Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:50 AM - Re: Alternator mounting was Re: Balance, (Charlie Kuss)
2. 06:12 AM - Re: Re: SD8 as a Standby Alternator (Vern W.)
3. 07:30 AM - Freq change beeps (Fergus Kyle)
4. 08:15 AM - Re: Freq change beeps (Dan Checkoway)
5. 08:18 AM - Re: Freq change beeps (Dan Checkoway)
6. 08:46 AM - Re: Alternator mounting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:47 AM - switch wiring (Jones, Michael)
8. 10:48 AM - Re: switch wiring (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
9. 11:22 AM - Re: Balance (Eric M. Jones)
10. 12:02 PM - Re: Re: Alternator mounting ()
11. 12:05 PM - touch screen pdas in rough air? (Fergus Kyle)
12. 01:09 PM - Re: switch wiring (william mills)
13. 03:23 PM - Re:Re: Freq change beeps (buck)
14. 04:44 PM - Archer Wingtip Antenna (Vincent Welch)
15. 05:36 PM - Re: RV-List: Archer Wingtip Antenna (Dan Checkoway)
16. 05:52 PM - Re: Re:Re: Freq change beeps (Fred Fillinger)
17. 06:08 PM - High Amperage Rotary Switch (D Fritz)
18. 06:54 PM - Re: Freq change beeps (John Schroeder)
19. 07:01 PM - Re: Alternator mounting was Re: Balance, Was: (Ken)
20. 07:14 PM - Re: Re: Balance (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 07:29 PM - Re: Freq change beeps (Dan Checkoway)
22. 08:15 PM - Re: Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Frank & Dorothy)
23. 09:09 PM - Re: High Amperage Rotary Switch (Prue Motorgliders)
24. 09:45 PM - Re: Cooly hat switch (Franz Fux)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator mounting was Re: Balance, |
Was: Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Was:
Alternator help
>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?
>
>--> 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
Ken,
Could you give me some details on the addition of a third mounting point
on the B & C 40 amp alternator? I agree that additional mounting (rigidity)
is a good thing. Does the additional mounting point simply involve an
additional bracket? Or is an additional hole drilled and tapped into the
alternator case?
Charlie Kuss
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: re: SD8 as a Standby Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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!
What I was referring to, Bob, is that previous posts by yourself seem to
suggest that externally regulated alternators fair better and won't be
damaged as easily as internally regulated alternators in a load dump
(crowbar) scenario.
What did I misunderstand about that?
>
> >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 . . .
I like that idea because it takes care of exactly what my (probably
unfounded) concerns were about an only battery going offline. I'll dig out
Z-30 and do some thinkin' on that.
Vern
>
>
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: | Freq change beeps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
"Dan -
I don't know about the leaders you fly with, but channel changes in close
formation are dumb. The formation should be kicked out to spread for such
things as fuel checks and radio changes. There are very rare times when
one has to do things like this in close formation, but I doubt if they
apply to the type of flying you do. A formation instrument approach in
weather is one - and one never does those unless separate approaches are
impossible (electrical failure or pitot/static problems at the drome of
last resort). I certainly would talk it over with your leader.
This is my humble opinion based on hundreds of hours of day weather and
night weather formation. Cheers, John"
Dan,
I've got to say I agree with John (above). Started fromation in
fighters in 1951 and fly formation today, but don't know why you need a
radio in tight formation. It was customary to complete a one hour trip, in
both close and battle formation without a transmission (to be heard by the
bad guys). If the leader has not made arrangements for silent flight, he
needs a review. I would think seriously about joining a group who depend on
chatter for safety and security. Almost everything you want to say can be
mimed if it's covered in the briefing and practised as a habit.
The exception of course is while on ATC freqs, as they depend on
talk for a living. Even that can be overcome.
Happy Landings
Ferg
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: Freq change beeps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Dan,
> I've got to say I agree with John (above). Started fromation
in
> fighters in 1951 and fly formation today, but don't know why you need a
> radio in tight formation. It was customary to complete a one hour trip,
in
> both close and battle formation without a transmission (to be heard by the
> bad guys). If the leader has not made arrangements for silent flight, he
> needs a review. I would think seriously about joining a group who depend
on
> chatter for safety and security. Almost everything you want to say can be
> mimed if it's covered in the briefing and practised as a habit.
> The exception of course is while on ATC freqs, as they depend
on
> talk for a living. Even that can be overcome.
> Happy Landings
> Ferg
Ferg,
Living out here in SoCal, there is rarely a time when we are NOT on an ATC
freq. If you live out in the middle of nowhere, sure -- not as much need
for freq changes. But out here in the Los Angeles area, a simple formation
flight will often transition 4 frequencies within the scope of 10-15
minutes. Such is the reality when you fly in SoCal.
Chino Tower, Brackett Tower, Cable Unicom, San Bernardino practice area,
*then* we go to our discrete "channel 3." We do our routine, and then we
have to pass back through those areas on the way home.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Freq change beeps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> flight will often transition 4 frequencies within the scope of 10-15
Check this out:
http://checkoway.com/url/?s=46633c92
Maybe after seeing that, you can understand why freq changes are a reality
out here.
I want the flip-flop feedback tone. I'm trying not to be defensive about
why I want this feature, but I can't help it. I'm amazed at how much
resistance a simple idea has encountered on this list. So much for "here's
how it's done." Thanks to those who responded already on-topic.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator mounting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>Ken,
> Could you give me some details on the addition of a third mounting point
>on the B & C 40 amp alternator? I agree that additional mounting (rigidity)
>is a good thing. Does the additional mounting point simply involve an
>additional bracket? Or is an additional hole drilled and tapped into the
>alternator case?
>Charlie Kuss
See:
http://bandc.biz/L40desc.html
The bracket you see extending rearward from the mounting
boss on the front-endbell casting is a B&C enhancement.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jones, Michael" <MJones@hatch.ca>
hi all
is there a wiring diagram example that shows two mags on toggles and a
separate push button start ??
have aeroelectric book and associated files but don't see one, guess i still
don't really follow how mags have to be wired up yet, perhaps someone can
explain
thanx
mike
NOTICE - This message is the property of HATCH. It may also be
confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient
of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate,
copy or take any action with respect to it.
If you have received this message in error please notify
HATCH immediately via mailto:MailAdmin@hatch.ca.
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: switch wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 4/21/05 11:48:39 AM Central Daylight Time, MJones@hatch.ca
writes:
> is there a wiring diagram example that shows two mags on toggles and a
> separate push button start ??
Hi Mike- my RV is wired this way- if you can do AutoCAD, I can send you my
main drawing (Z-11 based), or I can try to scan it if you need it.
Mark Phillips - do not archive
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Dear Bob,
>???? 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
Sure...and why would anyone want to run an alternator at 2X or more times
the speed needed 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.
And is this dynamic or static? It is entirely possible that ND (and others)
dynamically balances theirs on their several million dollar computerized
rotor balancer and B&C uses a static balancer and gets different results.
> ND builds alternators for cars and it's a sure bet that the manufacturers
of cars follow ND's recommendations for operating conditions.
Can you claim that the environment under an aircraft cowling is worse than
under the hood of a car?
>>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?
WHERE'S THE PROOF THAT IT'S NOT???????? Ay #&
$!?/#$%
&*()!!! Carumba!
Where's the PROOF that I don't have the PROOF???! In fact where's the proof
I'm not really the infallible secret Pope! Cheeeezzzzzzz...........
>It's fine to be skeptical....
Thanks. Now begins a long heartfelt and kind support of what is undoubtedly
a fine company, run by fine people--no doubt.
> 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.
Etc....maple syrup
>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.
Etc....with sugar on top
>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.
Etc...bless them all. And they are kind to animals and children.
> 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.
Etc...and patriots and taxpayers all I'm sure--which is usually more than
you can say for me.
>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 and get his work more widely published . . . maybe
>at aeroelectric.com. We'll see he's interested in doing an ND project too.
Bob . . .
Now, you're talking. Can we get a link to his data?
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
" I would have made a good Pope."
-- Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator mounting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Ken,
> > Could you give me some details on the addition of a third mounting point
> >on the B & C 40 amp alternator? I agree that additional mounting (rigidity)
> >is a good thing. Does the additional mounting point simply involve an
> >additional bracket? Or is an additional hole drilled and tapped into the
> >alternator case?
> >Charlie Kuss
>
>
> See:
>
> http://bandc.biz/L40desc.html
>
> The bracket you see extending rearward from the mounting
> boss on the front-endbell casting is a B&C enhancement.
>
> Bob . . .
That's a great idea and a nice improvement.
Charlie
do not archieve
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: | touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Cheers,
The guys around here have a PDA program which changes the screen
into 9 areas (buttons) about one inch square. Each one is programmed to
provide a separate service - something like the 'blind' telephone dial
buttons.
Would that fill the bill or will I shut up right now?
Ferg
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: switch wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: william mills <courierboy@earthlink.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jones, Michael" <MJones@hatch.ca>
>
>hi all
>
>is there a wiring diagram example that shows two mags on toggles and a
>separate push button start ??
>have aeroelectric book and associated files but don't see one, guess i still
>don't really follow how mags have to be wired up yet, perhaps someone can
>explain
>
>thanx
>
>mike
Mike -
Figure Z-12 on page Z-10 of Rev 10 shows this.
Bill
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: Freq change beeps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "buck" <buckaroo_banzai@the-pentagon.com>
In support of Dan here, I also fly in the Los Angeles area and it's
difficult to fly here without talking to somebody who owns the airspace
you're passing through. And even if you're not talking you need to listen
because of all the other traffic in the area. (I believe AOPA reported
that 25% of all the aircraft in the USA are based in Southern California.)
Greg
----------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: "Dan Checkoway"<dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
<dan@rvproject.com>
>
>> Dan,
>> I've got to say I agree with John (above). Started fromation
>in
>> fighters in 1951 and fly formation today, but don't know why you need a
>> radio in tight formation. It was customary to complete a one hour trip,
>in
>> both close and battle formation without a transmission (to be heard by
the
>> bad guys). If the leader has not made arrangements for silent flight, he
>> needs a review. I would think seriously about joining a group who depend
>on
>> chatter for safety and security. Almost everything you want to say can be
>> mimed if it's covered in the briefing and practised as a habit.
>> The exception of course is while on ATC freqs, as they depend
>on
>> talk for a living. Even that can be overcome.
>> Happy Landings
>> Ferg
>
>Ferg,
>
>Living out here in SoCal, there is rarely a time when we are NOT on an ATC
>freq. If you live out in the middle of nowhere, sure -- not as much need
>for freq changes. But out here in the Los Angeles area, a simple formation
>flight will often transition 4 frequencies within the scope of 10-15
>minutes. Such is the reality when you fly in SoCal.
>
>Chino Tower, Brackett Tower, Cable Unicom, San Bernardino practice area,
>*then* we go to our discrete "channel 3." We do our routine, and then we
>have to pass back through those areas on the way home.
>
>do not archive
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
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: | Archer Wingtip Antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
Gentlemen,
I was looking over the instructions relating to the installation of Archer
wingtip antenna. The instructions indicate that the ground plane is formed
by placing the edge of the antenna between the wing and the wingtip. This
would work fine if the wingtip fit over the wing skin BUT the RV tip fits
inside of the skin.
For those of you that have installed this type of antenna on the RV series
of aircraft, how did you mount it and how did you form the ground plane?
Vince
RV-8A
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Archer Wingtip Antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Vince,
The antenna makes contact with the airframe structure by virtue of the
nutplates and screws. The nutplates rivet to the wingtip right onto the
antenna "base," whereby the antenna is sandwiched between the wingtip and
the nutplates. When screws go through the skin and into the nutplates, the
antenna is thus connected to the airframe.
What I wondered about was what happens once the wing skin is painted...i.e.
if the screws will still make enough contact with the wing skin for this to
be functional.
So what I did on mine was to use aluminum tape to provide a direct
connection between the "inside" of the wing skin and the antenna. A picture
or three can illustrate what I'm talking about much better than words:
http://www.rvproject.com/20040322.html
Remarkably, that cheap aluminum tape I bought from Harbor Freight indeed has
enough metal in it to be an electrical conductor.
Works great on the Archer NAV antenna, although the Archer COM antenna in
the RV-7 sheared wing tip leaves a bit to be desired. There's a fair amount
of shadowing by the airframe, and barely enough room to give it vertical
polarization. YMMV
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Archer Wingtip Antenna
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I was looking over the instructions relating to the installation of Archer
> wingtip antenna. The instructions indicate that the ground plane is
formed
> by placing the edge of the antenna between the wing and the wingtip. This
> would work fine if the wingtip fit over the wing skin BUT the RV tip fits
> inside of the skin.
>
> For those of you that have installed this type of antenna on the RV series
> of aircraft, how did you mount it and how did you form the ground plane?
>
> Vince
> RV-8A
>
>
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: Freq change beeps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
> (I believe AOPA reported that 25% of all the aircraft in
> the USA are based in Southern California.)
>
> Greg
Where'd they get that one? I have FAA's current database and didn't
do an actual count for SoCal, since it would involve lengthy ZIP code
analysis. But state is easy, and all of CA is about 10%.
Reg,
Fred F.
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: | High Amperage Rotary Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
Question for the List:
I'm buying switches for my electrical system (Velocity with essentially a Z-13
electrical system) and would like to use a rotary switch for my endurance bus
connection. This will require the switch to carry up to 10 Amps. I'd also like
to have the functionality of a double pole, three position switch - similar
to a 2-10 toggle switch. Is anyone aware of a switch such as this that is rated
for this many amps on a 14 Volt system?
On a related note, I found a key switch at the following web-site (for golf carts)
that appears to be for high amperages:
http://www.golfcarcatalog.com/merchant.cfm/pid/2172/step/4.html
does anyone know how to test to see how many amps I can expect it to be good for?
It's got a really nice snap action to it, but the only markings on it say
"Cole USA Boston," no indication of current ratings. It's advertised as the "ignition"
switch on an electric golf cart with "off," "on," and "on with lights"
positions.
Thanks,
Dan Fritz
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: Freq change beeps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Dan -
I have followed your build process for quite some time and have admired
both the workmanship and skills you have brought to the community. I know
your airplane is as stunning as your website and the log you made of the
project. However, based on many years of experience, I do have an interest
in what people do with these finely crafted machines. In the past year, I
know of two fine builders, whom I admired greatly, die in crashes because
of activities in airplanes that were just plain dumb. I also have a
neighbor who crashed into another person's out building because he was
doing things with an airplane that were just plain dumb - over a populated
area. This fellow was an ATP. From the air, I watched him hit the
building, but after landing learned that another neighbor got to the scene
in time to pull him from the flaming building. He is alive because of
this. Please take my comments and Ferg's in this vein.
I do understand what the tone is for. However, when you reveal the main
reason for wanting the feature, it strikes some on this list that the
activity in and of itself is to be questioned. This is fair game. It is
not off topic.
If you have to go through several ATC freqs to get to the practice area,
the lesson I mentioned in my first posting remains valid: the leader
should go to a safe spread of the formation (pre-briefed configuration),
call the channel change, and get a check on the new freq. Tone would help
if you hit the stick button to flop to the new freq., but you have ample
time and a safe position to twist the knobs, hit the channel change button
on the radio and await the call to check in.
In fact, if flying in Southern California is that hectic and crowded, I
would ask if a formation is the way to transit these areas? Have you all
discussed this with your leader(s)? Why not transit single ship, gather up
in the approved area, do the formation, disband and go home singly? If you
are in a relatively uncongested practice area, a rendezvous is not that
difficult to pull off if well briefed. If you have a chatter freq, it is a
piece of cake.
Or, the alternative that provides better safety is to fly is a really good
spread formation so that everyone can look around for bogeys. A good
combat wing formation of 1000 to 2000 feet would be best. Doesn't look all
that sexy or exciting from the ground, but you surely can spot other
aircraft a lot better. Channel changes would so be much less hectic.
If you want an equally facilitating radio aid (vis-a-vis the tone), put a
remote channel indicator in view so that you can still watch leader and
change the freq with the knobs. Or get a radio with the capability to have
several pre-sets; then count the clicks. If the ATC freq's are standard,
they can be preset one after the other - ie. one click between.
It seems to me that a tone generator (lots of installation, design and
fiddling) solves little in the way of enhancing a safe formation flight.
If the button on your stick is too sensitive, would a click-on/click-off
button (tactile feedback) be an easier solution?
With respect and good intentions,
Sincerely,
John
Do not archive.
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:21 -0700, Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com>
wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
> <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>> flight will often transition 4 frequencies within the scope of 10-15
>
> Check this out:
>
> http://checkoway.com/url/?s=46633c92
>
> Maybe after seeing that, you can understand why freq changes are a
> reality
> out here.
>
> I want the flip-flop feedback tone. I'm trying not to be defensive about
> why I want this feature, but I can't help it. I'm amazed at how much
> resistance a simple idea has encountered on this list. So much for
> "here's
> how it's done." Thanks to those who responded already on-topic.
>
> do not archive
> )_( Dan
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: Alternator mounting was Re: Balance, Was: |
Alternator help
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
A photo would say it all but here goes:
It is a bracket fastened solidly to the alternator.
He puts a heavy wall steel tube (machined in a lathe) in the pivot hole
that extends maybe 3 inches rearward towards the back of the alternator.
At the rear of this tube two flat fingers then extend towards the
alternator and pick up two of the four long bolts that hold the
alternator case halves together. So now you use perhaps a four inch
long bolt through that tube that fastens to the engine at both ends much
like a larger automotive alternator. The alternator pivots on this long
bolt as you tighten or loosen the v belt adjustment. Simple but also
quite clever.
Ken
>Ken,
> Could you give me some details on the addition of a third mounting point
>on the B & C 40 amp alternator? I agree that additional mounting (rigidity)
>is a good thing. Does the additional mounting point simply involve an
>additional bracket? Or is an additional hole drilled and tapped into the
>alternator case?
>Charlie Kuss
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:18 PM 4/21/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Dear Bob,
>
> >???? 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
>
>Sure...and why would anyone want to run an alternator at 2X or more times
>the speed needed for full output?
see design goals below
> >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.
>
>And is this dynamic or static? It is entirely possible that ND (and others)
>dynamically balances theirs on their several million dollar computerized
>rotor balancer and B&C uses a static balancer and gets different results.
nope, it's a $high$ spin machine
> > ND builds alternators for cars and it's a sure bet that the manufacturers
>of cars follow ND's recommendations for operating conditions.
>
>Can you claim that the environment under an aircraft cowling is worse than
>under the hood of a car?
Which aspect of environment. Some things are worse, some are
better . . . but vibration generated within the alternator due
to DESIGN choices are worse.
> >>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?
>
>WHERE'S THE PROOF THAT IT'S NOT???????? Ay #&
>$!?/#$%
>&*()!!! Carumba!
>Where's the PROOF that I don't have the PROOF???! In fact where's the proof
>I'm not really the infallible secret Pope! Cheeeezzzzzzz...........
I'm only suggesting that your skepticism is based
on no better data than other folks faith that
most if not all of what B&C claims to do actually
improves their product. You can say the stock ND
doesn't benefit from modifications and I can suggest
that they do and neither one of us can show comparative
data to resolve the difference. The only hard data I
can offer is an exemplary return rate that other folks in
the aircraft alternator business can only dream
about.
Having said that, I don't know that other folks
wouldn't do a LOT better if they were not saddled
with the regulatory albatross . . . but under
the current set of circumstances, one would be
hard pressed to come up with an AIRCRAFT alternator
that competes seriously with the B&C products. Wouldn't
it be WORTH the $ to have an alternator that is likely
to run TBO on the engine?
B&C has demonstrated it and I think that stands
above any nit-picking over the value of manufacturing
techniques that are not going to be examined scientifically
any time soon.
<snip>
> >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.
>
> Etc...bless them all. And they are kind to animals and children.
I'm sorry, are my words irrelevant, arguably in error
or are you agreeing?
<snip>
> >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 and get his work more widely published . . . maybe
> >at aeroelectric.com. We'll see he's interested in doing an ND project too.
>Bob . . .
>
>Now, you're talking. Can we get a link to his data?
it's been published several times. here 'tis again
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/
My DNS has trouble finding the page from time to time.
If you can't get it, I've .pdf'd the file and uploaded
it to my site at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/North
You need both .pdf files.
I'll talk with him about doing a 'heathkit' style
conversion article. Each step listed and illustrated
in detail. Just noticed how much his Prestolite
resembles a Nipon Denso. Had a builder in my last
seminar who gave me a huge Bosch cross-reference
document. I've not had time to look at it in detail
but he said that Bosch is the manufacturer of
the lion's share of alternators of all marketing
brands. It wouldn't surprise me if Prestolite
and ND both get their alternators from Bosch.
He also said that the smallest alternator they
build today is over 100 amps. Those itty-bitty
machines we're enamored of today are disappearing
as we speak.
Bob . . .
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: Freq change beeps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I don't disagree with most of what you said. But I still don't understand
how ADDING feedback to the system is making what I already do and will
continue to do any less safe.
If you're questioning feedback for the flip-flop switch on the stick, why
not question having the switch itself? And while you're at it, why not
question flip-flop in general, or even digital radios with a standby
frequency? Why not always force the pilot to turn a dial to accomplish a
task?
HOTAS, staring at lead (in cruise spread or not), I want feedback when I
*do* click the flip-flop button.
I've received some very helpful hints off-list (ironic, isn't it?), and I
appreciate the input from those who responded.
Now can we please get back to discussions about why internally regulated
alternators are incompatible with rattle-can primed alclad in
nosewheel-equipped RVs with Schottky diodes?
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Dan -
>
> I have followed your build process for quite some time and have admired
> both the workmanship and skills you have brought to the community. I know
> your airplane is as stunning as your website and the log you made of the
> project. However, based on many years of experience, I do have an interest
> in what people do with these finely crafted machines. In the past year, I
> know of two fine builders, whom I admired greatly, die in crashes because
> of activities in airplanes that were just plain dumb. I also have a
> neighbor who crashed into another person's out building because he was
> doing things with an airplane that were just plain dumb - over a populated
> area. This fellow was an ATP. From the air, I watched him hit the
> building, but after landing learned that another neighbor got to the scene
> in time to pull him from the flaming building. He is alive because of
> this. Please take my comments and Ferg's in this vein.
>
> I do understand what the tone is for. However, when you reveal the main
> reason for wanting the feature, it strikes some on this list that the
> activity in and of itself is to be questioned. This is fair game. It is
> not off topic.
>
> If you have to go through several ATC freqs to get to the practice area,
> the lesson I mentioned in my first posting remains valid: the leader
> should go to a safe spread of the formation (pre-briefed configuration),
> call the channel change, and get a check on the new freq. Tone would help
> if you hit the stick button to flop to the new freq., but you have ample
> time and a safe position to twist the knobs, hit the channel change button
> on the radio and await the call to check in.
>
> In fact, if flying in Southern California is that hectic and crowded, I
> would ask if a formation is the way to transit these areas? Have you all
> discussed this with your leader(s)? Why not transit single ship, gather up
> in the approved area, do the formation, disband and go home singly? If you
> are in a relatively uncongested practice area, a rendezvous is not that
> difficult to pull off if well briefed. If you have a chatter freq, it is a
> piece of cake.
>
> Or, the alternative that provides better safety is to fly is a really good
> spread formation so that everyone can look around for bogeys. A good
> combat wing formation of 1000 to 2000 feet would be best. Doesn't look all
> that sexy or exciting from the ground, but you surely can spot other
> aircraft a lot better. Channel changes would so be much less hectic.
>
> If you want an equally facilitating radio aid (vis-a-vis the tone), put a
> remote channel indicator in view so that you can still watch leader and
> change the freq with the knobs. Or get a radio with the capability to have
> several pre-sets; then count the clicks. If the ATC freq's are standard,
> they can be preset one after the other - ie. one click between.
>
> It seems to me that a tone generator (lots of installation, design and
> fiddling) solves little in the way of enhancing a safe formation flight.
> If the button on your stick is too sensitive, would a click-on/click-off
> button (tactile feedback) be an easier solution?
>
> With respect and good intentions,
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:21 -0700, Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com>
> wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
> > <dan@rvproject.com>
> >
> >> flight will often transition 4 frequencies within the scope of 10-15
> >
> > Check this out:
> >
> > http://checkoway.com/url/?s=46633c92
> >
> > Maybe after seeing that, you can understand why freq changes are a
> > reality
> > out here.
> >
> > I want the flip-flop feedback tone. I'm trying not to be defensive
about
> > why I want this feature, but I can't help it. I'm amazed at how much
> > resistance a simple idea has encountered on this list. So much for
> > "here's
> > how it's done." Thanks to those who responded already on-topic.
> >
> > do not archive
> > )_( Dan
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frank & Dorothy <frankvdh@xtra.co.nz>
From another list I recently joined:
I have problems with my PDA when the air gets bumpy. Just about stick
the stylus through the screen, unless I am holding it to even out the
bumps. I am inclined to think that entering data is fraught with perils
of the air when flying.
>Hey now that 'keyboard' got my attention. Just had a brief look at
their web
>site http://www.frogpad.com/information/bluefroginfo.asp and thought
if one
>was to setup one of these keyboards on say, a centre consol area, it
could
>make for a easy operation. You could 'hide' the laptop under the panel
on a
>slide out tray or the likes of... Any thoughts? :-)
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: High Amperage Rotary Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Prue Motorgliders <pruemotorgliders@cox.net>
Dan,
Look at this Moeller product line. You may have to get a product
specialist as the switch may have to be custom built. The switch takes
approx 3" square panel space including wire connections behind the
panel - also 3" to 5"+ behind the panel.
I read the spec sheet toshow a 25 amp 24 volt DC rating for the T3
series and 10 amp 24 v DC for the TO series. The TO series is slightly
smaller
I am presently investigating the Moeller switch for my motorglider
Jerry
Prue IIMG - ready to wire
On Apr 21, 2005, at 18:07, D Fritz wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
>
> Question for the List:
> I'm buying switches for my electrical system (Velocity with
> essentially a Z-13 electrical system) and would like to use a rotary
> switch for my endurance bus connection. This will require the switch
> to carry up to 10 Amps. I'd also like to have the functionality of a
> double pole, three position switch - similar to a 2-10 toggle switch.
> Is anyone aware of a switch such as this that is rated for this many
> amps on a 14 Volt system?
>
> On a related note, I found a key switch at the following web-site (for
> golf carts) that appears to be for high amperages:
>
> http://www.golfcarcatalog.com/merchant.cfm/pid/2172/step/4.html
>
> does anyone know how to test to see how many amps I can expect it to
> be good for? It's got a really nice snap action to it, but the only
> markings on it say "Cole USA Boston," no indication of current
> ratings. It's advertised as the "ignition" switch on an electric golf
> cart with "off," "on," and "on with lights" positions.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan Fritz
>
>
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: | Cooly hat switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Franz Fux" <franz@lastfrontierheli.com>
Hi again,
as I am going along in my wiring, I am nowv trying to wire the ray Allen
elevator trim system as supplied with the kit. I would like to wire it in a
way so that I can either use the up-down cooly hat or the switch supplied
with the kit. My question is: do I need relay to be able to use the stick
grip and is there a drawing available that would show the wire runs,
Thanks in advance,
just got my prop yesterday, it sure looks like a flying machine now,
Franz RV7A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Franz
Fux
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Cooly hat switch
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Franz Fux"
<franz@lastfrontierheli.com>
Hi everybody,
I got a cooly hat switch on my stick grip that I would like to wire for
trim, up and down switch and toggle switch for the radio left and right. The
markings on the colly hat terminals are A B C E plus and reverse g. Could
someone enlighten me as to which terminal corresponded which the appropriate
motion on the switch as in left, right, up and down, with other words how to
wire it to get the appropriate results
Thanks for your help
Franz
RV7A
--
--
--
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! --
|