Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:07 AM - Re: Re:Re: Freq change beeps (Chuck Jensen)
2. 06:34 AM - Re: Re: Balance (Ken)
3. 08:07 AM - Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection (ldodgesr@mmm.com)
4. 08:38 AM - P-Mag wiring drawing (Karen and Robert Brown)
5. 08:52 AM - Re: Cooly hat switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:08 AM - basic reasoning for system architecture (Larry E. James)
7. 09:22 AM - Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:51 AM - Re: Wire crimper suggestions? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 10:38 AM - Re: basic reasoning for system architecture (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 11:09 AM - Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Eric M. Jones)
11. 12:43 PM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Dj Merrill)
12. 03:50 PM - Re: Re: Wire crimper suggestions? (John Swartout)
13. 04:28 PM - basic reasoning for system architecture (Larry E. James)
14. 05:08 PM - Re: basic reasoning for system architecture (Paul)
15. 05:18 PM - Re: Re: Wire crimper suggestions? (Robert McCallum)
16. 05:31 PM - Re: Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection (George Braly)
17. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: Wire crimper suggestions? (Stein Bruch)
18. 11:15 PM - Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Freq change beeps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Fred,
Your misunderstood Greg. He didn't say that 25% of the registered aircraft were
based in SoCal--he said he BELIEVED they were. And, I imagine if you fly in
SoCal, it probably SEEMS like 25% are based there. Now we know what the F. stands
for in Fred F.....Factchecker.
Maybe 25% of all aircraft in CA are based in SoCal?
Chuck
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fred
Fillinger
Subject: Re: Re:Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
The pdf maker program seems to have cut off the right side of the text
in at least the first .pdf file. The web page came up fine though for me.
Assuming relatively high alternator rpm in cruise, I think I'd be happy
to try the rotor with rearward sloping cooling fan fins. Certainly he is
correct that a forward slope will flow more air but they are much less
efficient. The rearward sloping fins would absorb less power and I'd
guess they'd still flow enough air at high aircraft cruise rpm's.
Ken
>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.
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
9, 2003) at 04/22/2005 09:52:57 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ldodgesr@mmm.com
There has been a lot of discussion on the use of transorbs, etc. relative
to OV protection. Is there a summary available that explains the current
recommendations? I have Bob's original module, but haven't installed it
yet.
For reference, I have an IO-360 using Van's internally regulated 60 Amp
alternator.
Thanks,
Larry Dodge
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: | P-Mag wiring drawing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
Bob,
When you were in Independence,OR you discussed P-Mags (which are on my engine)
and that you were going to do a drawing showing wiring details on that install.
Emagair recommends a 5A breaker on each ignition for test purposes...I'm a
little confused on how to wire all of that in. I'm using the dreaded L/R/Both/Start
switch. I have considered wiring them from fuses to two 1-3 switches,
but I also have the 5A breaker-switches on hand, so installing them wouldn't be
a problem either. In the whirlwind of everything else you have going on, I
was wondering where you were in this endeavor. I'm needing some direction-
Thanks,
Bob Brown
RV-7A - wiring (ALMOST DONE!!!)
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: | Cooly hat switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:44 PM 4/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> 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
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/PitchTrim.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/t4.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/trim6.pdf
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
I was hoping that wiring my aircraft would be relatively
simple and straight forward; hoping too that I could easily
follow in others' footsteps and not have to get overly
involved. It seems I was wrong. I have now spent a few
hours looking through the archives of this List and read
large pieces of Bob's work. OK, so now I am committed to
learning what I have to know to make my own decisions for
wiring my aircraft.
I'm asking for some basic help. Throughout my search I
remain plagued by some very basic questions. I'm sure this
list has covered these at length; but they are buried in and
amongst so many other issues that I remain confused. Could
someone please write a recap of the fundamental points and
arguments that determine which system architecture best
suits a few different basic needs ?? I understand that Z-13
represents a mature design basis for most aircraft. I would
like to add a level of "safety" to this; and I am under the
understanding that either adding a second alternator or
second battery (if done correctly) are good ways to
accomplish this. For me, while weight is always a very
important driver; I'm building a Harmon Rocket II and adding
aft weight helps this airplane fly. This simple reasoning
led me to a dual battery / single alternator (Z11h + Z30)
architecture. But why ?? I gather that most current talk
on the List centers on a dual alternator / single battery
(Z-12) architecture. Why ?? What other factors weigh into
this that I didn't include in my original reasoning ?? And
what other questions should I be asking ?? I apologize for
seeming slow; once I wrap my arms around this wiring thing I
hope I can be a useful contributor the this List.
--
Larry E. James (Bellevue, WA HR2 - fuselage / systems -
New Concepts Prototyping and Production
Seattle, WA
206-633-3111
206-633-3114 fax
larry@ncproto.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:52 AM 4/22/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ldodgesr@mmm.com
>
>
>There has been a lot of discussion on the use of transorbs, etc. relative
>to OV protection. Is there a summary available that explains the current
>recommendations? I have Bob's original module, but haven't installed it
>yet.
>
>For reference, I have an IO-360 using Van's internally regulated 60 Amp
>alternator.
Bottom line from the AeroElectric Connection perspective is that
in spite of efforts to smoothly integrate an internally regulated
alternator into an aircraft electrical system, my best recommendation
at this time is that it not be done. I'm removing suggested
installation data for the internally regulated alternator from
the next revision of the 'Connection (out next week).
I'll continue to work the task but until I have a UNIVERSALLY
applicable technique to recommend, folks will have to rely
on the faith that a number of folk (with varying knowledge of
fact) have bestowed on their recommendations. I think the
risks are indeed low but they are not so low that I could put
an internally regulated alternator on a certified airplane.
Not without proving to myself, the FAA and my customers that the
machine selected has been designed and tested to meet certain
reliability requirements. This would mean calling out a
very specific source of hardware that would not include
rebuilds, junk-yard takeoffs, or most over the counter
alternators.
Folks have misunderstood my resistance to embrace this
technology as a desire to promote B&C and a variety of
other agendas . . . but the bottom line is simply this:
I cannot recommend anything without knowing everything
there is to know about it . . . and you can't deduce
this data by simply holding the part in your hand or
having some kind of faith in a brand name.
It's been suggested that an ND alternator is good-to-go
off the shelf while I've suggested that getting
an ND alternator with B&C's mods is good value.
I don't know that the former is untrue but I do know
what B&C has demonstrated in the marketplace. Anyone
is invited, nay ENCOURAGED to prove me wrong. Here's
an great entrepreneurial opportunity for someone to
put their own brand on an ND alternator with whatever
level of modifications they see fit and offer it
at a lower cost than B&C but with the same warranty
and service.
The marketplace always has been the ultimate illuminator
of facts and demonstrator of value. Nothing would please
me more than to have someone put market pressure on
B&C (or anyone else) by offering a equal to or better
product for less. It's ultimately a win-win for
everybody.
Bob . . .
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: Wire crimper suggestions? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:42 PM 4/20/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the B&C
>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
I sold that tool myself for years.
The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: basic reasoning for system architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:47 AM 4/22/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
>
>I was hoping that wiring my aircraft would be relatively
>simple and straight forward; hoping too that I could easily
>follow in others' footsteps and not have to get overly
>involved. It seems I was wrong. I have now spent a few
>hours looking through the archives of this List and read
>large pieces of Bob's work. OK, so now I am committed to
>learning what I have to know to make my own decisions for
>wiring my aircraft.
<snip>
Larry, I'm presuming this post precedes your receipt
of my reply to your direct email. If not, was my
reply unenlightening or uninspiring?
Either way, I'm thinking your worry-bucket is too
full . . . and that's understandable. You don't do this
stuff for a living. For the benefit of others on the
list who would like to participate in the discussion
I'll copy my earlier reply to you as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------
>Hi Bob,
>I don't want to waste your time ..... could you please steer me (key
>search words for aeroelectric list or papers on you site or wherever else)
>to a simple to understand and resolute conclusion on determining the
>proper electrical system for my airplane ??
>
>I am having a hard time starting into this discussion; it's looking like
>most of the discussion starts around a surrounding point (like SD8) and
>ends up talking about basic architecture. I asked you earlier about a
>wiring diagram for a dual battery . single alternator system and you told
>me to combine the Z11h and Z30 drawings. I need to take one step back and
>ask if this is a preferred architecture ??
There is a "preferred" architecture for virtually every
project going. Some builders prefer to do what's already
been done in nearly a century of aircraft construction,
others prefer to drag out the scratch pad and go from
scratch. I get several such drawings in every month
with requests for critical review.
Most of these efforts begin with no organized list of
requirements. They're a random selection of ideas
gathered over the builder's experience . . . most looking
at other folks airplanes.
>My mission statement:
>High performance aircraft (Harmon Rocket II) balancing performance and
>utility. My primary factors to maximizing performance are maximizing
>horsepower, building the airframe straight and true, and minimizing
>weight; balancing this weight factor with utility. My primary utility
>drivers are: fun to fly (this relates back to performance)
Don't even need an electrical system for fun
> with strong cross-country capability. This includes light IFR (only
> known IFR flight will be to punch through weather on departure to travel
> on top and known clear conditions at destination).
. . . can't quantify "strong" . . . some airplanes I
fly might be characterized as "weak" cross country
machines because of their relatively low speed where
Flyover Country headwinds can make you wish you were
driving. In this context, the Rocket will be an excellent
machine for travel.
> So, all electric is the way to go; using modern electrical technologies
> is the way to go; and intelligent compromise of electrical systems
> redundancy / system architecture is the way to go.
You can do all the things you've cited above
with no electrical system. Put some vacuum gyros
in and carry a couple of hand helds and nobody
but you need be aware of the fact that you had
to hand-prop your airplane.
>So, what's better suited to my needs: dual alternator / single
>battery -or- dual battery / single alternator -or- something else
>?? What are the other major issues I need to resolve so that I can begin
>wiring in earnest ??
Okay, let's thrash a set of requirements:
Design Goal: You don't want to hand prop the airplane therefore . . .
Requirement: a battery and starter are needed. You can charge the
battery while the airplane is parked.
Design goal: You didn't mention night flight. Are lights
a requirement? If you plan significant en route
loads such as exterior lighting . . .
Requirement: an alternator is needed.
Design Goal: You don't want to depend on hand helds as the
primary comm and nav capabilities
Requirement: panel mounted radios are indicated.
Design Goal: You perceive a less than the-best-we-know-how-to-do
capability in most spam-can hardware.
Requirement: search suite of offerings for modern
components like RG batteries, automotive alternator
adaptations, etc.
Design Goal: You don't want to have a vacuum system . . .
Requirement: Electrical equivalents of directional
and attitude gyros are indicated.
Discussion: Each of the requirements above can be subdivided
for more detail . . . but note that there's still no
mention of how anything gets wired up. I.e., nothing
so far suggests that any particular architecture is
indicated. Everything you listed in your mission
statement can be accomplished with the same battery,
alternator, main bus, and avionics bus architecture
flying in the vast majority of Spam Cans for the past
70 years.
Game plan: If all your perceived needs thus far are covered,
get a copy of Tony B's work on wiring and forge
ahead. It will function as advertised. Trading out
certified junk for modern components will boost
system reliability substantially over that enjoyed
(or suffered) by the certified world.
What kind of requirements would drive architecture?
Depends on what's in your worry-bucket, how much
money you've decided to spend and how many goodies
you're going to pile on the panel. Given that it's
a tandem cockpit airplane, you're already constrained
with respect to features and budget.
Most of the dark'n'stormy night stories about electrical
systems begin when the pilot realizes that the alternator
has be dead for a half hour and the battery is gone
already.
Design Goal: No un-annunciated failures of primary power
source.
Requirement: Active notification of low voltage and a well
considered plan-B covers the vast majority of these scenarios.
Design Goal: No absolute dependency on electrical system
functionality (like for rental airplanes).
Requirement: A pair of capable hand-helds in the
flight bag covers the majority of remaining scenarios.
Design Goal: Maximize efficient use of energy stored
in batteries during alternator out operations.
Requirement: Converting the classic avionics bus to an
e-bus with dual power paths (one that bypasses a power-hungry
contactor) facilitates the considered plan-B.
So far, were STILL not off the page for Figure Z-11.
Design Goal: Don't let a perfectly good vacuum pump pad
go to waste . . .
Requirement: Plug the hole with a minimum expense
alternator and we're on Figure Z-13.
Design Goal: If your worry-bucket includes breaking terminals
of batteries or batteries going open . . .
Requirement: add Z-30. You could make the dual
batteries a pair of 11 a.h. products for little
more weight and space than a 17 a.h. battery.
Design Goal: Don't want to be especially
concerned with tracking battery condition
Requirement: With an SD-8 in the vacuum pump slot,
you don't need to worry about battery capacity
Fallout Benefit: Dual batteries are capable of
stabilizing either alternator if one battery goes bad.
Anything beyond this level of complexity is driven
by what ever else is in your worry-bucket. Where
do we need to go from here?
You'll note that I edited and expanded on the original
answer. Your question is a very common both on the list
and in direct e-mail to me. This is an exercise we go
through EVERY time we consider a new product or an upgrade
to an old product at RAC. It's a valuable and necessary exercise
to illuminate the minimum $time$ to achieving design
goals -AND- deducing whether or not design goals are even
achievable.
Just an attempt to put this all in perspective, I presume
you learned to fly in a spam can and up to this point.
All your flying experiences have been in owned and/or rented
spam cans. As you fly along, are your worries about
electrical system performance a distraction from your
pilot duties or detraction from the enjoyment of being
were you are and doing what you're doing?
If so, we have a major task to elevate your confidence
in terms of hardware, architecture and operating
philosophy . . . it's not difficult to build a system
with an order of magnitude less risk for driving up your
blood pressure on a trip.
If you don't dwell on the features or shortcomings in
the spam can systems, then you're 90% of the way there
knowing that you have a simple, inexpensive opportunity
to improve system reliability in your OBAM aircraft.
What EVER you decide to do with assistance from those
here on the list is going to stand well above the hardware
and designs you haven't been worrying about all these years.
How does the discussion above fall short of emptying
your worry-bucket? This is a two-fold activity. Help
you craft an architecture that meets your design goals
and to sift through the worry-bucket for those items
that present real risk that warrant additional design goals.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Posted for Paul Messinger----
Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not prevent
them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
specific OVP.
The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as 400
amps. Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an runaway
alternator. False trips exacerbate the problem. There should be no possible
pilot misapplication of switches that damage components. The simple turning
of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
alternator.
Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other device
like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not want
to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
where the regulator is.
B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
EV200HAANA
C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
industry for this specific application. There is no need for large currents
to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my design
to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
built into the design.
The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified alternator
and external regulator.
This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
will be posted here later this year
There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
yet been done.
Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
address will be announced soon.
Paul Messinger
-----
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Eric M. Jones wrote:
> Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
> any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
> designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
> is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
> alternator.
Hmmm - this seems to be somewhat misinterpreted.
Bob wrote that he was removing the schematics for
the internally regulated alternators UNTIL a suitable method
could be found for handling their characteristics.
This is a Good Thing(tm) since it may prevent people from
doing harm to their system inadvertantly by following advice from
the publication. Bob also said that
when a good solution appears, he will incorporate that into
the Aerolectric Connection. If the presented solution
appears feasible, and tests acceptably, I am convinced that Bob
will incorporate it into his publication.
> This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
> will be posted here later this year
Any idea when this will occur? Just curious...
> Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
> address will be announced soon.
Looking forward to it! :-)
I've been very anxious to see the details of the proposed
implementation to see if it is something I want to consider
for my plane.
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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: Wire crimper suggestions? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
He says they cost $10 to $21.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:42 PM 4/20/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the
B&C
>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
I sold that tool myself for years.
The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L.
Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:47 AM 4/22/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James"
<larry@ncproto.com>
>
>I was hoping that wiring my aircraft would be relatively
>simple and straight forward; hoping too that I could easily
>follow in others' footsteps and not have to get overly
>involved. It seems I was wrong. I have now spent a few
>hours looking through the archives of this List and read
>large pieces of Bob's work. OK, so now I am committed to
>learning what I have to know to make my own decisions for
>wiring my aircraft.
<snip>
Larry, I'm presuming this post precedes your receipt
of my reply to your direct email. If not, was my
reply unenlightening or uninspiring?
Nope ..... I thought this may be better suited to the List;
and received your reply when I hit the "send" button to send
mine :-) thanks Bob.
Either way, I'm thinking your worry-bucket is too
full . . . and that's understandable. You don't do this
stuff for a living. For the benefit of others on the
list who would like to participate in the discussion
I'll copy my earlier reply to you as follows:
I like your term "worry-bucket" !! I don't think mine is
very full ...... but I do have a lot of questions because
now that I've embarked on this path I want to understand
what I can. Just intrinsically I see the dual battery /
dual alternator system as overkill for my use. I'm thinking
one baby step over that of simple modern components would be
nice. So I'm game for discussion :-)
--------------------------------------------------------
> with strong cross-country capability. This includes
light IFR (only
> known IFR flight will be to punch through weather on
departure to travel
> on top and known clear conditions at destination).
. . . can't quantify "strong" . . . some airplanes I
fly might be characterized as "weak" cross country
machines because of their relatively low speed where
Flyover Country headwinds can make you wish you were
driving. In this context, the Rocket will be an excellent
machine for travel.
>So, what's better suited to my needs: dual alternator /
single
>battery -or- dual battery / single alternator -or-
something else
>?? What are the other major issues I need to resolve so
that I can begin
>wiring in earnest ??
> Okay, let's thrash a set of requirements:
> Design Goal: You don't want to hand prop the airplane
therefore . . .
> Requirement: a battery and starter are needed. You
can charge the
> battery while the airplane is parked.
> Design goal: You didn't mention night flight. Are lights
> a requirement? If you plan significant en route
> loads such as exterior lighting . . .
> Requirement: an alternator is needed.
> Design Goal: You don't want to depend on hand helds
as the
> primary comm and nav capabilities
> Requirement: panel mounted radios are indicated.
> Design Goal: You perceive a less than
the-best-we-know-how-to-do
> capability in most spam-can hardware.
> Requirement: search suite of offerings for modern
> components like RG batteries, automotive alternator
> adaptations, etc.
> Design Goal: You don't want to have a vacuum system . . .
> Requirement: Electrical equivalents of directional
> and attitude gyros are indicated.
> Discussion: Each of the requirements above can be
subdivided
> for more detail . . . but note that there's still no
> mention of how anything gets wired up. I.e., nothing
> so far suggests that any particular architecture is
> indicated. Everything you listed in your mission
> statement can be accomplished with the same battery,
> alternator, main bus, and avionics bus architecture
> flying in the vast majority of Spam Cans for the past
> 70 years.
> Game plan: If all your perceived needs thus far are
covered,
> get a copy of Tony B's work on wiring and forge
> ahead. It will function as advertised. Trading out
> certified junk for modern components will boost
> system reliability substantially over that enjoyed
> (or suffered) by the certified world.
> What kind of requirements would drive architecture?
> Depends on what's in your worry-bucket, how much
> money you've decided to spend and how many goodies
> you're going to pile on the panel. Given that it's
> a tandem cockpit airplane, you're already constrained
> with respect to features and budget.
> Most of the dark'n'stormy night stories about electrical
> systems begin when the pilot realizes that the alternator
> has be dead for a half hour and the battery is gone
> already.
> Design Goal: No un-annunciated failures of primary power
> source.
> Requirement: Active notification of low voltage and a
well
> considered plan-B covers the vast majority of these
scenarios.
> Design Goal: No absolute dependency on electrical system
> functionality (like for rental airplanes).
> Requirement: A pair of capable hand-helds in the
> flight bag covers the majority of remaining scenarios.
> Design Goal: Maximize efficient use of energy stored
> in batteries during alternator out operations.
> Requirement: Converting the classic avionics bus to an
> e-bus with dual power paths (one that bypasses a
power-hungry
> contactor) facilitates the considered plan-B.
> So far, were STILL not off the page for Figure Z-11.
> Design Goal: Don't let a perfectly good vacuum pump pad
> go to waste . . .
> Requirement: Plug the hole with a minimum expense
> alternator and we're on Figure Z-13.
> Design Goal: If your worry-bucket includes breaking
terminals
> of batteries or batteries going open . . .
> Requirement: add Z-30. You could make the dual
> batteries a pair of 11 a.h. products for little
> more weight and space than a 17 a.h. battery.
> Design Goal: Don't want to be especially
> concerned with tracking battery condition
> Requirement: With an SD-8 in the vacuum pump slot,
> you don't need to worry about battery capacity
> Fallout Benefit: Dual batteries are capable of
> stabilizing either alternator if one battery goes bad.
> Anything beyond this level of complexity is driven
> by what ever else is in your worry-bucket. Where
> do we need to go from here?
>You'll note that I edited and expanded on the original
>answer. Your question is a very common both on the list
>and in direct e-mail to me. This is an exercise we go
>through EVERY time we consider a new product or an upgrade
>to an old product at RAC. It's a valuable and necessary
exercise
>to illuminate the minimum $time$ to achieving design
>goals -AND- deducing whether or not design goals are even
>achievable.
>Just an attempt to put this all in perspective, I presume
>you learned to fly in a spam can and up to this point.
>All your flying experiences have been in owned and/or rented
>spam cans. As you fly along, are your worries about
>electrical system performance a distraction from your
>pilot duties or detraction from the enjoyment of being
>were you are and doing what you're doing?
Actually 90% of my time is in competition sailplanes. I am
currently flying a Citabria that my wife is learning in. I
travel for business and pleasure .... my sandbox is
relatively large.
>If so, we have a major task to elevate your confidence
>in terms of hardware, architecture and operating
>philosophy . . . it's not difficult to build a system
>with an order of magnitude less risk for driving up your
>blood pressure on a trip.
>If you don't dwell on the features or shortcomings in
>the spam can systems, then you're 90% of the way there
>knowing that you have a simple, inexpensive opportunity
>to improve system reliability in your OBAM aircraft.
>What EVER you decide to do with assistance from those
>here on the list is going to stand well above the hardware
>and designs you haven't been worrying about all these years.
>How does the discussion above fall short of emptying
>your worry-bucket? This is a two-fold activity. Help
>you craft an architecture that meets your design goals
>and to sift through the worry-bucket for those items
>that present real risk that warrant additional design goals.
> Bob . . .
OK ....... now we're having fun :-) You were doing great up
to the point of adding that second alternator. All of the
design goals you assumed are correct to that point. For
clarity and future brevity let me summarize:
1) battery and charger for starting engine
2) alternator for night flight
3) panel mounted com and nav
a) GNS530
b) Xcom second com (like to monitor 2 channels while flying
with buddies)
c) xponder
d) audio panel
4) modern components
a) Odyssey battery in aft baggage area (W&B on a Rocket)
5) no vacuum system
a) BMS Sport or similar for horizon
b) TruTrak 2-axis A/P
c) electric t&b
6) tandem aircraft dictates limits to amount of fancy stuff
7) active notification of low voltage and a well considered
plan-B
8) pair of capable hand-helds in the flight bag
9) e-bus with dual power paths
10) easy to understand and use electrical system (I added
this one)
I fly with my wife in the back seat, whom I love dearly
(yup, I'm a very lucky man). She is a budding pilot in her
own right. We like going places and this Rocket should be
our primary mode of travel in the foreseeable future. This
adds up to wanting just that baby step extra in the way of
back-up. So I guess this is where my worry bucket goes
beyond Z-11 ?? Or am I being dumb here ??
Here is where I got lost. Rockets have a peculiar W they
fly nose-heavy (most guys I know fly with weight in back) so
if given the choice between a second alternator or battery
I'd go with the battery (if placed in aft cg). But this
conclusion is based on W&B consideration alone. Secondly, I
plan on a higher than stock compression engine; so a second
battery COULD be useful. These two factors point to the
second battery IF I wanted to empty my worry bucket. I
don't know if there are other considerations I should be
aware of. I'm not assuming this second battery is the right
solution; it just seems to satisfy the worry bucket with
little compromise. If there are good system reasons that
say a second alternator allows a better system in some way
..... I'm all ears and I'll toss that dumb second battery !!
Bearing in mind my design goal #10 of course.
What am I missing ??
Larry
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: basic reasoning for system architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul" <greif8@mindspring.com>
Wow Bob that little explaination helped me alot!! I dont know much about
electronics or wiring or anything else of that nature, but I have been
trying to follow the discussions on this site yet fall far short of
understanding what I need to know. I plan on buying your wiring manual to
help me get over the hump and if you could recommend anything else that may
help me gain further insight please let me know, the learning curve is going
to be very steep when that part of the project finally comes up.
One more thing, do you plan on having any seminars in the midwest?
Regards,
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: basic reasoning for system architecture
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 08:47 AM 4/22/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James"
>><larry@ncproto.com>
>>
>>I was hoping that wiring my aircraft would be relatively
>>simple and straight forward; hoping too that I could easily
>>follow in others' footsteps and not have to get overly
>>involved. It seems I was wrong. I have now spent a few
>>hours looking through the archives of this List and read
>>large pieces of Bob's work. OK, so now I am committed to
>>learning what I have to know to make my own decisions for
>>wiring my aircraft.
>
> <snip>
>
> Larry, I'm presuming this post precedes your receipt
> of my reply to your direct email. If not, was my
> reply unenlightening or uninspiring?
>
> Either way, I'm thinking your worry-bucket is too
> full . . . and that's understandable. You don't do this
> stuff for a living. For the benefit of others on the
> list who would like to participate in the discussion
> I'll copy my earlier reply to you as follows:
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>>Hi Bob,
>>I don't want to waste your time ..... could you please steer me (key
>>search words for aeroelectric list or papers on you site or wherever else)
>>to a simple to understand and resolute conclusion on determining the
>>proper electrical system for my airplane ??
>>
>>I am having a hard time starting into this discussion; it's looking like
>>most of the discussion starts around a surrounding point (like SD8) and
>>ends up talking about basic architecture. I asked you earlier about a
>>wiring diagram for a dual battery . single alternator system and you told
>>me to combine the Z11h and Z30 drawings. I need to take one step back and
>>ask if this is a preferred architecture ??
>
> There is a "preferred" architecture for virtually every
> project going. Some builders prefer to do what's already
> been done in nearly a century of aircraft construction,
> others prefer to drag out the scratch pad and go from
> scratch. I get several such drawings in every month
> with requests for critical review.
>
> Most of these efforts begin with no organized list of
> requirements. They're a random selection of ideas
> gathered over the builder's experience . . . most looking
> at other folks airplanes.
>
>>My mission statement:
>>High performance aircraft (Harmon Rocket II) balancing performance and
>>utility. My primary factors to maximizing performance are maximizing
>>horsepower, building the airframe straight and true, and minimizing
>>weight; balancing this weight factor with utility. My primary utility
>>drivers are: fun to fly (this relates back to performance)
>
> Don't even need an electrical system for fun
>
>> with strong cross-country capability. This includes light IFR (only
>> known IFR flight will be to punch through weather on departure to travel
>> on top and known clear conditions at destination).
>
> . . . can't quantify "strong" . . . some airplanes I
> fly might be characterized as "weak" cross country
> machines because of their relatively low speed where
> Flyover Country headwinds can make you wish you were
> driving. In this context, the Rocket will be an excellent
> machine for travel.
>
>> So, all electric is the way to go; using modern electrical technologies
>> is the way to go; and intelligent compromise of electrical systems
>> redundancy / system architecture is the way to go.
>
> You can do all the things you've cited above
> with no electrical system. Put some vacuum gyros
> in and carry a couple of hand helds and nobody
> but you need be aware of the fact that you had
> to hand-prop your airplane.
>
>
>>So, what's better suited to my needs: dual alternator / single
>>battery -or- dual battery / single alternator -or- something else
>>?? What are the other major issues I need to resolve so that I can begin
>>wiring in earnest ??
>
> Okay, let's thrash a set of requirements:
>
> Design Goal: You don't want to hand prop the airplane therefore . . .
>
> Requirement: a battery and starter are needed. You can charge the
> battery while the airplane is parked.
>
> Design goal: You didn't mention night flight. Are lights
> a requirement? If you plan significant en route
> loads such as exterior lighting . . .
>
> Requirement: an alternator is needed.
>
> Design Goal: You don't want to depend on hand helds as the
> primary comm and nav capabilities
>
> Requirement: panel mounted radios are indicated.
>
> Design Goal: You perceive a less than the-best-we-know-how-to-do
> capability in most spam-can hardware.
>
> Requirement: search suite of offerings for modern
> components like RG batteries, automotive alternator
> adaptations, etc.
>
> Design Goal: You don't want to have a vacuum system . . .
>
> Requirement: Electrical equivalents of directional
> and attitude gyros are indicated.
>
> Discussion: Each of the requirements above can be subdivided
> for more detail . . . but note that there's still no
> mention of how anything gets wired up. I.e., nothing
> so far suggests that any particular architecture is
> indicated. Everything you listed in your mission
> statement can be accomplished with the same battery,
> alternator, main bus, and avionics bus architecture
> flying in the vast majority of Spam Cans for the past
> 70 years.
>
> Game plan: If all your perceived needs thus far are covered,
> get a copy of Tony B's work on wiring and forge
> ahead. It will function as advertised. Trading out
> certified junk for modern components will boost
> system reliability substantially over that enjoyed
> (or suffered) by the certified world.
>
> What kind of requirements would drive architecture?
> Depends on what's in your worry-bucket, how much
> money you've decided to spend and how many goodies
> you're going to pile on the panel. Given that it's
> a tandem cockpit airplane, you're already constrained
> with respect to features and budget.
>
> Most of the dark'n'stormy night stories about electrical
> systems begin when the pilot realizes that the alternator
> has be dead for a half hour and the battery is gone
> already.
>
> Design Goal: No un-annunciated failures of primary power
> source.
>
> Requirement: Active notification of low voltage and a well
> considered plan-B covers the vast majority of these scenarios.
>
> Design Goal: No absolute dependency on electrical system
> functionality (like for rental airplanes).
>
> Requirement: A pair of capable hand-helds in the
> flight bag covers the majority of remaining scenarios.
>
> Design Goal: Maximize efficient use of energy stored
> in batteries during alternator out operations.
>
> Requirement: Converting the classic avionics bus to an
> e-bus with dual power paths (one that bypasses a power-hungry
> contactor) facilitates the considered plan-B.
>
> So far, were STILL not off the page for Figure Z-11.
>
> Design Goal: Don't let a perfectly good vacuum pump pad
> go to waste . . .
>
> Requirement: Plug the hole with a minimum expense
> alternator and we're on Figure Z-13.
>
> Design Goal: If your worry-bucket includes breaking terminals
> of batteries or batteries going open . . .
>
> Requirement: add Z-30. You could make the dual
> batteries a pair of 11 a.h. products for little
> more weight and space than a 17 a.h. battery.
>
> Design Goal: Don't want to be especially
> concerned with tracking battery condition
>
> Requirement: With an SD-8 in the vacuum pump slot,
> you don't need to worry about battery capacity
>
> Fallout Benefit: Dual batteries are capable of
> stabilizing either alternator if one battery goes bad.
>
> Anything beyond this level of complexity is driven
> by what ever else is in your worry-bucket. Where
> do we need to go from here?
>
> You'll note that I edited and expanded on the original
> answer. Your question is a very common both on the list
> and in direct e-mail to me. This is an exercise we go
> through EVERY time we consider a new product or an upgrade
> to an old product at RAC. It's a valuable and necessary exercise
> to illuminate the minimum $time$ to achieving design
> goals -AND- deducing whether or not design goals are even
> achievable.
>
> Just an attempt to put this all in perspective, I presume
> you learned to fly in a spam can and up to this point.
> All your flying experiences have been in owned and/or rented
> spam cans. As you fly along, are your worries about
> electrical system performance a distraction from your
> pilot duties or detraction from the enjoyment of being
> were you are and doing what you're doing?
>
> If so, we have a major task to elevate your confidence
> in terms of hardware, architecture and operating
> philosophy . . . it's not difficult to build a system
> with an order of magnitude less risk for driving up your
> blood pressure on a trip.
>
> If you don't dwell on the features or shortcomings in
> the spam can systems, then you're 90% of the way there
> knowing that you have a simple, inexpensive opportunity
> to improve system reliability in your OBAM aircraft.
> What EVER you decide to do with assistance from those
> here on the list is going to stand well above the hardware
> and designs you haven't been worrying about all these years.
>
> How does the discussion above fall short of emptying
> your worry-bucket? This is a two-fold activity. Help
> you craft an architecture that meets your design goals
> and to sift through the worry-bucket for those items
> that present real risk that warrant additional design goals.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
John Swartout wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
>Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
>in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
>Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
>tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
>pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
>of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
>to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
>laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
>groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
>tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
>from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
>It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
>whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
>He says they cost $10 to $21.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
John;
The tool you are describing is, or is similar to, model CT-200 made by
Panduit. See the links below. Although in some of the literature they
say this tool is for either insulated OR non-insulated terminals, I
believe that this type of tool, which puts an indent into the side of
the barrel of the terminal, is only suited for non-insulated terminals.
This opinion is upheld by some of the other literature cited. The price
from several sources seems to be currently in the $35.00 range. Do a
Google search for "Panduit CT-200"
Bob McC
http://www.panduit.com/products/Product_Bulletins/070358.pdf (at the
bottom of page 4)
http://www.mouser.com/index.cfm?&handler=data.listcategory&D=644-CT-200&terms=644-CT-200&Ntt=*644CT200*&N=0&crc=true
http://catalogue.e-sonic.com/cgi-bin/listinglookup?listing=H356B37
http://www.electricaldeals.com/html/prodresults.php3?Category=LT1&Subcategory=IT1
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: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>>I think the
risks are indeed low but they are not so low that I could put
an internally regulated alternator on a certified airplane.
Not without proving to myself, the FAA and my customers that the
machine selected has been designed and tested to meet certain
reliability requirements. This would mean calling out a
very specific source of hardware that would not include
rebuilds, junk-yard takeoffs, or most over the counter
alternators.
Folks have misunderstood my resistance to embrace this
technology as a desire to promote B&C and a variety of
other agendas . . . but the bottom line is simply this:
I cannot recommend anything without knowing everything
there is to know about it . . . and you can't deduce
this data by simply holding the part in your hand or
having some kind of faith in a brand name.
It's been suggested that an ND alternator is good-to-go
off the shelf . . .<<
Bob,
I agree.
We have spent a considerable amount of time studying these issues - - albeit, rather
quietly.
You have seen occasional posts from me over the last year or so that have mentioned
some of our adverse results with transorbs, and various other protection
schemes.
We looked at the internal regulators. They ALL have a major single point failure
mode that can cause a runaway voltage condition that is simply unacceptable
for aircraft use, especially when electronic engine controls or glass cockpits
are part of the contemplated equipment package.
With an automotive built in regulator, the best one can do is to live with 14
volts (we need 14 and 28 volt capability) and to attempt to "fix" the single point
failure mode by:
A) Introducing the kludge of adding a high current contactor - - so as to take
the unit off line; or,
B) By adding some kind of a worse kludge which will shunt the over voltage/high
current event to ground through some kind of a crowbar type fuse which accomplishes
the same as A), above, but with possibly more unfavorable side effects.
The result of our effort on this entire subject is that that we have built,d tested,
proven, and are now producing a replacement internal regulator that eliminates
the single point failure mode described above and allows the alternator
to be gracefully shut down. It is not yet certified, but it is on track for
that milestone, also.
The unit can fully withstand any load dump we have ever been able to create, including
those that have fried a lot of 5kw Transorbs.
We then combined this integrated system with other components to create a rather
robust "redundant, fault tolerant, electrical system" out of a box.
We worked on it a bit more and now have a unit that functions normally across the
entire load range WITH NO BATTERY ON LINE and the primary alternator shut
down and out of service. With no battery on line, it actually introduces less
audible electrical noise into the system than does the stock primary alternator
with a battery on line.
Recently, I flew one of these systems for a night IMC cross country. Shortly
after takeoff, we shut down the a/c primary alternator and turned off the battery
master - - and continued for three hours to our destination. Had this been
a real situation, rather than a test, there would not have been the slightest
concern about when the battery was last changed or how many electrons we could
count coming out of the battery on a periodic load test. If the battery
started the engine, we were good to go with no single point failure identifiable
that would compromise the easy completion of the intended flight.
The concept now contemplates a couple of configurations:
1) battery; and,
2) one large capacity (60-90 amp) alternator; and,
3) one smaller (35 amps, nominal, about 42 to 44amps peak) alternator
Where the smaller alternator is fully capable of self exciting and running the
entire night/IFR (plus pitot heat) equipment list - - indefinitely - - in the
event of any combination of failures of items 1) and/or 2), above.
An alternative configuration is to use two of the same 35 amp smaller alternators,
rather than the combination of one large and one small alternator. The only
good reason for the large alternator is to handle peak loads during taxi and
night ground operations.
Bottom line, you are absolutely right - - the automotive solution is really not
appropriate because of the single point failure modes and the other uncertainties
associated with that design.
Regards, George
---
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Don't use one of those on your airplane. This is kind of taking "cheap" too
far. Yes, they do work - but I wouldn't use them when wiring up an
airplane. Use a proper ratcheting crimper. If you want to spend $300.00
for an AMP crimper that's ok, but the $30-$40 somethinth crimper from B&C or
me is every bit as good and a lot cheaper. Both are FAR and away superior
to the "plier type".
This whole discussion has baffeled me for a couple years now. People ask me
regularly if the $30 crimper is ok to use since it's so "cheap"? I've
gotten to the point I feel like raising the price on my crimpers to $150.00
so people feel like they're spending a bunch of money on something good.
This may come as a surprise, but some of the crimpers (B&C and myself sell
some of the exact same ones) come from the SAME factory that makes some the
crimpers for AMP/Tyco.
I have a whole tool box full of AMP, Daniels, Astro, etc.. crimpers that
I've rarely touched. I use my simple little B&C & SteinAir crimpers far
more often. Kind of like wrenches, sockets & screwdrivers. Snap-On is good
(but WAYYY overpriced), Craftsmen Professional, SK and others are equally as
good, but a LOT cheaper.
Just my typically "biased" 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
<jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
He says they cost $10 to $21.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:42 PM 4/20/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the
B&C
>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
I sold that tool myself for years.
The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
Bob . . .
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: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:05 PM 4/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>Posted for Paul Messinger----
>
>Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
>
>It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
>alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
>testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
>demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
>common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not prevent
>them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
>specific OVP.
I was told that it involved instances where the
operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
common occurrence.
Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
is an entirely different problem which happens whether or
not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
failures on the OVM-14.
>The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
>prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as 400
>amps.
A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
> Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
>by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
>the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an runaway
>alternator.
This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
the existing contactor I have to take the position that
the task cannot be done.
>False trips exacerbate the problem.
True
> There should be no possible
>pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
True
>The simple turning
>of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
>occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
performs as badly as you describe Do you really believe I
would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
back policy. See
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
back.
I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
other had no breaker at all . . .
>Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
>any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
>designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
>is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
>alternator.
Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
to the application of internally regulated alternators
that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
pleas go unanswered.
I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
toward a useable conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
"The designs will be made available on my web site when
the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
details and also need to design the system to the customers
desires including what is overkill in some cases.
However the major components are mine to show anywhere
and I will at the right time."
Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
not presently available to me or anyone else for
publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
shared.
It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
was in place because I didn't have the data to either
support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
>Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
>internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
>
>A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
>
> Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other device
>like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not want
>to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
>where the regulator is.
Good idea . . .
>B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
>
> Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
>over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
>both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
>EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
>EV200HAANA
If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
will break 900V?
>C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
>industry for this specific application. There is no need for large currents
>to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
There is no "need" in this particular situation but
keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
(E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
still meets it today.
>Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
>Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my design
>to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
>failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
>built into the design.
"False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
>The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
>internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
>arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
>is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
>alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
>automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified alternator
>and external regulator.
I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
in participating and probably isn't interested in the
results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
model and he's entitled.
So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
then I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
any high-voltage capabilities.
You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
(Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be repeated
on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
thousands of others for over 15 years.
>This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
>will be posted here later this year
>
>There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
>battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
>announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
>yet been done.
>
>Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
>address will be announced soon.
VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
[For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
trip calibration requirements after the test. In the case
of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
built on the same production lines as the commercial
equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
come apart under high fault conditions. For at least 30
years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
"Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
. . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
really cool if you were helping.
Bob . . .
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|