred to in the industrial electrical
trade as Burndy (a division of FCI) terminals. These are used in the
industrial electric industry. They are crimped on using a commonly
available crimper. What I really like about them is that they are twice as
thick as the commonly used AMP ring terminals. They are also available with
long barrels. With the long barrel, I've found that I can "triple" crimp my
big Tefzel insulated wires. I double crimp the stripped section of wire and
then apply a third crimp to the insulation of the wire, much like a giant
PIDG terminal.
I've tested all my crimps. On my 2 AWG cables, I can literally hang by
the crimp. I clamped the terminal into a vice and then lifted my entire
weight (I'm 6'4" tall and 210 pounds) holding only the cable. I finish each
connection by using 3M's "triple thickness" sealant filled heat shrink
tubing. I have some photos to show my terminals. Bob, if you are
interested, I'd be happy to email them to you off list. An example of the
terminals I'm referring to can be seen at the web link below. It's the
third terminal from the top, left column.
http://ecatalog.fciconnect.com/fci/categories.asp?TreeID=COMPRESSION_CONNECTORS
Burndy refers to the terminals I'm using as "Long Barrel Tin Plated Copper
Terminals with Inspection Window" Refer to the link below to view the choices.
http://ecatalog.fciconnect.com/fci/ss.asp?FAM=YA&SORD=225&FT_225=117062&SUBMIT.x=37&SUBMIT.y=10
I believe that Dan Checkoway recently reported having an AMP large ring
terminal fail on his RV-7, under the cowl. I feel that these Burndy
terminals would be more fatigue resistant.
Charlie Kuss
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: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cecil T Hatfield <cecilth@juno.com>
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:53:35 -0400 "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
writes:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> <mprather@spro.net>
>
> >I suspect that it will work just fine, as long as my hand can be
> braced
> against something while it is entering data.
>
> Indeed!
>
> Seems that many designers only imagine still air. When I see panels
> with
> touch screens or those fancy displays with buttons on the picture
> frame, I
> always wish they would put handrail-type stabilizers where they need
> to be.
>
> (do not archive)
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
It does seem that if you could build an airplane, you could build in a
handrail-type stabilizer, huh!
Cecil
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Cecil,
Yup I agree, the "handrail type stabilizer" by itself is not at all hard to
do. I have the parts for that on hand (no pun intended).
However I would still like to see an iPAQ compatable panel mount cradle
designed similar to the Garmin iQUE 3600a with the additional hat switch
style control and function buttons incorporated.
In the meantime I will look into the iPAQ 4705 that Greg Young mentioned.
Jim in Kelowna do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cecil T Hatfield" <cecilth@juno.com>
> It does seem that if you could build an airplane, you could build in a
> handrail-type stabilizer, huh!
> Cecil
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: PIDG Crimp Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 06:00 AM 4/18/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
><rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
...
>In addition, what should I look for in a tool? Some tools specifically say
>they are not for insulated or non-insulated connectors... Some tools are
>$250, some are $40 (as per the B&C unit). I'm confused as to what I need.
>I am prepared to spend money on tools where there is value, but if the $40
>unit will do the job properly for one (or two) airplanes that is all I am
>really after.
I bought the big bucks AMP Pro-Crimper II, part number 58433-3, from
Digi-Key for all of $66. I called tech services at Amp and got them to
admit that the only difference between the Pro-Crimper II and the $300+
Certi-Crimp was repeatability. Since the Pro-Crimper II has replaceable
dies, it is supposed to be "calibrated" every use. The Certi-Crimp is
single die and "permanently" calibrated. For my limited use I felt even an
un-calibrated Pro-Crimper was better than a set of dies not specifically
intended for PIDG connectors.
>Also, is is best to stick with the AMP lugs or is there a cheaper
>alternative that has been proven to work well?
I like the PIDG / Pro-Crimper combination. It's really easy to use, and
there's very little technique involved to get proper terminals. Buy them at
B&C if you can, Digi-Key otherwise. I also support TerminalTown and a few
others, but be careful that you buy PIDG, and not cheaper imitations. Be
also aware that there are a dizzying array of terminals out there that look
like PIDG but aren't. One of my favorites are Amp 250 series Fastons and
Ultra-Fast Fastons. Both look like PIDG, but take a different die to crimp.
For more info on the Amp tools, look at Amp catalogs 82276 for the
Pro-Crimper and 65780 for the Certi-Crimp. Definitely read Bob's references
too.
Guy
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
-----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: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator
I don't understand this. Safe operation of an airplane assumes a
LOT of knob twisting, switch flipping and manipulation of controls
in addition to mixing well in the environment with other airplanes.
The elimination of controls just for the sake of eliminating
controls should be considered carefully.
Agreed, but I would hate for the aircraft to go down because the pilot did
not notice an alternator was failing and the ignition system / fuel pump /
AI took a tumble. I agree that the pilot would be to blame, but many pilots
have done this in the past with alternators, fuel pumps, fuel taps etc. I
don't think it is a good reason to have an engine failure if it can be
avoided with good design.
>I also would like to avoid installing dual voltmeter and ammeter in the
>aircraft. With a single battery I have only one place that I need to
>measure voltage. Also a single shunt and ammeter should get the job done.
>Replacing the battery at annual should take care of any issues on this
>front.
Why dual anything. One instrument of each type can be switched
to read any number of sources. Further, why ANY ammeter or
voltmeter. If your ACTIVE notification of low voltage light is
out, you know about as much as a pilot is interested in for
management of the flight. All the other gages only get you
off on the right track to figure out what's broke after you
get on the ground.
More switches to play with? More complexity, with single pilot ops I do not
really want to know about any more. I take your point on the Low voltage
warning and yes the extra switch would make troubleshooting on the ground
easier. Not being used to LV warning lights in aircraft I have flown, one
gets pretty used to confirming the alternator is working with the ammeter.
>As I understand it the system should work like this (At this stage we
>are looking at Z-11 in the book):
>
>1. Install both alternator units with their associated regulators
>
>2. Setup regulator on the SD8 cut in approximately 1V under the
primary
>alternator as per 17-12 in the book. Say 12.5V.
>
>3. Now if my primary alternator fails or the voltage sags due to
>exceeding capacity of the primary the SD8 will kick in and supply up to
>8 amps to the system.
>
>If the primary alternator fails, one electronic ignition (lightspeed at
>this stage), electric fuel pump (if needed should the mechanical one
>fail on my IO-360), AI (Dynon) and basic instrument lights are my only
>concern in that order. These live on the essential and permanent
>buses. I want to make sure these will NEVER be unavailable.
Run them from the battery bus . . .
Yes, perhaps not the Dynon, but the others no problem. If this is the case
I may not need the Essential bus at all.
>The SD8 should handle that OK at
>cruise RPM. Assume that the battery will have sufficent charge to
>deliver enough power to get on the ground after reducing rpm for descent.
Why ASSUME anything. Do you plan to KNOW what your battery is
capable of doing for you under the various configurations?
If you can hypothesize some scenarios that drive decisions about
which hardware to install and how to get it powered given any
single failure (Failure Mode Effects Analysis) then its only
a short step beyond that to craft a load analysis and battery
maintenance program that leaves nothing to assumptions.
Yes I do plan to know. I've done simple calculations at this stage. A
detailed load analysis is in the pipeline.
>Questions assuming the above is correct:
>
>How do I test the primary and standby alternators are working during
>preflight without blowing things up or inducing load dump etc? I
>suspect start with the primary alternator off, confirm charging, switch
>on the primary alternator.
Use externally regulated main alternator. It's only internally
regulated alternators that get suffer from switch-induced load dumping.
The SD=8 can be switched on/off any time. Just flip the switches and
watch the loadmeter or voltmeter or low votlage warning light.
Ok, this is certainly helpful as I had not managed to figure this out.
Would this apply to internally regulated alternators that can be switched of
as well? If so I now have another good reason to purchase an externally
regulated alternator.
>What are the implications of having two crowbar OV protection systems
>(one connected to each alternator)?
If you have an ov condition with the main alternator and the aux
alternator is on also, they'll probably both trip. You'll need
to reset the aux alternator breaker.
Ok, I suspected this.
>Now, As I am looking for complete simplicity in the electrical system
>and I want to ensure if the pilot does nothing that the fuel levels
>will be of concern before the electrical system. Ideally my main bus
>should drop offline automatically and leave me on the essential and
>permanent buses (I have a glass panel and all electric engine). Can
>this be done fairly simply? Looking at it the
I don't see how you've simplified anything. If we're talking
about Figure Z-13, what controls have you eliminated?
The more I think about it Z-13 really does what I want with one exception.
It does not automatically trim the load. Perhaps you are right that this is
something that the pilot should be taking care of or the battery should be
sized to accommodate. If there was a simple way to automatically cut the
master switch I would be happy. I cannot see a way to do this without
further complicating things and I guess that is self defeating.
>Options I have considered:
>
>Dual battery - really don't like it.
Why consider it at all? What has anyone recommended that you do
with a second battery? Do you plan some accessories not designed
to live in the real world of airplanes? Ignition system, EFIS,
FADEC, engine monitor, etc that wanders off into the weeds when
you start the engine. If so, then a second battery is NOT optional.
Otherwise, I'm not sure why you've considered it at all.
I still have to work this one out. I am looking at the Dynon gear and
Lightspeed ignitions. Dynon seems OK by all accounts or is that because
people are installing the backup battery in them? I know lightspeed has
issues. This might be mitigated with P-Mags.
>P-Mags, may be an option not proven yet. I have 18 months or so to go
>untill I have to make this decision Install a single mag - Don't like
>mags. I'm just stubborn and I don't want one.
I wouldn't want one either. I wouldn't want an electronic
ignition system that's falling rapidly behind the times
technologically and has demonstrated repeated mechanical
failures of electronic components due to design defect.
Order p-mags. If you don't find them suited to your task
by the time you're ready to fly, I'll buy them from you.
Bob, are you speaking specifically of Lightspeed here? I have not actually
heard much said about them that is not positive. Would be glad for more
info.
In terms of the P-mag, I would suggest that I would like to see cold hard
facts of time bear out your statement (although it would seem I have no
issues if they do not work now as I have many witnesses) :-) Specifically
what would make me happy about this technology:
- My engine builder endorses them and agrees to honor my warrantee (on the
entire engine) if they fail or damage the engine.
- My insurance company likes them
- My TC/delegate does not have kittens and give me a 200 hour test period
- They are mechanically and electrically more reliable than mags.
- Historical fact confirms there is less maintenance involved than a mag and
there is a ready source of spare parts. For my purposes I would not be
considering leaving the ground knowing that the thing.
I know in the face of this it probably looks like I am talking myself into
buying mags... Or at least one.
Richard
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! --
|