Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:31 AM - Re: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? (owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com)
2. 03:43 AM - Audio Panel Eliminator (Alexander, Don)
3. 05:40 AM - Re: Audio Panel Eliminator (Jim Stone)
4. 05:45 AM - Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Vern W.)
5. 06:14 AM - Garmin GTX 327 Amps (Speedy11@aol.com)
6. 06:35 AM - Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Richard Talbot)
7. 06:49 AM - Re: Garmin GTX 327 Amps (OldBob Siegfried)
8. 06:49 AM - Re: Garmin GTX 327 Amps (Bob C.)
9. 06:56 AM - Re: Balance, Was: Alternator help (flyv35b)
10. 07:04 AM - Re: Garmin GTX 327 Amps (James E. Clark)
11. 07:04 AM - Re: Audio Panel Eliminator (rv-9a-online)
12. 07:36 AM - Re: Large wire ring terminals was PIDG Crimp Connections (Dan Checkoway)
13. 07:37 AM - Re: Balance, Was: Alternator help (OldBob Siegfried)
14. 07:38 AM - Re: Balance, Was: Alternator help (Ken)
15. 07:43 AM - SL30 GPS interface (Richard Hughes)
16. 07:44 AM - Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Vern W.)
17. 08:17 AM - Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Brett Ferrell)
18. 08:27 AM - Re: Large wire ring terminals was PIDG (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 09:09 AM - Re: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 10:15 AM - Re: Large wire ring terminals was PIDG Crimp ()
21. 10:56 AM - Re: Balance, Was: Alternator help (Eric M. Jones)
22. 03:49 PM - Re: Balance (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 04:25 PM - Re: Re: Balance, Was: Alternator help (Ken)
24. 05:28 PM - Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 05:50 PM - Re: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (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: | Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
Bob,
Sobering response - thanks. Since my background in electrical engineering is
close to nil, I am having to climb up a long incline, which leads me to
occasional tentative decisions based on the most recent information which
makes sense to me, hence I see-saw between extremes - over simplification to
bring me to a level I can master and complexity to meet perceived mission
requirements.
As for rentals, I'd say that if I were intellectually honest, I would only
rent an airplane after I've had someone knowledgeable fully check it out,
but I don't do that - so there is a contradiction between my design
principles and my behavior. Call it rationalization. When I rent I look at
the track record of the people I rent from and figure if nothing has
happened so far, there is little likelihood that something will happen as I
fly the rental.
So, it seems that Z-11 plus a small alternator which makes it Z-13 (correct
me if I am wrong) would be the way to go - you suggest a small alternator;
my question is: small alternator or small generator?
Thanks,
Michele
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: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:39 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ?
> Importance: High
>
> --> 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 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: | Audio Panel Eliminator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
Listers,
I=20am=20looking=20for=20a=20product=20that=20would=20allow=20for=20me=20to=20input=20my=20audio
leads=20from=20the=20KMD-150,=20Dynon=20Engine=20Monitor,=20Proprietary=20Software=20AOA
and=20Garmin=20SL40=20radio=20into=20an=20intercom=20instead=20of=20an=20audio=20panel.=20=20I=20was
speaking=20to=20someone=20at=20DRE=20and=20he=20indicated=20that=20there=20wasn't=20a=20very
large=20market=20for=20such=20an=20item=20based=20on=20what=20he=20has=20heard=20from=20his
customers.=20=20Do=20any=20of=20you=20know=20where=20I=20could=20purchase=20such=20a=20board=20or
have=20a=20schematic=20to=20make=20one=20if=20it=20is=20not=20already=20out=20there=20to=20buy?
Regards,
Don=20Alexander
RV-8=20=2070%=20done,=2070%=20to=20go
Messages=20originating=20from=20AstenJohnson,=20Inc.=20e-mail=20servers=20are=20scanned=20for=20viruses=20and=20other=20threats=20prior=20to=20delivery=20using=20e-mail=20security=20services=20powered=20by=20MessageLabs=20Inc.
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: Audio Panel Eliminator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Hey Don,
FYI, Below is how your message looked on my computer.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Audio Panel Eliminator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don"
> <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
>
> Listers,
>
> I=20am=20looking=20for=20a=20product=20that=20would=20allow=20for=20me=20to=20input=20my=20audio
> leads=20from=20the=20KMD-150,=20Dynon=20Engine=20Monitor,=20Proprietary=20Software=20AOA
> and=20Garmin=20SL40=20radio=20into=20an=20intercom=20instead=20of=20an=20audio=20panel.=20=20I=20was
> speaking=20to=20someone=20at=20DRE=20and=20he=20indicated=20that=20there=20wasn't=20a=20very
> large=20market=20for=20such=20an=20item=20based=20on=20what=20he=20has=20heard=20from=20his
> customers.=20=20Do=20any=20of=20you=20know=20where=20I=20could=20purchase=20such=20a=20board=20or
> have=20a=20schematic=20to=20make=20one=20if=20it=20is=20not=20already=20out=20there=20to=20buy?
>
> Regards,
>
> Don=20Alexander
>
> RV-8=20=2070%=20done,=2070%=20to=20go
>
>
> Messages=20originating=20from=20AstenJohnson,=20Inc.=20e-mail=20servers=20are=20scanned=20for=20viruses=20and=20other=20threats=20prior=20to=20delivery=20using=20e-mail=20security=20services=20powered=20by=20MessageLabs=20Inc.
>
>
>
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: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
Richard,
I'm going in your direction so I have taken interest in your questions.
I've added just a couple of comments below.
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> 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.
One of the "good design" features I like that Bob adds to his designs is the
"low volt" indicator. I don't trust a voltmeter because I don't trust ME.
With a voltmeter, I have to trust that I will IMMEDIATELY notice a problem,
but I can't unless I look at it almost every second or two. Do you do that?
With a low-volt annunciator/indicator, I know RIGHT THEN that something has
changed and action on my part is probably necessary. I'll take a simple
bright light over a gauge any day.
> >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.
I also wanted to use the cheap way out with an internally regulated
alternator, but clearly, good design dicates that an external regulator that
is KNOWN to work properly in load dump situations is going to be the way to
go.
> >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.
The simplest way with the simplest engineering has already been done by the
inclusion of a low-volt warning light. When that light demands your
attention (as opposed to a volt meter that quietly and patiently tells you
nothing until you, already busy with other things, feel like looking at it),
you simply switch off the main bus and switch on the aux. SD-8 alternator.
Then, turn off whatever else you need to until the low-volt light monitoring
the SD-8 goes off.
That sounds pretty simple to me.
> >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.
I don't really want to go as far as the Z-14 dual battery system either, but
I'm concerned about a total failure of my only battery (broken terminal
lug?). If your only battery goes offline, neither of the two alternators are
going to help you.
To offset this (very unlikely to happen) concern, I'm looking at solving two
(non?) problems with one solution. Lightspeed itself offers a simple
addition of a 4.5 amp battery for the purpose of keeping the voltage up on
their ignition or as backup, but this small battery if properly wired in
could also serve as an exciter for the alternators if the main battery goes
offline. I'm just not sure exactly how to plug it into the existing Z-13
design. Here's Lightspeed's suggestion:
http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/PS_Diagram.htm
> >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:
The electrical engineering design of the E/P Mags is extremely simple and
I'm already convinced that they are the way to go. What we're waiting for is
to see if they hold up mechanically to the demands of aircraft use and if
any modes of failure show up.
I'm having my engine (Mattituck 360) built with one side on Lightspeed and
the other a standard mag. However, I will lean heavily toward converting to
two P-mags within a year after I am flying.
I feel that starting with the Lightspeed/Mag combination is a no-brainer for
now.
Vern
>
>
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: | Garmin GTX 327 Amps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
I'm doing a load analysis and emailed Garmin to get the normal and peak amps
on a GTX 327. Their field service engineer replied it is 18 to 20. Does that
sound right to anyone?
Stan Sutterfield
I do not have that spec. but my guess would be about 18 to 20.
George W. Koelsch
Garmin International
Field Service Engineer
The GTX 327 draw 15 Watts typical, 22 Watts maximum
George W. Koelsch
Thanks, George. Can you tell me the peak and normal amperage?
Stan
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: | FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
Vern,
Why would you not have the SD8 turned on all the time? If you reduce the
regulator slightly on the SD8 it should kick in automatically. The only
thing I can think of is if you prefer to know the primary has failed.
Re the 4.5 amp battery. Yes I have seen this too. I looked at the option
but it required either a diode (or more) between the main battery and the
backup battery. You would then need to feed one lightspeed from the backup
battery. Seems to me this just introduced more failure points in the chain
as you now have a lot more connections to fail. However, it looks like it
may be a requirement as the Lightspeeds seem prone to kickback. If you have
one mag this is not an issue as you don't crank the engine with them
running.
The other option is to use a contactor between the batteries. You can run
them both in parallel until something breaks. Run an alternator off each
battery and you have Z-14 essentially. I would look at Z-14 if I was going
dual battery. It is one more contactor.
As far as the alternators go, I guess you could run dual power feeds to the
regulators from the other battery.
If you ask me.... Bring on the P-Mag.... As long as they don't have failure
modes that cause both to go out at the one time. Failure of the battery
should not be an option. I will fight hard to make sure all my avionics can
handle cranking. Worst case, I install an avionics master and allow my
avionics to boot up after engine start.
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W.
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
Richard,
I'm going in your direction so I have taken interest in your questions.
I've added just a couple of comments below.
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> 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.
One of the "good design" features I like that Bob adds to his designs is the
"low volt" indicator. I don't trust a voltmeter because I don't trust ME.
With a voltmeter, I have to trust that I will IMMEDIATELY notice a problem,
but I can't unless I look at it almost every second or two. Do you do that?
With a low-volt annunciator/indicator, I know RIGHT THEN that something has
changed and action on my part is probably necessary. I'll take a simple
bright light over a gauge any day.
> >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.
I also wanted to use the cheap way out with an internally regulated
alternator, but clearly, good design dicates that an external regulator that
is KNOWN to work properly in load dump situations is going to be the way to
go.
> >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.
The simplest way with the simplest engineering has already been done by the
inclusion of a low-volt warning light. When that light demands your
attention (as opposed to a volt meter that quietly and patiently tells you
nothing until you, already busy with other things, feel like looking at it),
you simply switch off the main bus and switch on the aux. SD-8 alternator.
Then, turn off whatever else you need to until the low-volt light monitoring
the SD-8 goes off.
That sounds pretty simple to me.
> >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.
I don't really want to go as far as the Z-14 dual battery system either, but
I'm concerned about a total failure of my only battery (broken terminal
lug?). If your only battery goes offline, neither of the two alternators are
going to help you.
To offset this (very unlikely to happen) concern, I'm looking at solving two
(non?) problems with one solution. Lightspeed itself offers a simple
addition of a 4.5 amp battery for the purpose of keeping the voltage up on
their ignition or as backup, but this small battery if properly wired in
could also serve as an exciter for the alternators if the main battery goes
offline. I'm just not sure exactly how to plug it into the existing Z-13
design. Here's Lightspeed's suggestion:
http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/PS_Diagram.htm
> >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:
The electrical engineering design of the E/P Mags is extremely simple and
I'm already convinced that they are the way to go. What we're waiting for is
to see if they hold up mechanically to the demands of aircraft use and if
any modes of failure show up.
I'm having my engine (Mattituck 360) built with one side on Lightspeed and
the other a standard mag. However, I will lean heavily toward converting to
two P-mags within a year after I am flying.
I feel that starting with the Lightspeed/Mag combination is a no-brainer for
now.
Vern
>
>
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: Garmin GTX 327 Amps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning Stan,
Don't we just divide the watts by the voltage to get
the amps?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> Speedy11@aol.com
>
> I'm doing a load analysis and emailed Garmin to get
> the normal and peak amps
> on a GTX 327. Their field service engineer replied
> it is 18 to 20. Does that
> sound right to anyone?
> Stan Sutterfield
>
> I do not have that spec. but my guess would be about
> 18 to 20.
>
> George W. Koelsch
> Garmin International
> Field Service Engineer
> The GTX 327 draw 15 Watts typical, 22 Watts
> maximum
> George W. Koelsch
> Thanks, George. Can you tell me the peak and normal
> amperage?
> Stan
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Garmin GTX 327 Amps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
That would be 1.4-1.7A @ 13V . . . I plan to fuse mine at 3A, which is
what my vendor recommended
Good Luck,
Bob
On 4/20/05, Speedy11@aol.com <Speedy11@aol.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> I'm doing a load analysis and emailed Garmin to get the normal and peak amps
> on a GTX 327. Their field service engineer replied it is 18 to 20. Does that
> sound right to anyone?
> Stan Sutterfield
>
> I do not have that spec. but my guess would be about 18 to 20.
>
> George W. Koelsch
> Garmin International
> Field Service Engineer
> The GTX 327 draw 15 Watts typical, 22 Watts maximum
> George W. Koelsch
> Thanks, George. Can you tell me the peak and normal amperage?
> Stan
>
>
>
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: Balance, Was: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "flyv35b" <flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com>
Hi Bob,
Don't know if you remember me or not. I'm the guy who talked to you about
the Hartzell scimitar prop that was so noisy until I reindexed it.
I just saw your email after looking at some old ones and was wondering if
you specifically ask the overhauler if they balance the gear driven
alternator for your Bo? I just replaced one on my recently rebuilt IO-520
and didn't even think about that and it's possibly affect on the bearing.
Another question regarding the prop above. I was down in CA not long ago
and saw a V35B with a Hartzel top prop (older style) and Osborne tip tanks.
They said they had previously had the scimitar prop and it had a pronounced
vibration (of the airframe I think) from airflow past the tanks and ended up
removing the prop and installing the other one. Apparently it also has some
of the same but much much less.
Do you known anything about this? I have bee thinking about adding tip
tanks but would probably not do so because of the prop since I really like
this prop. I recall you have tip tanks, what prop do you have?
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Balance, Was: Alternator help
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 4/8/2005 3:43:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> frank.hinde@hp.com writes:
>
> I agree,
>
> If you look at the diameter of the rotating mass of the alt it is tiny
> in comparison to the prop.
>
> Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell you the results can be
> dramatic!
>
> Frank
>
>
> Good Afternoon Frank,
>
> I have absolutely no idea of how good the balance is for automotive
> alternators. I do know and have experience with poorly balanced aircraft
> alternators.
>
> The Permold case Continental engines have gear driven front mounted
> alternators. There are many problems with that arrangement other than
> just the
> balance. We have found many alternators that came brand new directly from
> Continental that were badly out of specification. There was a very low
> quality
> bearing on the "back" end of the alternator that was prone to failure.
> That bearing
> has been superceded by a more robust bearing, but balancing has helped
> that
> alternator a lot.
>
> There were several different manufacturers of alternators for that
> application. all of them had some problem with the small bearing. Some
> were worse
> than others. Balancing a small component like an alternator that is
> turning
> less than eight thousand RPM may not seem important. Fact is, it may not
> be,
> unless that imbalance causes a fifty cent bearing to fail and that
> failure
> causes the gear to start grinding up the engine.
>
> I was flying a friend's airplane at seventeen thousand feet when that
> bearing failed. We landed within thirty minutes of the failure. The
> engine was
> trashed, metal in all the bearing surfaces. It was a brand new Boutique
> built
> engine with only thirty-five hours since the installation.
>
> I am still not enamored with having that front mounted gear driven
> alternator, but the engine is such a good engine that I will live with a
> poor drive
> setup until someone comes up with a better arrangement. Meanwhile, I do
> everything I can to assure myself that the alternator is running as true
> as it can
> be made to run. Cheap insurance.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
Message 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: | Garmin GTX 327 Amps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
18-20 **amps** is probably not right.
Maybe 1.8-2.0 AMPS is what was meant.
This would be consistent with the 15-22 WATTS mentioned in the email.
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
| aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Speedy11@aol.com
| Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:14 AM
| To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
| Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin GTX 327 Amps
|
| --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
|
| I'm doing a load analysis and emailed Garmin to get the normal and peak
| amps
| on a GTX 327. Their field service engineer replied it is 18 to 20. Does
| that
| sound right to anyone?
| Stan Sutterfield
|
| I do not have that spec. but my guess would be about 18 to 20.
|
| George W. Koelsch
| Garmin International
| Field Service Engineer
| The GTX 327 draw 15 Watts typical, 22 Watts maximum
| George W. Koelsch
| Thanks, George. Can you tell me the peak and normal amperage?
| Stan
|
|
|
|
|
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: Audio Panel Eliminator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Don, strange email formatting! I think what you are looking for is an
audio bus or isolation amplifier. Bob sells an isolation amp at his
website, and an audio bus for the Sigtronics intercoms is available at
http://www3.telus.net/aviation/vx
I hope I've interpreted your question correctly.
Vern Little RV-9A
Alexander, Don wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
>
>Listers,
>
>I=20am=20looking=20for=20a=20product=20that=20would=20allow=20for=20me=20to=20input=20my=20audio
>leads=20from=20the=20KMD-150,=20Dynon=20Engine=20Monitor,=20Proprietary=20Software=20AOA
>and=20Garmin=20SL40=20radio=20into=20an=20intercom=20instead=20of=20an=20audio=20panel.=20=20I=20was
>speaking=20to=20someone=20at=20DRE=20and=20he=20indicated=20that=20there=20wasn't=20a=20very
>large=20market=20for=20such=20an=20item=20based=20on=20what=20he=20has=20heard=20from=20his
>customers.=20=20Do=20any=20of=20you=20know=20where=20I=20could=20purchase=20such=20a=20board=20or
>have=20a=20schematic=20to=20make=20one=20if=20it=20is=20not=20already=20out=20there=20to=20buy?
>
>Regards,
>
>Don=20Alexander
>
>RV-8=20=2070%=20done,=2070%=20to=20go
>
>
>Messages=20originating=20from=20AstenJohnson,=20Inc.=20e-mail=20servers=20are=20scanned=20for=20viruses=20and=20other=20threats=20prior=20to=20delivery=20using=20e-mail=20security=20services=20powered=20by=20MessageLabs=20Inc.
>
>
>
>
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: Large wire ring terminals was PIDG Crimp Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> 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.
Those look cool, thanks for the pointer.
While it wouldn't hurt to use a more durable terminal, I still stand by my
acquired philosophy of supporting/clamping your wires so that flex is
confined to the stretch between clamps -- no flex allowed at the terminals.
The previous suggestion of using welding wire seems like a good one, too,
but I would probably still clamp near the ends to be sure.
My experience is limited...but my preference is to use readily available
terminals and wire, solder the terminals as per Bob's article
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf), not requiring any
special tools, and just physically eliminate the possibility of terminal
failure due to stress/fatigue.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: Balance, Was: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning Cliff,
Of course I remember you and our conversations!
I have a McCauley 409 on my airplane just now. We did
install a Super Scimitar on our son's Ultimate
IO-550-B powered J35 last fall. It works great!
However, that airplane does not have tip tanks.
We do intend to install tanks on that airplane one of
these days, but right now, it is so light and performs
so great that we are just enjoying it!
We did have some balance problems with the new
alternator that we installed on the J35. It was
balanced before the original installation, but it
still gave problems. It ran smooth enough, but we kept
getting over voltage drop offs. We finally installed
another new rotor in the alternator and that seems to
have solved the problem. My electrical guru says he
could find nothing wrong with the first rotor, but it
was not the first time he had found one that gave the
same problem and had to be replaced. Just gremlins I
guess. He called it a "flying open" or a "flying
short", he was not sure which it was.
Personally, I doubt if adding tip tanks would cause a
problem that could not be solved, but it may take some
messing around with aileron balancing and such I love
having tip tanks on my V35B and would not be
comfortable without them. If I were buying a new
propellor today for use with the 550, it would be a
Super Scimitar. If some sort of vibration occurred, I
would work with it until the problem was solved. I
would NOT give up the tip tanks or the Super Scimitar
propellor.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- flyv35b <flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "flyv35b"
> <flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Don't know if you remember me or not. I'm the guy
> who talked to you about
> the Hartzell scimitar prop that was so noisy until I
> reindexed it.
>
> I just saw your email after looking at some old ones
> and was wondering if
> you specifically ask the overhauler if they balance
> the gear driven
> alternator for your Bo? I just replaced one on my
> recently rebuilt IO-520
> and didn't even think about that and it's possibly
> affect on the bearing.
>
> Another question regarding the prop above. I was
> down in CA not long ago
> and saw a V35B with a Hartzel top prop (older style)
> and Osborne tip tanks.
> They said they had previously had the scimitar prop
> and it had a pronounced
> vibration (of the airframe I think) from airflow
> past the tanks and ended up
> removing the prop and installing the other one.
> Apparently it also has some
> of the same but much much less.
>
> Do you known anything about this? I have bee
> thinking about adding tip
> tanks but would probably not do so because of the
> prop since I really like
> this prop. I recall you have tip tanks, what prop
> do you have?
>
> Cliff
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Balance, Was: Alternator
> help
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> BobsV35B@aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 4/8/2005 3:43:44 P.M. Central
> Standard Time,
> > frank.hinde@hp.com writes:
> >
> > I agree,
> >
> > If you look at the diameter of the rotating mass
> of the alt it is tiny
> > in comparison to the prop.
> >
> > Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell
> you the results can be
> > dramatic!
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > Good Afternoon Frank,
> >
> > I have absolutely no idea of how good the balance
> is for automotive
> > alternators. I do know and have experience with
> poorly balanced aircraft
> > alternators.
> >
> > The Permold case Continental engines have gear
> driven front mounted
> > alternators. There are many problems with that
> arrangement other than
> > just the
> > balance. We have found many alternators that came
> brand new directly from
> > Continental that were badly out of specification.
> There was a very low
> > quality
> > bearing on the "back" end of the alternator that
> was prone to failure.
> > That bearing
> > has been superceded by a more robust bearing, but
> balancing has helped
> > that
> > alternator a lot.
> >
> > There were several different manufacturers of
> alternators for that
> > application. all of them had some problem with the
> small bearing. Some
> > were worse
> > than others. Balancing a small component like an
> alternator that is
> > turning
> > less than eight thousand RPM may not seem
> important. Fact is, it may not
> > be,
> > unless that imbalance causes a fifty cent bearing
> to fail and that
> > failure
> > causes the gear to start grinding up the engine.
> >
> > I was flying a friend's airplane at seventeen
> thousand feet when that
> > bearing failed. We landed within thirty minutes
> of the failure. The
> > engine was
> > trashed, metal in all the bearing surfaces. It
> was a brand new Boutique
> > built
> > engine with only thirty-five hours since the
> installation.
> >
> > I am still not enamored with having that front
> mounted gear driven
> > alternator, but the engine is such a good engine
> that I will live with a
> > poor drive
> > setup until someone comes up with a better
> arrangement. Meanwhile, I do
> > everything I can to assure myself that the
> alternator is running as true
> > as it can
> > be made to run. Cheap insurance.
> >
> > Do Not Archive
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Ancient Aviator
> > Stearman N3977A
> > Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> > Downers Grove, IL 60516
> > 630 985-8502
> >
> >
> >Do Not Archive
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Balance, Was: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
FWIW for this thread previously, I had a short chat with B&C about
alternator balancing. They do it themselves and have never had one from
the manufacturer that met their own fairly demanding spec. So while the
Nippon Denso units may well be good enough for many of us from the
factory, we also know that B&C does improve every one of them further. I
believe they have successfully demonstrated that there is value in their
improvements and should my ND have a short life I will consider B&C for
its replacement.
Ken
>I just saw your email after looking at some old ones and was wondering if
>you specifically ask the overhauler if they balance the gear driven
>alternator for your Bo? I just replaced one on my recently rebuilt IO-520
>and didn't even think about that and it's possibly affect on the bearing.
>
>
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: | SL30 GPS interface |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Hughes <richardhughes260@yahoo.com>
Has anyone interfaced a GPS with an SL30 serial port
and a device witha database and an lcd?
The idea is to have the gps load the lat and lon, do a
query for that airports, list them on an lcd select
the desired airpot and it loads the frequencies into
the radio.
I have the databases, I wanted to do it with a
microcontroller, but may have to do it with a single
board computer.
-Rich
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
<rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
>
> Vern,
>
> Why would you not have the SD8 turned on all the time? If you reduce the
> regulator slightly on the SD8 it should kick in automatically. The only
> thing I can think of is if you prefer to know the primary has failed.
Bob outlined just such a scenario where the aux. regulator is dialed in a
little under the main regulator for an automatic takeover of the system by
the SD-8.
I just don't feel this is necessary BECAUSE, with the low-volt indicator, I
will know immediately that the main alternator has gone offline and all I
need to do is to flip a switch.
I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that with an "automatic"
backup, it would be possible for you to not notice that the failsafe HAS
kicked in because there would be no indication from a low-volt indicator. If
I'm running on my backup system, I want to know about it right NOW.
>
> Re the 4.5 amp battery. Yes I have seen this too. I looked at the option
> but it required either a diode (or more) between the main battery and the
> backup battery. You would then need to feed one lightspeed from the
backup
> battery. Seems to me this just introduced more failure points in the
chain
> as you now have a lot more connections to fail. However, it looks like it
> may be a requirement as the Lightspeeds seem prone to kickback. If you
have
> one mag this is not an issue as you don't crank the engine with them
> running.
>
> The other option is to use a contactor between the batteries. You can run
> them both in parallel until something breaks. Run an alternator off each
> battery and you have Z-14 essentially. I would look at Z-14 if I was
going
> dual battery. It is one more contactor.
>
> As far as the alternators go, I guess you could run dual power feeds to
the
> regulators from the other battery.
I'm hoping that the Lightspeed addition of a 4.5amp battery could be done
simply and without anything more than diodes to isolate it and switches to
bring it online.
I don't like the idea of having to add any more contactors if I can help it,
but I will have to wait for others to bless my intended design since I'm not
as sophisticated as Bob and others.
Vern
>
> If you ask me.... Bring on the P-Mag.... As long as they don't have
failure
> modes that cause both to go out at the one time. Failure of the battery
> should not be an option. I will fight hard to make sure all my avionics
can
> handle cranking. Worst case, I install an avionics master and allow my
> avionics to boot up after engine start.
>
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W.
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
>
> Richard,
> I'm going in your direction so I have taken interest in your
questions.
> I've added just a couple of comments below.
>
> Vern
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > 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.
>
> One of the "good design" features I like that Bob adds to his designs is
the
> "low volt" indicator. I don't trust a voltmeter because I don't trust ME.
> With a voltmeter, I have to trust that I will IMMEDIATELY notice a
problem,
> but I can't unless I look at it almost every second or two. Do you do
that?
> With a low-volt annunciator/indicator, I know RIGHT THEN that something
has
> changed and action on my part is probably necessary. I'll take a simple
> bright light over a gauge any day.
>
> > >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.
>
> I also wanted to use the cheap way out with an internally regulated
> alternator, but clearly, good design dicates that an external regulator
that
> is KNOWN to work properly in load dump situations is going to be the way
to
> go.
>
> > >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.
>
> The simplest way with the simplest engineering has already been done by
the
> inclusion of a low-volt warning light. When that light demands your
> attention (as opposed to a volt meter that quietly and patiently tells you
> nothing until you, already busy with other things, feel like looking at
it),
> you simply switch off the main bus and switch on the aux. SD-8 alternator.
> Then, turn off whatever else you need to until the low-volt light
monitoring
> the SD-8 goes off.
> That sounds pretty simple to me.
>
> > >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.
>
> I don't really want to go as far as the Z-14 dual battery system either,
but
> I'm concerned about a total failure of my only battery (broken terminal
> lug?). If your only battery goes offline, neither of the two alternators
are
> going to help you.
> To offset this (very unlikely to happen) concern, I'm looking at solving
two
> (non?) problems with one solution. Lightspeed itself offers a simple
> addition of a 4.5 amp battery for the purpose of keeping the voltage up on
> their ignition or as backup, but this small battery if properly wired in
> could also serve as an exciter for the alternators if the main battery
goes
> offline. I'm just not sure exactly how to plug it into the existing Z-13
> design. Here's Lightspeed's suggestion:
> http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/PS_Diagram.htm
>
> > >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:
>
> The electrical engineering design of the E/P Mags is extremely simple and
> I'm already convinced that they are the way to go. What we're waiting for
is
> to see if they hold up mechanically to the demands of aircraft use and if
> any modes of failure show up.
> I'm having my engine (Mattituck 360) built with one side on Lightspeed and
> the other a standard mag. However, I will lean heavily toward converting
to
> two P-mags within a year after I am flying.
> I feel that starting with the Lightspeed/Mag combination is a no-brainer
for
> now.
>
> Vern
>
> >
> >
>
>
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: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brett Ferrell <bferrell@123mail.net>
The standby regulator on the BC alternators comes with a 'aux alt running'
warning lamp.
Brett
Quoting "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
> <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
> >
> > Vern,
> >
> > Why would you not have the SD8 turned on all the time? If you reduce the
> > regulator slightly on the SD8 it should kick in automatically. The only
> > thing I can think of is if you prefer to know the primary has failed.
>
> Bob outlined just such a scenario where the aux. regulator is dialed in a
> little under the main regulator for an automatic takeover of the system by
> the SD-8.
> I just don't feel this is necessary BECAUSE, with the low-volt indicator, I
> will know immediately that the main alternator has gone offline and all I
> need to do is to flip a switch.
> I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that with an "automatic"
> backup, it would be possible for you to not notice that the failsafe HAS
> kicked in because there would be no indication from a low-volt indicator. If
> I'm running on my backup system, I want to know about it right NOW.
>
> >
> > Re the 4.5 amp battery. Yes I have seen this too. I looked at the option
> > but it required either a diode (or more) between the main battery and the
> > backup battery. You would then need to feed one lightspeed from the
> backup
> > battery. Seems to me this just introduced more failure points in the
> chain
> > as you now have a lot more connections to fail. However, it looks like it
> > may be a requirement as the Lightspeeds seem prone to kickback. If you
> have
> > one mag this is not an issue as you don't crank the engine with them
> > running.
> >
> > The other option is to use a contactor between the batteries. You can run
> > them both in parallel until something breaks. Run an alternator off each
> > battery and you have Z-14 essentially. I would look at Z-14 if I was
> going
> > dual battery. It is one more contactor.
> >
> > As far as the alternators go, I guess you could run dual power feeds to
> the
> > regulators from the other battery.
>
> I'm hoping that the Lightspeed addition of a 4.5amp battery could be done
> simply and without anything more than diodes to isolate it and switches to
> bring it online.
> I don't like the idea of having to add any more contactors if I can help it,
> but I will have to wait for others to bless my intended design since I'm not
> as sophisticated as Bob and others.
>
> Vern
>
> >
> > If you ask me.... Bring on the P-Mag.... As long as they don't have
> failure
> > modes that cause both to go out at the one time. Failure of the battery
> > should not be an option. I will fight hard to make sure all my avionics
> can
> > handle cranking. Worst case, I install an avionics master and allow my
> > avionics to boot up after engine start.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W.
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
> >
> > Richard,
> > I'm going in your direction so I have taken interest in your
> questions.
> > I've added just a couple of comments below.
> >
> > Vern
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
> > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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
> > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > > 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.
> >
> > One of the "good design" features I like that Bob adds to his designs is
> the
> > "low volt" indicator. I don't trust a voltmeter because I don't trust ME.
> > With a voltmeter, I have to trust that I will IMMEDIATELY notice a
> problem,
> > but I can't unless I look at it almost every second or two. Do you do
> that?
> > With a low-volt annunciator/indicator, I know RIGHT THEN that something
> has
> > changed and action on my part is probably necessary. I'll take a simple
> > bright light over a gauge any day.
> >
> > > >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.
> >
> > I also wanted to use the cheap way out with an internally regulated
> > alternator, but clearly, good design dicates that an external regulator
> that
> > is KNOWN to work properly in load dump situations is going to be the way
> to
> > go.
> >
> > > >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.
> >
> > The simplest way with the simplest engineering has already been done by
> the
> > inclusion of a low-volt warning light. When that light demands your
> > attention (as opposed to a volt meter that quietly and patiently tells you
> > nothing until you, already busy with other things, feel like looking at
> it),
> > you simply switch off the main bus and switch on the aux. SD-8 alternator.
> > Then, turn off whatever else you need to until the low-volt light
> monitoring
> > the SD-8 goes off.
> > That sounds pretty simple to me.
> >
> > > >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.
> >
> > I don't really want to go as far as the Z-14 dual battery system either,
> but
> > I'm concerned about a total failure of my only battery (broken terminal
> > lug?). If your only battery goes offline, neither of the two alternators
> are
> > going to help you.
> > To offset this (very unlikely to happen) concern, I'm looking at solving
> two
> > (non?) problems with one solution. Lightspeed itself offers a simple
> > addition of a 4.5 amp battery for the purpose of keeping the voltage up on
> > their ignition or as backup, but this small battery if properly wired in
> > could also serve as an exciter for the alternators if the main battery
> goes
> > offline. I'm just not sure exactly how to plug it into the existing Z-13
> > design. Here's Lightspeed's suggestion:
> > http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/PS_Diagram.htm
> >
> > > >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:
> >
> > The electrical engineering design of the E/P Mags is extremely simple and
> > I'm already convinced that they are the way to go. What we're waiting for
> is
> > to see if they hold up mechanically to the demands of aircraft use and if
> > any modes of failure show up.
> > I'm having my engine (Mattituck 360) built with one side on Lightspeed and
> > the other a standard mag. However, I will lean heavily toward converting
> to
> > two P-mags within a year after I am flying.
> > I feel that starting with the Lightspeed/Mag combination is a no-brainer
> for
> > now.
> >
> > Vern
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Large wire ring terminals was PIDG |
Crimp Connections
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Crimp Connections
At 07:34 AM 4/20/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> > 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.
>
>Those look cool, thanks for the pointer.
>
>While it wouldn't hurt to use a more durable terminal, I still stand by my
>acquired philosophy of supporting/clamping your wires so that flex is
>confined to the stretch between clamps -- no flex allowed at the terminals.
>The previous suggestion of using welding wire seems like a good one, too,
>but I would probably still clamp near the ends to be sure.
>
>My experience is limited...but my preference is to use readily available
>terminals and wire, solder the terminals as per Bob's article
>(http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf), not requiring any
>special tools, and just physically eliminate the possibility of terminal
>failure due to stress/fatigue.
Good points. When you have a stress concentration that produces
failure, take care lest you beef up the failed component only
to have the failure move to the next weakest component (stud?)
Nothing wrong with beefier terminals but if you suffer the failure of
any part, it's better to REDUCE stresses (better support of
fat wires adjacent to studs that shake) that to beef up
the failed part.
That's another nice feature of welding cable as fat wires
in airplanes. It's so much more flexible that its ability
to transmit bending stresses is reduced.
Bob . . .
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: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:50 PM 4/20/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>--> 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
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>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.
GOOD DESIGN!!!! EXACTLY. Allow me to suggest that active notification
of low voltage is good design and not a part of 90+ percent of spam
cans flying. Virtually every dark-n-stormy night story I've read
involving alternator failures, the pilot became aware of the failure
long after it occurred . . . poor pilotage or POOR DESIGN?
Automatic features may offer some degree of comfort . . . but suppose
you loose the main alternator day/vfr and lightly loaded. The SD-8
kicks in and you don't even know it. You land, park the airplane
and don't find the failed alternator until that night during preflight
the main alternator doesn't come up. Gee, you might have fixed it
earlier.
> >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.
???? Gee, are you building an airplane because you want
it to work better and know more about how it works . . . or
is it your goal to build your own Spam Can just so you can
work on it yourself?
OBAM aircraft offer a whole new paradigm for design, architecture,
maintenance and safety by design. Take care lest the baggage
your dragging with you from the Spam Can world dilutes this
wonderful opportunity. Yes, you CAN build a Spam Clone and
continue to own and operate it like a C-172 . . . but given
that so many MORE doors are open to you, please explore them
all.
> 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.
ENDURANCE bus . . . how about primary nav radio, transponder,
comm radio, etc.
> >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.
Very good. Make a list of your electro-whizzies sorted by
the bus that feeds them and publish it here on the list . . .
> >
> >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 off
>as well? If so I now have another good reason to purchase an externally
>regulated alternator.
The externally regulated alternator is the ONLY alternator
I can personally recommend. We've wrestled with system
integration and failure modes on internally regulated machines
for several years . . . I still don't have a rational
approach for making them as user friendly as the externally
regulated machines.
> >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.
Absolutely. My recommendations are to keep it as simple
as possible and still meet your mission requirements. Automate
nothing. If you automate anything, make sure the functionality
is annunciated . . . you don't want your airplane to both have
a mind of it's own and be uncommunicative.
> >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.
You're stirring a lot of worries in together. Rather than
pile features in to assuage the whole bucket full of worries,
I'd suggest you reduce if not eliminate the number of worries.
> >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.
Yes. I have photos from one builder and anecdotal notes
from several others who have failed units that needed
repairs to broken leads on transistors improperly mounted.
The best technology in the world can't do its best if
it's not also well packaged. In 40+ years of doing this stuff,
the electronics and software have been the easy part.
Making designs robust has more to do with packaging and
mechanical issues than it does on technical prowess.
The BIGGEST flag that went up during my conversations
with Greg Richter a few months ago was because of his
exemplar "one size fits all" power distribution board
where he used screw-mashed-wires to interface to a
suite of wires that weren't event bundled or supported
for vibration. If this is what he was recommending
for airframe wiring, I could only wonder how he wires
things INSIDE his other products.
It's not how well it works when it works, it's how
LONG it works living in the hard, cold cruel world
of airplanes.
>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.
I don't know what else I can do to help you. Your worry bucket
is REALLY full my friend.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Large wire ring terminals was PIDG Crimp |
Connections
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Dan,
I agree with both you and Bob that proper support of the cable is critical. My
use of a "sturdier" terminal was not intended to eliminate the need for support.
I was looking for a way to avoid having to attempt to solder large gauge ring
terminals onto my RV-8A rear battery cables. Due to pass through hole sizes,
this would have to be done "in situ", rather than out on a bench. Hence my
desire to use "crimp" terminals. I was simply looking for terminals which didn't
a brazed split in them. I feel that for crimped terminals, it's preferable
to avoid the split brazed style of barrel.
The long barrel available on the Burndy terminals allows me to place a crimp on
the insulation of the W-22759 wire. This is a bonus in my opinion. For my battery
to ground and battery to master contactor cables, I chose to use marine
cable rather than welding cable.
Why? I live in SE Florida, the land of corrosion. Welding cable is super flexable,
but the individual wire strands are bare. Aviation and marine wire "tin" the
wire strands. This isn't an issue for those of you who live "inland". For those
of us who live near the coast, wire corrosion is a fact of life. I chose
the marine cable to it's flexibility and corrosion resistance. It's a regional
thing! :-)
You can find these terminals at your local Graybar distributer. If you know an
electrician, you can borrow the crimper from him.
Charlie Kuss
---- Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> > 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.
>
> Those look cool, thanks for the pointer.
>
> While it wouldn't hurt to use a more durable terminal, I still stand by my
> acquired philosophy of supporting/clamping your wires so that flex is
> confined to the stretch between clamps -- no flex allowed at the terminals.
> The previous suggestion of using welding wire seems like a good one, too,
> but I would probably still clamp near the ends to be sure.
>
> My experience is limited...but my preference is to use readily available
> terminals and wire, solder the terminals as per Bob's article
> (http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf), not requiring any
> special tools, and just physically eliminate the possibility of terminal
> failure due to stress/fatigue.
>
> do not archive
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Balance, Was: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>... I had a short chat with B&C about alternator balancing. They do it
themselves and have never had one from the manufacturer that met their own
>fairly demanding spec.
Given that the engine and prop shake the alternator like a rattlesnake's
pointy end, balance is pretty much irrelevant. Do they measure the balance
before and after? And if they have never found a good one, why bother?
>So while the Nippon Denso units may well be good enough for many of us from
the factory, we also know that B&C does improve every one of >them further.
Ixnay. We don't know that at all. Furthermore, the idea that ND doesn't
balance them as well as B&C seems an extraordinary claim. ND would simply go
out of business if their parts suffered from short lifetimes. I'll bet if I
pulled apart the old motor on my lathe I could take a little file stroke off
it SOMEPLACE to true it up. I'll also bet that it would make no measurable
difference at all.
>I believe they have successfully demonstrated that there is value in their
improvements and should my ND have a short life I will consider B&C for >its
replacement. Ken
What is the proof that there is any value in this work? If someone told me
that they vacuum impregnate the coils to stiffen them because aircraft
motors vibrate more than automobile motors, you would expect that they
tested the idea on a shake table and have the results to show it. If they
claim "better whatever" because they balance the thing---I'd like to see the
evidence.
Got any?
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"An acre of performance is worth the whole world of promise."
---James Howell
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >... I had a short chat with B&C about alternator balancing. They do it
>themselves and have never had one from the manufacturer that met their own
> >fairly demanding spec.
>
>Given that the engine and prop shake the alternator like a rattlesnake's
>pointy end, balance is pretty much irrelevant. Do they measure the balance
>before and after? And if they have never found a good one, why bother?
???? Radial acceleration (vibration induced by mass rotating off center)
is proportional to the SQUARE of velocity of the mass and inversely
proportional
to the radius of rotation. The fact that B&C's products live at
routine operation of 2 or more times the minimum speed for full output
suggests that vibration levels experienced due to ROTATION of the
alternator shaft could be 4x greater than what one would expect in cars.
This vibration is ADDED to that which the engine already provides.
> >So while the Nippon Denso units may well be good enough for many of us from
>the factory, we also know that B&C does improve every one of >them further.
>
>Ixnay. We don't know that at all. Furthermore, the idea that ND doesn't
>balance them as well as B&C seems an extraordinary claim. ND would simply go
>out of business if their parts suffered from short lifetimes.
ND builds alternators for cars and it's a sure bet that the
manufacturers of cars follow ND's recommendations for operating
conditions.
> I'll bet if I
>pulled apart the old motor on my lathe I could take a little file stroke off
>it SOMEPLACE to true it up. I'll also bet that it would make no measurable
>difference at all.
>
> >I believe they have successfully demonstrated that there is value in their
>improvements and should my ND have a short life I will consider B&C for >its
>replacement. Ken
>
>What is the proof that there is any value in this work? If someone told me
>that they vacuum impregnate the coils to stiffen them because aircraft
>motors vibrate more than automobile motors, you would expect that they
>tested the idea on a shake table and have the results to show it. If they
>claim "better whatever" because they balance the thing---I'd like to see the
>evidence.
Where's the 'proof' that it's not? It's fine to be skeptical
but B&C has strong anecdotal support for their manufacturing
decisions. While van was selling big pulleys to make his alternators
run longer by slowing them down, B&C's design goal was NOT to
give up alternator performance during ground operations, not to
give up cowl clearance on some airplanes, and to take advantage
of cooler operation by moving more air and reducing
field current. Their decision was to reduce probability
that extraordinary rotational acceleration induced at the
higher operational speed becomes a service life issue.
Is there hard data to show that if B&C quit balancing
every alternator they build their failure rate would go
up by X-percent? No. The time and dollars to conduct such
a study cannot be supported by the low volumes of alternators
sold to aircraft vis-a-vis those sold to automobiles. I don't
think the balancing operation is a big labor driver . . .
if they were to eliminate the balancing operation, I doubt
it would make much difference in the selling price.
At the bottom line, B&C's machines are the most user friendly,
aircraft designated alternators sold today. Unlike
internally regulated automotive take-offs B&C's alternators
run as predictably and with better longevity than the
majority of aircraft alternators sold. They've got an
exemplary market history to back it up.
Whether they balance or not, powder coat their castings,
sprinkle with pixie-dust, or give Green Stamps with the
sale, there's few if any aviation suppliers of alternators
who offer greater value. One could hypothesize that it's
all ND's quality and that B&C's efforts are blue-smoke.
It may be . . . but I'm not going to finance the scientific
study.
Folks who don't perceive the value are encouraged to
modify their own alternators. Prof Wheeler North has published
some detailed information on a Prestolite conversion. I've
introduced myself to Wheeler and I'll see if we can help
him edit his article, perhaps illustrate it a bit
better an get his work more widely published . . . maybe
at aeroelectric.com
We'll see he's interested in doing an ND project too.
Bob . . .
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Balance, Was: Alternator help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Of course you are correct as I don't know if balance was a factor in any
of the alternator failures that I'm aware of. My intent was to simply
report that they improve the balance on every one of their units.
There are other things as well though. The industrial version of the
small alternator has a two point mount. B&C converts it to a 3 point
mount. Again I have no proof that it makes a difference but I do know
that it was not particularly easy to mount one of the two point units
with enough rigidity to satisfy me. I consider many of the two point
mounted units a bit flimsy and possibly subject to short bracket life.
Yes proof would be nice but if they improve one thing that I find
lacking, it leads me to think that they may know what they are doing.
Ken
>What is the proof that there is any value in this work? If someone told me
>that they vacuum impregnate the coils to stiffen them because aircraft
>motors vibrate more than automobile motors, you would expect that they
>tested the idea on a shake table and have the results to show it. If they
>claim "better whatever" because they balance the thing---I'd like to see the
>evidence.
>
>Got any?
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FW: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:15 AM 4/20/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brett Ferrell <bferrell@123mail.net>
>
>The standby regulator on the BC alternators comes with a 'aux alt running'
>warning lamp.
The SD-1 regulator works only with the SD-20 alternator.
The SD-8 is not similarly equipped.
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: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>I also wanted to use the cheap way out with an internally regulated
>alternator, but clearly, good design dicates that an external regulator that
>is KNOWN to work properly in load dump situations is going to be the way to
>go.
Load dump behavior is not unique to internally or externally regulated
alternators. Further, there is no 'proper' behavior that I'm aware of.
Load dump becomes an issue under one condition, battery off line and
an alternator running barefoot. Any alternator will exhibit the
characteristic to some degree. Design goals for aircraft have classically
assumed that the battery is going to be there to mitigate it. If one
has a new goal to run battery only, then the load dump dragon will
have to be dealt with.
The topic of load-dump effects came up recently when loaded alternators
got unhooked from the battery by turning off a Figure Z-24 installation.
It happens that this figure suggests a means by which ANY internally
regulated alternator can be confidently used as a source of power
in airplanes. . . but don't make the erroneous assumption that
the load dump problem and/or behavior is unique to any particular
style of alternator . . . it just happens that in this case an
internally regulated alternator killed itself with its own load-dump!
>I don't really want to go as far as the Z-14 dual battery system either, but
>I'm concerned about a total failure of my only battery (broken terminal
>lug?). If your only battery goes offline, neither of the two alternators are
>going to help you.
>To offset this (very unlikely to happen) concern, I'm looking at solving two
>(non?) problems with one solution. Lightspeed itself offers a simple
>addition of a 4.5 amp battery for the purpose of keeping the voltage up on
>their ignition or as backup, but this small battery if properly wired in
>could also serve as an exciter for the alternators if the main battery goes
>offline. I'm just not sure exactly how to plug it into the existing Z-13
>design. Here's Lightspeed's suggestion:
>http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Manuals/PS_Diagram.htm
Okay, if you're considering a second battery, why not wire it
per Z-30. It can be a small battery. Just don't close the
aux battery contactor (or relay . . . and S704-1 plastic
would do) until after the engine starts. Now you get TWO
benefits, you have the second battery to assuage your concerns
about primary battery failure -AND- the alternators remain
available because there's a battery on line to excite/stabilize
them and still do a fair job in load-dump mitigation.
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! --
|