---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 04/21/05:24 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:50:19 AM PST US From: "Charlie Kuss Was": chaztuna@adelphia.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator mounting was Re: Balance, Was: Alternator help --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss 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 > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:12:17 AM PST US From: "Vern W." Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: re: SD8 as a Standby Alternator --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: re: SD8 as a Standby Alternator > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:30:35 AM PST US From: "Fergus Kyle" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" "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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:15:51 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:18:06 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:46:05 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator mounting --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:47:09 AM PST US From: "Jones, Michael" Subject: AeroElectric-List: switch wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jones, Michael" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:48:21 AM PST US From: Fiveonepw@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:22:29 AM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Balance --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:02:09 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator mounting --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:05:52 PM PST US From: "Fergus Kyle" Subject: AeroElectric-List: touch screen pdas in rough air? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:09:27 PM PST US From: william mills Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: switch wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: william mills >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jones, Michael" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:23:04 PM PST US From: "buck" Subject: Re:Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "buck" 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" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:44:19 PM PST US From: "Vincent Welch" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Archer Wingtip Antenna --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:36:50 PM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RV-List: Archer Wingtip Antenna --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" 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" Subject: RV-List: Archer Wingtip Antenna > --> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:52:46 PM PST US From: "Fred Fillinger" Subject: Re: Re:Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" > (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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:08:36 PM PST US From: D Fritz Subject: AeroElectric-List: High Amperage Rotary Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:54:58 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" 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 wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > > >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:32 PM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator mounting was Re: Balance, Was: Alternator help --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:14:49 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Balance --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:18 PM 4/21/2005 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >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. > >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? > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:29:32 PM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" 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" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Freq change beeps > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" > > 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 > wrote: > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > > > > > >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:15:43 PM PST US From: Frank & Dorothy Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frank & Dorothy 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:09:10 PM PST US From: Prue Motorgliders Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: High Amperage Rotary Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Prue Motorgliders 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:45:28 PM PST US From: "Franz Fux" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Cooly hat switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Franz Fux" 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" 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 -- -- --