Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:34 AM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Vern W.)
2. 05:45 AM - Something Completely Different (William Bernard)
3. 06:00 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (George Braly)
4. 06:02 AM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Mark R Steitle)
5. 06:03 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Harley)
6. 06:06 AM - [Fw: Re: Something Completely Different] (Harley)
7. 06:23 AM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (Ken)
8. 06:28 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 06:44 AM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:13 AM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 07:23 AM - Re: Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 07:26 AM - Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Eric M. Jones)
13. 07:26 AM - toggle switch action? (Jan de Jong)
14. 07:38 AM - Wire (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
15. 07:54 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com)
16. 08:06 AM - Re: toggle switch action? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 08:18 AM - Re: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 08:34 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Rick Girard)
19. 09:37 AM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (BTomm)
20. 10:34 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Eric M. Jones)
21. 10:54 AM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Chuck Jensen)
22. 11:04 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Mickey Coggins)
23. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Vern W.)
24. 11:47 AM - Re: Load Analysis (Matt Jurotich)
25. 12:10 PM - metric and units and stuff... (Craig P. Steffen)
26. 12:13 PM - Re: Load Analysis (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (rv-9a-online)
28. 12:43 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
29. 12:43 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Craig P. Steffen)
30. 01:22 PM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (Ken)
31. 01:30 PM - Re: Something Completely Different (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 01:37 PM - Re: Something Completely Different (Eric M. Jones)
33. 02:34 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Walter Tondu)
34. 05:40 PM - Metric musings (Alex & Gerry Peterson)
35. 05:42 PM - Re: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
36. 06:01 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Chuck Jensen)
37. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Dan Brown)
38. 07:35 PM - Re: Something Completely Different (Eric M. Jones)
39. 07:35 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Richard E. Tasker)
40. 07:51 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Jim Oke)
41. 07:58 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (BobsV35B@aol.com)
42. 08:00 PM - Fat Wire Terminals on Starter Contactor (r falstad)
43. 08:01 PM - Re: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Chris)
44. 08:11 PM - Alternator Wiring Question (r falstad)
45. 08:22 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Walter Tondu)
46. 09:02 PM - 12/14v instruments and accessories in a 24/28v plane (chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org)
47. 09:06 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Charlie England)
48. 11:13 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Richard Riley)
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: Load Analysis (TKT wire) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
C'mon Bob, don't yank the guy like that. You know he's talking about
home "built" aircraft :-)
I'm also interested in the issue of TKT wire because I've seen a couple
of references that TKT is supposedly the ONLY safe way to go for aircraft
wiring. Yet, I haven't found any supplier that offers it. All I find with a
Google search is a whole bunch of articles about how good it is and how bad
everything else is (including Tefzel) and how you're going to fall to the
ground in a ball of flames if you use anything but TKT (at least that's the
tone I get from what I read).
I'm going with Tefzel, but I'm intrigued by the panic mode that some
writers have gone into that leads them to want every aircraft flying to be
wired with TKT.
Just Wondering
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 10:44 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris"
<toaster73@earthlink.net>
> >
> >Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it
> >expensive and not worth it?
>
> What would be the advantage of using it for house wiring? You
> can purchase any kind of wire from anybody and use it any way
> you like with complete confidence as long as you observe the
> products limitations. But it might be an action akin to running
> 130 avgas in a mogas rated engine . . . expensive but doesn't
> get you any more snort . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol for amperage
in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?"
Anybody know?
Thanks
Bill
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: | GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Except Bob, I tend to see them used when they have equipment outages.
That happens more than one would desire.
I caught one for real about a year or so ago - unexpectedly.
GPS should largely solve that.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
cgalley@qcbc.org writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
MLI has one I believe.
Good Morning Cy,
I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very
common.
The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must
remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations
were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction
you were flying. Flying toward the needle was no more normal than flying
away from the needle with the VAR. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost
comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize,
circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions,
but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month
hood check.
But I digress!
The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing
the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for
the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that
is fine with me!
I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that function.
When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer
approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and
weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument
Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know of
in
Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that it
now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones
certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be
the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
used low weather runway.
I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls
Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
point.
The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where
the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
---
---
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
Frank,
Suggest you go to their web site (www.bluemountainavionics.com) and read
through the "Discussion Group" postings. It is divided by subjects, so
it shouldn't be too difficult to find what you're looking for.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
While we're on the subject of CDI's.
Does anyone have any experience of using the BMA glass screen CDI driven
from the Nav radio in actual IFR conditions?
Does it really work?
Frank
Trying to decide on instruments for an IFR RV7.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
--> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for
backcourse approaches if you follow the correct procedure.
The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a
conventional CDI . . .
TDT
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
I originally stood for "Intensity".
I also notice that a lot of people are using the V=IR formula now
instead of the one I learned 45 years ago, E=IR. But, if you also use
E=IR and wonder why "E" when they mean "Volts"...it stands for
"Electromotive Force"
Maybe they should change it to V=AR now! <G>
Harley
William Bernard wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
>This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol for amperage
in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?"
>
>Anybody know?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different] |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Oops...I meant "It originally stood for 'Intensity'"...
"I" was never very intense! <G>
Harley
I originally stood for "Intensity".
I also notice that a lot of people are using the V=IR formula now
instead of the one I learned 45 years ago, E=IR. But, if you also use
E=IR and wonder why "E" when they mean "Volts"...it stands for
"Electromotive Force"
Maybe they should change it to V=AR now! <G>
Harley
William Bernard wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
>This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol for amperage
in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?"
>
>Anybody know?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
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: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Seems odd that the 'battery tenders' float at 13.2 volts whereas other
references I've seen in the past recommend 13.7 volts or 2.25 to 2.3
volts per cell at room temperature. My little Deka indicates zero
current (even on the microamp scale) after a couple of days when floated
at 13.75 volts. Larger flooded cells seem to take a couple if ma. Deka
http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/ has an excellant .pdf on AGM batteries but
my dial up is too slow to search for the exact filename.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 06:36 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <davgray@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>>I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not
>>be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is
>>made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines.
>>
>>
snip
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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:51 AM 5/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
><billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
>This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol
>for amperage in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?"
>
>Anybody know?
For the same reason some folks call it a "hood" and others call it
a "bonnet". The advancements of every discipline took place all over
the world and while various cultures injected their own flavors to the
language of description, the physics remained uniform and inviolate.
Depending on where you went to school on the surface of the planet,
there may be yet more commonly used symbols to represent the various
units in physics.
I don't recall the exact dates but even in my span of experience
in engineering, I recall being somewhat put upon when the folks
around me began to refer to the periodic rate of a signal or wave
as "Hertz" as opposed to "cycles/second" or "megacycles/second".
Both were correct and I was already quite comfortable with my
usage of language so far. None the less, I now refer to this unit
as "Hertz" and write it MHz and KHz, etc.
The recommendation for shifting to "Hertz" was based on meetings
and agreements between large groups of individuals who took on
the task of recommending adoption of worldwide, uniformity of titles
and symbols for things physical. Some recommendations took hold,
others were not so successful . . . we still cling 6-32 screws,
14AWG wire, acres of land and statute miles to the next town in
spite of the fact that MOST of the planet's occupied surface area supports
individuals who talk in meters, and multiples thereof. Here the
pressures to resist were driven more by market forces than
for stubborn resistance to change . . . while the US represented
a small portion of the total population, the proportionate cost
to change over was much greater for a country that was producing
so much of the world's technologies, goods and services.
There was a recent discussion concerning market pressures by
emerging technology and production suppliers in other parts
of the world. Already we're seeing the deeper rooting of metric
components and measures in our society. My hardware store now
stocks both American/British sized and Metric hardware.
So the short answer is, "language" . . . while the schematic
and foundations in physics are fundamental and invariable
between languages and cultures, we are still mindful of the
fact that someone may express a concept in E = I x R or volts amps x ohms
or V = A * R, etc. Here is an excellent case
for multiculturalism . . . instead of fussing over whether
or not kids should be allowed to wear their native dress to
school, we should be concentrating on whether or not they
KNOW how to get their money's worth when purchasing products
offered in a variety of measures that describe value and
performance.
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: Load Analysis (TKT wire) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:35 AM 5/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
>
> C'mon Bob, don't yank the guy like that. You know he's talking about
>home "built" aircraft :-)
Ah but of course. Amazing what can happen to your head after
midnight . . .
> I'm also interested in the issue of TKT wire because I've seen a couple
>of references that TKT is supposedly the ONLY safe way to go for aircraft
>wiring. Yet, I haven't found any supplier that offers it. All I find with a
>Google search is a whole bunch of articles about how good it is and how bad
>everything else is (including Tefzel) and how you're going to fall to the
>ground in a ball of flames if you use anything but TKT (at least that's the
>tone I get from what I read).
> I'm going with Tefzel, but I'm intrigued by the panic mode that some
>writers have gone into that leads them to want every aircraft flying to be
>wired with TKT.
Agreed. The do-gooders have raised a great deal of fuss over
wire types and what the industry ought to be doing about
certain wire failures . . . and of course, their recommendations
almost never include widespread adoption of a technology already
available in low cost quantity.
We've discussed wire insulations several times here on the list
and I'm planning a much expanded discussion on insulations in the
next update to the wire chapter.
The air transport category aircraft builders will be on a
never ending quest for LIGHTER technologies due to the massive
amounts of wire in their products. This may take a rapid
turnaround as fiber optics take a larger role in airframe
systems control. It was predicted by some 40 years ago that
the world was going to suffer a severe shortage in copper at
the current rate of expansion of communications networks.
Others predicted that new technologies would replace copper and
that the shortage would never materialize. Indeed, copper prices
after adjusted for inflation have never been cheaper and tons
of copper are being pulled out of the ground for salvage when
replaced with glass fibers.
Watch for the war-of-wires to continue unabated with lots
of enthusiasm . . . especially from folks who's jobs depend
on expansion of a "problem" so that they continue to
be employed at public expense in a task for which they'll
never have consumer/supplier accountability.
In the mean time, your Tefzel wired airplane will go
to the scrap yard having never suffered an insulation
failure due to shortcomings in the insulation's performance.
Chris, my apologies for the brain fart. Vern, thanks for
the heads-up!
The short answer is "Tefzel is about as close to the ideal
insulation as has ever existed." It's cost/performance model
has yet to exceeded by any other technology. I'm aware of no
instance where insulation failure in a Tefzel wired airplane
would have been averted had the airplane been wired with any
other technology.
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: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:22 AM 5/19/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Seems odd that the 'battery tenders' float at 13.2 volts whereas other
>references I've seen in the past recommend 13.7 volts or 2.25 to 2.3
>volts per cell at room temperature. My little Deka indicates zero
>current (even on the microamp scale) after a couple of days when floated
>at 13.75 volts. Larger flooded cells seem to take a couple if ma. Deka
>http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/ has an excellant .pdf on AGM batteries but
>my dial up is too slow to search for the exact filename.
>Ken
After achieving full charge, there's no big driver for selection
of one "float" voltage over another as long as it's above the
open circuit voltage of the battery.
After a battery has been setting for some hours off the charger,
it assumes an open circuit voltage just under 13.0 volts. Internal
discharge paths are operating at this voltage level and begin to
tax the battery's stored energy.
The simple act of supporting the battery's terminal voltage at
or slightly above the open circuit voltage says there is now
an EXTERNAL supply of energy to source the battery's built in
losses and such losses no longer tax the battery. Anything
from 13.0 to 13.8 would be just fine.
Bob . . .
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:24 PM 5/18/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Winn <sbwinn@gmail.com>
>
>Hi,
>
>I am utilizing a Z-13 diagram in my Long-EZ. I am trying to decide on
>the location of the starter contactor, if it should be on the firewall
>or in the nose with the batteries. Looking at the Z13 diagram there
>is nothing to indicate that the 4AWG wire going from the battery
>contactor to the starter contactor has to be especially short. This
>would indicate to me that the large wire can be run the length of the
>plane with the contactor on the firewall. I am actually planning to
>run 2AWG because of the extra length. This allows me to connect the
>alternator output to the starter contactor so I don't have to make two
>runs of large wire to hook up both the alternator and the starter. If
>the concactor was in the nose, I'd have to run a second large wire
>just for the alternator.
I think you've answered your own question. Putting it back on
the firewall reduces wire runs and reduced losses because the
alternator can share the same fat wire with the starter.
>My concern is that I don't see any protection for the 4AWG wire that
>runs between the starter contactor and battery contactor. Is it
>really OK to string an unprotected wire capable of delivering 100+
>amps all the way down the plane?
Got into this discussion at RAC a few weeks ago. I could relate
a long and reasonably exciting blow-by-blow on the event but
bottom line is that risks to these wires, PARTICULARLY in a
plastic airplane are exceedingly low. Even in metal airplanes,
protection of long feeders in the cranking circuits have not
been demonstrated to be useful or add value.
>Secondly, my engine has an automotive starter conversion on it. Is
>there any disadavantage to using the built in soleniod instead of an
>external contactor? The starter is off of a Toyota and the soleniods
>are quite reliable. Obviously if I need to put the contactor in the
>nose then I'll have to use an external one.
It's a matter of service life on starter switch, and size of
wire needed for a long run to the tail to accommodate
the extraordinary solenoid/contactor current draw. Finally,
you may have some issues with respect to whether the starter
uses a PM motor in which case figure Z-22 is recommended
anyhow.
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
and figure Z-22 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11B.pdf
and notes for Figure Z-22 on page Z-5.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn
fell on her head
"Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and
tell the king."
The tone of this TKT issue on the WWW is remarkable. Yikes the sky is
falling!
Years back, when my knickers were in a twist about something, a friend used
to imitate John Wayne and drawl, --"Stop yer bleedin' if ya' ain't been
shot". So if you are building a plastic airplane fueled with gasoline burned
by fiery spark systems. Chill...partner.
What the commercial aircraft builders are after is the lightest-weight wire
that can carry current at the highest temperatures without problems.
Remember that they have huge amounts of current at much higher voltages,
carried by smaller wires, packed into gigantic bundles. And they don't mind
the Isq X R losses since they have plenty of power generating capability.
But it's not magic.
See: http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030529/index.php
Also: http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=9961
Our OBAM problems are closer to automotive than commercial jet. Wake me up
when the automobile manufacturers decide they need this TKT stuff.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"Mankind faces a cross-roads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other, to total extinction.
Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
--Woody Allen
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: | toggle switch action? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong@xs4all.nl>
Small question:
Does a 3-position switch as the 2-10 in Z13 require 1 or 2 hand
movements to move it from end to end?
And:
Are 3-position toggle switches as mechanically reliable as 2-position
toggle switches?
Thank you,
Jan de Jong
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Out of interest...I found that instrumentation wire that is normally
"plenum rated" for use in buildings is usually teflon coated. The
"Belden" instrumentation wire we use here at work is as such and tends
to populate our scrap bins in enourmous quantities.
Just a thought for those of you that work in this kind of industry....:)
Frank
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: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning George,
It is nice that one was available when you needed it, but it is still true
that they are disappearing fast. As you say, with GPS, the need is minimized.
In an emergency, even a handheld GPS would probably provide guidance as
useful as the average back course.
My point is not that we should disregard the capability when it is
available, but that I (me personally) would not spend any money, weight or panel
space
to have the capability of annunciation or back course manipulation.
I figure if the need arises, as it did for you, "pulling" the needle is
adequate. I don't need switches to reverse sensing, lights to tell me sensing
has been changed or an autopilot that is capable of flying the reversed signals.
It is a matter of where my limited funds are to be spent. Those extra bells
and whistles that are designed to make it easier to fly a back course seems
to be funds wasted for me.
Fact is, I sometimes wonder whether all of those things don't add more
confusion than just flying the back course with raw data as we did in the days
before all that stuff was developed.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/19/2005 8:02:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gwbraly@gami.com writes:
Except Bob, I tend to see them used when they have equipment outages.
That happens more than one would desire.
I caught one for real about a year or so ago - unexpectedly.
GPS should largely solve that.
George
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: toggle switch action? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:59 PM 5/19/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong@xs4all.nl>
>
>Small question:
>Does a 3-position switch as the 2-10 in Z13 require 1 or 2 hand
>movements to move it from end to end?
Not real clear on question . . . the 2-5, 2-7, 2-10, 2-50
and 2-70 switches are all three position meaning that you have
three stable positions for the handle . . . one at each extreme
and one in the center.
>And:
>Are 3-position toggle switches as mechanically reliable as 2-position
>toggle switches?
I'm unaware of any reliability issues with three position switches.
The vast majority of switch failures in light aircraft are from old age
and disuse . . . not from service stress or operating cycles. A large
number of switch and relay failures in large aircraft are due
to mis-application of the device in the system.
Since our design goal is to fabricate failure tolerant systems
then "reliability" of any single component is a very low order
concern.
Bob . . .
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: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:23 AM 5/19/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
> <snip>
>
>But it's not magic.
>
>See: http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030529/index.php
>
>Also: http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=9961
A couple of great examples of do-gooders running amok. If
the $time$ required to support these folks salaries added
to the $time$ industry expends to modify behaviors and processes
to address "concerns" were expended instead on figuring out
how to reduce PREVENTABLE accidental death in hospitals,
tens of thousands of lives could be saved each year starting
NEXT year.
Instead, these same authors who have been beating the same
drums for decades will still be beating them decades hence.
Further, it will be difficult if not impossible to quantify
ANY numbers of lives saved . . . but certainly not in the
same orders of magnitude as lives lost in hospitals for
stupid reasons.
>Our OBAM problems are closer to automotive than commercial jet. Wake me up
>when the automobile manufacturers decide they need this TKT stuff.
Well put sir.
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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard <fly.ez@verizon.net>
i would be for inductance, wouldn't it?
Rick Girard
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Interesting.
If my batteries are located aft of the baggage bulkhead (ie in a non heated
space), should their charge voltage be higher or lower than that at room
temp? Electrically dependant engine, dual batts with only one batt
designated for starting the engine.
Bevan
planning for H6 Subaru
On Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:22 AM, Ken [SMTP:klehman@albedo.net] wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> Seems odd that the 'battery tenders' float at 13.2 volts whereas other
> references I've seen in the past recommend 13.7 volts or 2.25 to 2.3
> volts per cell at room temperature. My little Deka indicates zero
> current (even on the microamp scale) after a couple of days when floated
> at 13.75 volts. Larger flooded cells seem to take a couple if ma. Deka
> http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/ has an excellant .pdf on AGM batteries but
> my dial up is too slow to search for the exact filename.
> Ken
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >
> >At 06:36 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <davgray@sbcglobal.net>
> >>
> >>I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may
not
> >>be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is
> >>made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent
engines.
> >>
> >>
> snip
>
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
><billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol
>for amperage in Ohn's [Ohm's] Law an 'i' ?"
>Anybody know?
Okay, but be careful....your brain might explode--
Georg Simon Ohm (German 1789-1854) discovered the law governing the
relationships between voltage resistance and electric currents. This was
published in 1827 in an obscure and very hard to get for free 'Die
Galvanische Kette, Mathematische Bearbeitet'. Although I have not seen the
book, I can guarantee that it has a whole bunch of differential equations.
But until WWI, most books on physics used the letter "C" for current and
ignored the German usage. My guess is that the letters were simply the
common letters used in the electro-mathematics of the late 18th and early
19th century--"I subscript m" which stands for Intensity (magnetic), and of
course there was an "I subscript s" for Intensity (static).
Why this should be so requires some explanation: The physics of the late18th
century (at the time called "Natural Philosophy"), recognized electrical
potential V (from Volta) also called E.M.F. or electromotive force, or just
E. And it recognized that different materials were better or worse
conductors (rho and then R for resistance). The only way of measuring
currents then was by measuring how much a compass needle was deflected
(Oersted). Thus Intensity (magnetic) seemed as good a way as any to describe
the invisible force in the wire. Only after Ampere was the idea of "flowing
current" made popular. (And by the way the popular idea of current flow is
basically wrong). Ohm tied this all together.
But tiny bits of knowledge like this are incredibly volatile. And the
assignment of a letter in an equation is so spur-of-the-moment that it seems
almost random. Who remembers what a Mho is or how a quark got it's name? Who
will know in 100 years? One of my pet projects is to distribute a small book
on how California got its name. It was named by Cortez in 1537 but by 1600
NOBODY KNEW! Today 99.9% of Californians do not know that the golden state
was named after a mythical land ruled by bejeweled naked black Amazon
warriors who had pet griffins and who captured men only for breeding
purposes--from a 15th century trashy novel carried by Cortez. But I
digress....
> I don't recall the exact dates but even in my span of experience
> in engineering, I recall being somewhat put upon when the folks
> around me began to refer to the periodic rate of a signal or wave
> as "Hertz" as opposed to "cycles/second" or "megacycles/second".
> Both were correct and I was already quite comfortable with my
> usage of language so far. None the less, I now refer to this unit
> as "Hertz" and write it MHz and KHz, etc.
I have a really handy chart showing the conversion between Hertz and
cycles-per-second.
>. . . we still cling 6-32 screws, 14AWG wire, acres of land and statute
miles to the next town in
>spite of the fact that MOST of the planet's occupied surface area
supports
>individuals who talk in meters, and multiples thereof. Here the
>pressures to resist were driven more by market forces than
>for stubborn resistance to change . . . while the US represented
>a small portion of the total population, the proportionate cost
>to change over was much greater for a country that was producing
>so much of the world's technologies, goods and services.
>There was a recent discussion concerning market pressures by
>emerging technology and production suppliers in other parts
>of the world. Already we're seeing the deeper rooting of metric
>components and measures in our society. My hardware store now
>stocks both American/British sized and Metric hardware. Bob . . .
My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go metric. The
international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US
half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting
against our own best interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they
make no sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in the
metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I
had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is
simply not done in Inches anymore.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
--Clint Eastwood
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Eric wrote....
My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go metric. The
international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US
half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting
against our own best interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they
make no sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in the
metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I
had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is
simply not done in Inches anymore.
Well, the reasons for not converting to metric is simple,"it ain't natural" and
"its not mentioned in the bible", so there--we don't nee any other reasons.
Chuck
Do Not Archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> . . . we still cling 6-32 screws,
> 14AWG wire, acres of land and statute miles to the next town in
> spite of the fact that MOST of the planet's occupied surface area supports
> individuals who talk in meters, and multiples thereof. ...
>
> There was a recent discussion concerning market pressures by
> emerging technology and production suppliers in other parts
> of the world. Already we're seeing the deeper rooting of metric
> components and measures in our society. My hardware store now
> stocks both American/British sized and Metric hardware.
I was at the EBACE trade show today in Geneva, and I asked
the guys showing the Socata TBM 700, a French-built aircraft,
if they used metric or imperial hardware, and they said most
is imperial. Market forces win again!
I wouldn't complain too loudly if the aviation world switched
to metric hardware, but I'm sure that won't happen in my lifetime!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
Bob,
As long as we're kicking around a discussion on wire, where would the
Raychem 44 or Raychem 55 fit in with all this for aircraft use?
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 10:23 AM 5/19/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >But it's not magic.
> >
> >See: http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030529/index.php
> >
> >Also: http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=9961
>
> A couple of great examples of do-gooders running amok. If
> the $time$ required to support these folks salaries added
> to the $time$ industry expends to modify behaviors and processes
> to address "concerns" were expended instead on figuring out
> how to reduce PREVENTABLE accidental death in hospitals,
> tens of thousands of lives could be saved each year starting
> NEXT year.
>
> Instead, these same authors who have been beating the same
> drums for decades will still be beating them decades hence.
> Further, it will be difficult if not impossible to quantify
> ANY numbers of lives saved . . . but certainly not in the
> same orders of magnitude as lives lost in hospitals for
> stupid reasons.
>
> >Our OBAM problems are closer to automotive than commercial jet. Wake me
up
> >when the automobile manufacturers decide they need this TKT stuff.
>
> Well put sir.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
A small problem with your experiment. A single wire in air should dissipate
a lot of heat to the surrounding air. That same wire in the middle of a
wire bundle is going to get very much hotter. That is why most in
aerospace insist on significant derating.
Have fun
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Swales contractor to the
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mail to: <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | metric and units and stuff... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen" <craig@craigsteffen.net>
Eric,
> ignored the German usage. My guess is that the letters were simply the
> common letters used in the electro-mathematics of the late 18th and early
> 19th century--"I subscript m" which stands for Intensity (magnetic), and of
> course there was an "I subscript s" for Intensity (static).
Neat. I don't know if that's right or not, but it certainly makes
sense.
> current" made popular. (And by the way the popular idea of current flow is
> basically wrong). Ohm tied this all together.
Well, it's wrong in a few ways that for the purposes of electrical
engineering mostly don't matter. Equations for charge flow refer to
positive charge flow, despite the fact that it's the negative
particles (electrons) that do the moving. I don't know if it's true
or not, but at least one of my physics classes attributed this error
to Ben Franklin, who was a superb embassador and statesman, but only a
resonably competent experimental scientist.
So in what other ways are the popular ideas of current flow "basically
wrong"?
> My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go
> metric.
It's not a matter of being pea-brained, just conservative. The US
Government declared that the US was officially on the metric system
in...was it the 60s? However, so much of industry was (and still is)
on inches that there was too much inertia to just change. I think
part of it was nationalistic, too. Going to a system that was
invented by "those damn Europeans" seems like giving in.
The International System of units and measures (usually called
"metric") is indeed a much easier to use system, if you're taught with
it...but people are just set in the ways of what they know. Anyone
who wasn't exposed to meters before they were 25 years old just isn't
ever going to adapt to them, no matter how much sense they make.
Much farther ingrained in our way of doing things is our completely
bizarre numbering system for time; 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes
in an hour, and 24 hours in a day. (365 days in a year has to do with
the motion of the earth; we can't do anything about that one.) It
would make much more sense to divde the day into 10 segments, or 25,
some nice multiple.
> The
> international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US
> half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting
> against our own best interests.
Thanks for the confidence. The Space Station was designed by
committee, because that was the only way that it could be done. Half
of the station runs on 110V DC power (the US half), and the other runs
on 28V DC (the Russian Half).
> metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I
> had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is
> simply not done in Inches anymore.
I really don't care which one, I just want to use only one. That
doesn't seem to be the way of things, though. I think what's dragging
people in the US into metric kicking and screaming is that so many car
parts nowadays have metric parts, any sensible mechanic has to have
sets of hardware for both. That, milling machines and lathes with
electronic position readouts that can go from inches to mm with the
touch of a button.
Craig Steffen
--
craig@craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:46 PM 5/19/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
><mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
>
>A small problem with your experiment. A single wire in air should dissipate
>a lot of heat to the surrounding air. That same wire in the middle of a
>wire bundle is going to get very much hotter. That is why most in
>aerospace insist on significant derating.
Not a problem at all. The experiment shows what the experiment
shows . . . 20A through a 22AWG wire in free air runs at about
100C . . . WELL below the rating of the insulation. This speaks
nothing to de-rating the wire for lots of reasons including voltage
drop due to length, elevated temperature of the environment AND
restriction of heat rejection capabilities due to bundling of
the wire.
I wasn't suggesting that one should even consider running 20A
through a 22AWG wire as an installed equipment design goal. What
I WAS suggesting is that folks who worry about wire behaving
like fuses and breakers have mis-placed their concerns. The fusing
constant (I-squared*T) for wire is many times that of a breaker
and still more times that of most fuses. The notion that just because
a 5A breaker opens pretty quickly at 10A somehow translates to
a 22AWG wire treading up to the edge of destruction is a waste of
worry resources.
Wires installed and protected in accordance with the recommendations
of AC43-13 or any other reference document are de-rated and VERY
conservative with respect to risks to wire . . . the fact that
circuit protection operates relatively quickly does not mean that the
wire cheated death by a narrow margin.
Bob. . .
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
In Canada, we have the worst of both worlds...
My altimeter and aviation charts are in feet.
My ASI and navigation is in knots and nautical miles.
I buy avgas in liters, and convert to US Gallons (not Imperial Gallons)
to determine weight in pounds. EXCEPT our 1956 Cessna 172 (model A) is
rated in Imperial Gallons.
I measure temperatures in degrees Celcius and in degrees Farenheit
Altimeter settings are provided in inches of mercury and sometimes
kilopascals
Gasoline motors are rated in horsepower, electrical motoros in watts.
My engineering education was almost exclusively in the MKS system
(meters-kilograms-seconds, a convention based on the metric system)....
except for 2nd year thermodynamics final exam in which there was a
question using British Thermal Units - what a nice suprise!
The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the
distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of
measurement, not a natural system of measurement.
The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just
adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and
have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this
system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude].
I am fluent in both systems, and I prefer neither. The problem is in
conversion... just Google 'Gimli Glider' to find out how Canada's
conversion to metric almost cost the lives of a 767 full of passengers.
Vern Little
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
>Eric wrote....
>
>My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go metric. The
>international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US
>half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting
>against our own best interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they
>make no sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in the
>metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I
>had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is
>simply not done in Inches anymore.
>
>
>Well, the reasons for not converting to metric is simple,"it ain't natural" and
"its not mentioned in the bible", so there--we don't nee any other reasons.
>
>Chuck
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Hogwash?...I don't think so.
Where else do you find that one unit of volume of water at room
temperature is the same as one unit of mass...You now have a direct
comparison bewteen weight of water and its volume. Very handy for a
piping designer. About the only place the "Power of ten" principle does
not work is in pressure where 1 bar is 10 to the power 5 pascals (not
the power of three or six like everything else is)..I'm a british
engineer transferred to the USA and am also kinda fluent in both.
But the metric is far superior...even if it is French...;)
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rv-9a-online
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
--> <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
In Canada, we have the worst of both worlds...
My altimeter and aviation charts are in feet.
My ASI and navigation is in knots and nautical miles.
I buy avgas in liters, and convert to US Gallons (not Imperial Gallons)
to determine weight in pounds. EXCEPT our 1956 Cessna 172 (model A) is
rated in Imperial Gallons.
I measure temperatures in degrees Celcius and in degrees Farenheit
Altimeter settings are provided in inches of mercury and sometimes
kilopascals Gasoline motors are rated in horsepower, electrical motoros
in watts.
My engineering education was almost exclusively in the MKS system
(meters-kilograms-seconds, a convention based on the metric system)....
except for 2nd year thermodynamics final exam in which there was a
question using British Thermal Units - what a nice suprise!
The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the
distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of
measurement, not a natural system of measurement.
The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just
adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and
have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this
system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude].
I am fluent in both systems, and I prefer neither. The problem is in
conversion... just Google 'Gimli Glider' to find out how Canada's
conversion to metric almost cost the lives of a 767 full of passengers.
Vern Little
C
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen" <craig@craigsteffen.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
> The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the
> distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of
> measurement, not a natural system of measurement.
The meter is defined such that the distance from the earth to the
equator _through_ Paris is 10,000 km. This is actually extremely
useful in test questions that involve the size of the earth (of the
sort that I used to have in physics exams). It's easy to remember
that the earth has a circumference of almost exactly 40,000 km.
All the systems in use are based on physical convention with no
fundamental basis. We could define a system based purely on physical
constants, but then everyone would have to re-memorize all their
conversion constants yet again.
The only reason that I prefer the International System (metric) to
American is that in the meter-kilogram-second system, the roles of
mass and weight are clearly defined. In the american system, mass and
weight are muddied together, which makes distinguishing them even
harder for physics students.
> The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just
> adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and
> have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this
> system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude].
Natical miles are based on the earth's circumference too, tied into
the Babylonian idea of dividing things into multiples of 60.
Craig Steffen
--
craig@craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Higher.
A cold cell needs higher voltage to fully charge it.
Or as a memory aid only, you want to reduce voltage to a hot cell to
reduce boiling... ;)
However the difference probably isn't worth being concerned about for
most practical purposes and the limited hours that most private aircraft
seem to operate.
Ken
BTomm wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
>Interesting.
>
>If my batteries are located aft of the baggage bulkhead (ie in a non heated
>space), should their charge voltage be higher or lower than that at room
>temp? Electrically dependant engine, dual batts with only one batt
>designated for starting the engine.
>
>Bevan
>planning for H6 Subaru
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:33 AM 5/19/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard <fly.ez@verizon.net>
>
>i would be for inductance, wouldn't it?
>
>Rick Girard
Depends on who's sandbox you're playing and what language
or discipline they embrace. My 1959 edition of the CRS
Math and Physics Handbook lists about a dozen variants
on the letter "i" as representative of some unit in
physics . . . but none of them are inductance.
Bob . . .
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
The official measurement system of the US has been metric since 1866. There
is no Inch system, only a mishmash of collected conventions. How many quarts
in an acre-feet of water.......give me a break. Gimli Glider indeed.
The nice thing about the metric system is that it is a rational measurement
SYSTEM. I'll use any system--no matter what it's called or who invented
it--over a pile of half-forgotten conventions. Know how they measure shotgun
gauges?
I would surmise that there are NO new science books except metric now being
published.
Eric
do not archive
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 05/19 4:37, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
> The official measurement system of the US has been metric since 1866. There
> is no Inch system, only a mishmash of collected conventions. How many quarts
> in an acre-feet of water.......give me a break. Gimli Glider indeed.
>
> The nice thing about the metric system is that it is a rational measurement
> SYSTEM. I'll use any system--no matter what it's called or who invented
> it--over a pile of half-forgotten conventions. Know how they measure shotgun
> gauges?
The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would
equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit
into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun.
Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2".
Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns.
I used to shoot a LOT.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Message 34
| 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: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to
> go metric. The international Space Station is Metric on the
> EU half and Inch on the US half. I think the powers that be
> are simply cowards and certainly acting against our own best
> interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they make no
> sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in
> the metric system than the inch system. When I taught
> Physics the first thing I had to teach students was the
> metric system, since Physics and Science is simply not done
> in Inches anymore.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
One good reason why the US hasn't converted is because no one wanted to
modify hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of machine tools such as
mills and lathes. Not to mention the accessories for these machines. While
CNC machining and digital position readouts have removed this concern, most
machine tools last many, many decades, and their lead screws (and hence
position indicators) were designed around inches. Most machine tools are
not CNC. Everything that you see around you was created, or their molds
were, on machine tools. It isn't as simple as just changing the units on
drawings.
I have designed things (in both systems) for a living for almost 25 years,
and I find absolutely no particular advantages in either system. For some
entertainment, ask your favorite European why the lug nuts on their cars are
still English (or at least were as of a decade ago), or why the pipe threads
in the plumbing in their house are still English.
In-lbs-sec, gm-cm-s, kg-m-s, lightyear-megaton-eon, I don't give a rip.
Compared to the other stuff I had to learn in engineering school, dealing
with these different "languages" is a non issue.
Do not archive
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 617 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
Message 35
| 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: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:36 PM 5/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
>
>Bob,
> As long as we're kicking around a discussion on wire, where would the
>Raychem 44 or Raychem 55 fit in with all this for aircraft use?
When I had the electrical/avionics group on the GP-180 project
at Lear about 22 years ago, 22759 was an export controlled substance
and we needed special licences to sell airplanes overseas that were
wired with 22759. I was ready to use Spec 55 wire in the GP-180
until my betters decided to go for the export license.
It's very good wire too.
Bob . . .
Message 36
| 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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Walter wrote...
The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would
equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit
into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun.
Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2".
Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns.
I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound
more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but
fossilized minds want to know--at least this one.
chuck
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 37
| 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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Brown <dan@familybrown.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chuck Jensen wrote:
| I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres.
| It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge.
It's as Walter said--the "guage" system is defined by the number of
lead balls of a certain diameter whose weight adds up to one pound.
Twelve balls of 0.729" diameter weigh a total of one pound, so a shotgun
with a bore of 0.729" is a 12 ga shotgun. This is why larger numbers
indicate smaller bore diameters. The largest that I'm aware of is 4 ga,
and the smallest is 28 ga. Do not archive this either, but it should
cover the explanation.
- --
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan@familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
~ -- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFCjUVPyQGUivXxtkERAtXlAKDtjAv2Ezcx//G43rVwACLEb9sNBACfUGd8
HlDFOqRU5R+Dlf+F/2g11Zo=bICK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message 38
| 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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
<cjensen@dts9000.com>
>I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It
sounds more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge.
I referred to this simply to poke fun at the strange English measurements.
Most gauge sizes have some strange history behind them.
Shotgun gauges example:
1 ga. = a bore the diameter of a 1 pound lead sphere.
10 ga.=a bore the diameter of a 1/10 pound lead sphere (or if you make 10
perfect spheres from a pound of lead, each one of them has the same diameter
as the bore.
Many sheetmetal gauges are similar--basically they are the number of sheets,
each a square foot, that equal some weight. (Or somesuch.)
Eric
do not archive
Message 39
| 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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
If you take one pound of lead and make exactly 12 perfect spheres with
it, their diameter is the bore size of a 12 ga. shotgun. Likewise for
16 ga. or 20 ga. There used to be larger gauges like 10 or 8 ga., but
the gauges above 12 are not used any more. There also is a smaller
gauge shotgun that is currently manufactured but for some reason, as
Chuck says, that is rated by bore size in inches rather than lead balls.
Dick Tasker
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
>Walter wrote...
>The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would
>equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit
>into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun.
>
>Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2".
>Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns.
>
>I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound
more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but
fossilized minds want to know--at least this one.
>
>chuck
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
Message 40
| 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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Re: the roles of mass and weight, would anyone care to tackle a definition
of the term "poundal" ??
(It was greatly beloved by Mech Eng Profs in the 70s).
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
(And been living with Metric/SAE confusion for a long time.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig P. Steffen" <craig@craigsteffen.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen"
> <craig@craigsteffen.net>
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
>> <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
>> The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the
>> distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of
>> measurement, not a natural system of measurement.
>
> The meter is defined such that the distance from the earth to the
> equator _through_ Paris is 10,000 km. This is actually extremely
> useful in test questions that involve the size of the earth (of the
> sort that I used to have in physics exams). It's easy to remember
> that the earth has a circumference of almost exactly 40,000 km.
>
> All the systems in use are based on physical convention with no
> fundamental basis. We could define a system based purely on physical
> constants, but then everyone would have to re-memorize all their
> conversion constants yet again.
>
> The only reason that I prefer the International System (metric) to
> American is that in the meter-kilogram-second system, the roles of
> mass and weight are clearly defined. In the american system, mass and
> weight are muddied together, which makes distinguishing them even
> harder for physics students.
>
>> The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just
>> adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and
>> have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this
>> system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude].
>
> Natical miles are based on the earth's circumference too, tied into
> the Babylonian idea of dividing things into multiples of 60.
>
> Craig Steffen
>
> --
> craig@craigsteffen.net
> public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
> current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
> career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
>
>
>
Message 41
| 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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/19/2005 9:52:39 P.M. Central Standard Time,
wjoke@shaw.ca writes:
Re: the roles of mass and weight, would anyone care to tackle a definition
of the term "poundal" ??
A unit of force equal to the force that would give a free mass of one pound
an acceleration of one foot per second per second.
I cheated and looked in the dictionary.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 42
| 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: | Fat Wire Terminals on Starter Contactor |
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 19 May 2005 21:59:31 -0500
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" <bobair8@msn.com>
I'm starting to wire my GlaStar. I plan on terminating the 2 AWG from the battery
+ and the 6 AWG from the alternator + to the same post on the starter contactor.
I also need to terminate the wire from the power bus somewhere and the
closest place that will see the battery is the same post on the starter contactor.
Is this right? That will put three fairly large terminals on one post.
Don't you need a rubber terminal nipple to cover the terminals and post so if
anything gets loose in the engine compartment, you don't run the risk of a direct
short to ground? How do you insulate that arrangement?
Best regards,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server<mailto:aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com>
To: AeroElectric-List Digest List<mailto:aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 05/18/05
*
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-18.html<http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-18.html>
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-18.txt<http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/DigestAeroElectric-List.2005-05-18.txt>
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Wed 05/18/05: 20
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:36 AM - Trickle Chargers (Mike Lehman)
2. 04:38 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (William Bernard)
3. 05:57 AM - Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 (flmike)
4. 08:37 AM - Re: Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 (Ken Simmons)
5. 11:34 AM - Re: Trickle Chargers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 11:56 AM - Re: Trickle Chargers (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
7. 01:07 PM - Re: GI-106A Back Course ()
8. 02:03 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (dsvs@comcast.net<mailto:dsvs@comcast.net>)
9. 02:05 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Stein Bruch)
10. 02:21 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
11. 02:38 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
12. 02:57 PM - Load Analysis (Jim.Piavis@sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis@sybase.com>)
13. 03:20 PM - Re: Load Analysis (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
14. 03:51 PM - Re: Full Charge on Battery? ()
15. 07:12 PM - Re: Load Analysis (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 07:17 PM - Re: Load Analysis (rv-9a-online)
17. 07:45 PM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Chris)
18. 09:26 PM - Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ (Scott Winn)
19. 09:48 PM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 09:52 PM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 02:36:08 AM PST US
From: "Mike Lehman" <lehmans@sympatico.ca<mailto:lehmans@sympatico.ca>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trickle Chargers
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Lehman" <lehmans@sympatico.ca<mailto:lehmans@sympatico.ca>>
Got any unused AC adapters around? I've found that 12 VDC units will
typically trickle charge a wet cell at about 50 to 100 mA. If, after a few
days, you find the battery voltage rise becomes higher than you like, a
timer can be used to cycle the adapter. Getting fancy, a higher voltage
adapter can used with a LM317 regulator.
Mike
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
The $7.99 trickle chargers (voltage sensing) have worked great for me
for the last five years.
-----Original Message-----
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com<mailto:TSaccio@aol.com>
Sometime ago there was an article written on this site about low cost
battery chargers from Harbor Freight. Does anyone have information as to
the best one to buy? Tom Saccio
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 04:38:45 AM PST US
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
Thanks, Bob and all. The new battery has noticably larger posts, but they
are still lead. The cables are #4 welding cable, but due to geometry issues
the one on the "+" post is pretty short where it goes through the side of
the battery box. The cables do lie pretty much parallel to the side of the
battery posts and within about 1/8" of them so the strain on the battery
posts from the cables should be minimal.
Thanks again for the help.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
>
> At 08:03 AM 5/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> ><billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
> >
> >Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until
I
> >pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to
> >activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine
> >instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic
ignition
> >is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on.
> >
> >I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to
borrow
> >a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other
problems.
> >The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor
tests
> >the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly.
> >Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to
> >about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to
> >about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault
in
> >the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the
> >battery any more.
> >
> >My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is
> >something preventable.
> >
> >Bill
>
> It sounds very much like a mechanical failure . . . cracked conductor
> perhaps? Without a teardown inspection, we'll never know. We DO know
> that batteries are manufactured in the millions and that the vast
majority
> will perform as designed over the service life of the battery. We
> also know that most of the VSLA products are being used in stationary
> and/or relatively benign portable applications. Our use of such
products
> in aircraft is undoubtedly pushing any battery's performance envelope
> with respect to both mechanical capabilities and chemical activity.
>
> In another post, I've encouraged everyone to capture mystifying
failures
> and get them to me (or any other willing investigator) for failure
> evaluation. Without such data, the vast majority of decisions made
> on the evidence known are simple "whistles in the dark." Worse yet,
> such cases often tie brand names to failures that tend to unfairly
> reduce perceived value of the brand.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
>
>
--
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 05:57:51 AM PST US
From: flmike <flmike2001@yahoo.com<mailto:flmike2001@yahoo.com>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: flmike <flmike2001@yahoo.com<mailto:flmike2001@yahoo.com>>
Allied shows stock.
http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/ProductDetail.asp?SKU642-0131&SEARCHaml34&ID&DESCAML34FBA4AC01<http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/ProductDetail.asp?SKU642-0131&SEARCHaml34&ID&DESCAML34FBA4AC01>
__________________________________
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 08:37:32 AM PST US
From: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com<mailto:ken@truckstop.com>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com<mailto:ken@truckstop.com>>
Thanks for the help. I finally found the same one at Newark. This one is a double
pole. That's why I couldn't find it before because I was looking for a specific
part number. Shouldn't make a difference in this application. I think this
is what NewGlasair calls their master switch. The one from Allied is cheaper
and the one from Newark is cheaper still.
Thanks.
Ken
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: flmike <flmike2001@yahoo.com<mailto:flmike2001@yahoo.com>>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: flmike <flmike2001@yahoo.com<mailto:flmike2001@yahoo.com>>
>
>Allied shows stock.
>
>http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/ProductDetail.asp?SKU642-0131&SEARCHaml34&ID&DESCAML34FBA4AC01
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>
>
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 11:34:43 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trickle Chargers
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
At 05:36 AM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Lehman" <lehmans@sympatico.ca<mailto:lehmans@sympatico.ca>>
>
>Got any unused AC adapters around? I've found that 12 VDC units will
>typically trickle charge a wet cell at about 50 to 100 mA. If, after a few
>days, you find the battery voltage rise becomes higher than you like, a
>timer can be used to cycle the adapter. Getting fancy, a higher voltage
>adapter can used with a LM317 regulator.
>
>Mike
A few years ago, I published a compendium of circuits which
suggested various power sources and techniques for long term
storage and controlled charging of batteries. Several circuits
touch on Mike's suggestion above.
If you have the goodies laying around and really want to spend
the time to assemble your own, by all means. It's an excellent
learning experience. However, please consider commercial off-the-
shelf (COTS) products that do a better job and often cost less than
the bill of materials for a DIY project. I've added the Battery Tender
data to the back of the diagrams now available at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Charger_Maintainers.pdf<http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Charger_Maintainers.pdf>
I just received a couple of Battery Tender Jr.s in the mail which
cost me right at $30 each.
Bob . . .
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 11:56:04 AM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Trickle Chargers
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
Or $7.99 from Harbor Freight...:)
www.harborfreight.com<http://www.harborfreight.com/>
Frank
I just received a couple of Battery Tender Jr.s in the mail which
cost me right at $30 each.
Bob . . .
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 01:07:26 PM PST US
From: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder@perigee.net>>
Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
> OC -
>
> My understanding is that the MD200 needle is directional on the back
> course. ie. If the needle is off to the right, you turn right to
> intercept. I do not know how the GI-106A needle works. My recollection of
> the CDI's of 40 years ago + or -, is that on the back course, one turns
> opposite to the needle to intercept. Of course, this is perhaps a moot
> topic for discussion because of the apparent paucity of true back course
> ILS's. John
5/18/2005
Hello John, While flying a localizer back course most pilots would find it
easier if their equipment had the capability to be put into a back course
mode because then the pilot would be turning towards the needle to get back
on the localizer center line just as they would do in a front course
approach -- one less "different thing" to remember.
Since the electronic emission pattern sent from the localizer antenna
remains the same over time, regardless of where the aircraft is located or
the what the pilot's intentions are, the pilot must take some overt physical
action (move a switch) on his equipment (normally the localizer receiver or
the autopilot / flight director) in the cockpit in order to tell that
equipment to:
1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
equipment.
If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
change the mode of needle movement.
The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
OC
PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 02:03:03 PM PST US
From: dsvs@comcast.net<mailto:dsvs@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net<mailto:dsvs@comcast.net>
OC,
The HSI is no smarter, the needle is always pointed aat the transmitter. When
you are in the backcourse it points behind the ac nose and this corrects for
the
"backwards" needle. Don
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder@perigee.net>>
> To: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
> Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
>
>
> > OC -
> >
> > My understanding is that the MD200 needle is directional on the back
> > course. ie. If the needle is off to the right, you turn right to
> > intercept. I do not know how the GI-106A needle works. My recollection of
> > the CDI's of 40 years ago + or -, is that on the back course, one turns
> > opposite to the needle to intercept. Of course, this is perhaps a moot
> > topic for discussion because of the apparent paucity of true back course
> > ILS's. John
>
> 5/18/2005
>
> Hello John, While flying a localizer back course most pilots would find it
> easier if their equipment had the capability to be put into a back course
> mode because then the pilot would be turning towards the needle to get back
> on the localizer center line just as they would do in a front course
> approach -- one less "different thing" to remember.
>
> Since the electronic emission pattern sent from the localizer antenna
> remains the same over time, regardless of where the aircraft is located or
> the what the pilot's intentions are, the pilot must take some overt physical
> action (move a switch) on his equipment (normally the localizer receiver or
> the autopilot / flight director) in the cockpit in order to tell that
> equipment to:
>
> 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
> centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
> region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
> to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
>
> 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
> cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
> equipment.
>
> If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
> light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
> might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
> has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
> movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
> course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
> change the mode of needle movement.
>
> The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
> localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
>
> OC
>
> PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
> more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
> course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
> the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
> produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 02:05:19 PM PST US
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com<mailto:stein@steinair.com>>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com<mailto:stein@steinair.com>>
The MD-200-306 operates as you require below. Their manual nearly states
verbatim for operation as you noted below. Also, that indicator has the
"BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel.
Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203
& 206/207 are all the same instrument.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder@perigee.net>>
Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
5/18/2005
1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
equipment.
If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
change the mode of needle movement.
The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
OC
PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 02:21:18 PM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com<mailto:Tdawson@avidyne.com>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com<mailto:Tdawson@Avidyne.com>>
The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for backcourse approaches
if you follow the correct procedure.
The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a conventional CDI
. . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stein
Bruch
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com<mailto:stein@steinair.com>>
The MD-200-306 operates as you require below. Their manual nearly states
verbatim for operation as you noted below. Also, that indicator has the
"BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel.
Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203
& 206/207 are all the same instrument.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder@perigee.net>>
Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
5/18/2005
1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
equipment.
If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
change the mode of needle movement.
The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
OC
PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 02:38:03 PM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
While we're on the subject of CDI's.
Does anyone have any experience of using the BMA glass screen CDI driven
from the Nav radio in actual IFR conditions?
Does it really work?
Frank
Trying to decide on instruments for an IFR RV7.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
--> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com<mailto:Tdawson@Avidyne.com>>
The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for
backcourse approaches if you follow the correct procedure.
The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a
conventional CDI . . .
TDT
________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________
Time: 02:57:04 PM PST US
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
From: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis@sybase.com>
05/18/2005 02:56:20 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis@sybase.com>
I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on
the following:
When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
transmit.
Thanks,
Jim
________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________
Time: 03:20:51 PM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
Depends if you intend to transmit all the time I guess?...:)
The steady state loads for sizing the alternator and wiring...Use the
transient loads only if the load is sustained...say more than 10
seconds?...That should give you a cut off.
The little bit of extra the alt needs to give will be taken care by the
fact you will oversize the alt by some margin...Say 5amps minimum.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jim.Piavis@sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis@sybase.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis@sybase.com>
I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure
on the following:
When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each
equipment item, there's usually a steady state current and a max
current. For the purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the
max or steady state?
Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up
on transmit.
Thanks,
Jim
________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________
Time: 03:51:33 PM PST US
From: <davgray@sbcglobal.net<mailto:davgray@sbcglobal.net>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <davgray@sbcglobal.net<mailto:davgray@sbcglobal.net>>
I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not be
getting
a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is made. If true,
this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines.
http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5<http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5>
Any clarification would be appreciated.
Gary
________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________
Time: 07:12:05 PM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
At 02:56 PM 5/18/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis@sybase.com>
>
>I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
>electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on
>the following:
>
>When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
>item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
>purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
>Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
>transmit.
STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB
sizing.
On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for
some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked
about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a
22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more?
I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list,
folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and
smoke at just over the "rated" current.
Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment
of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a
thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A.
The picture at . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg<http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg>
was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire
temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for
150C. I was going to increase the current until the
wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it,
the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need
to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can
finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears
about burning wires when even severely overloaded
with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are
not well founded. These wires are quite robust and
in fact, we depend on those qualities for crafting
VERY robust electrical systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________
Time: 07:17:58 PM PST US
From: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net<mailto:rv-9a-online@telus.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net<mailto:rv-9a-online@telus.net>>
Jim, it's good to analyze both.
The sum of steady state loads should be about 80% or less of your
alternator rating, in 'normal' configuration (typical worst case flight
such as night operations). Any excess capacity is good for charging
your battery.
Worst case transient loads, such as your comm in tx mode can be handled
by the battery.
If the worst case transient is less than your alternator rating, your
battery will be somewhat less stressed.
Vern Little
Jim.Piavis@sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis@sybase.com> wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis@sybase.com>
>
>I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
>electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on
>the following:
>
>When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
>item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
>purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
>Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
>transmit.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________
Time: 07:45:29 PM PST US
From: "Chris" <toaster73@earthlink.net<mailto:toaster73@earthlink.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" <toaster73@earthlink.net<mailto:toaster73@earthlink.net>>
Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it
expensive and not worth it?
Thanks
Chris Lucas
RV-10
#40072
wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
>
> At 02:56 PM 5/18/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis@sybase.com>
>>
>>I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
>>electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure
>>on
>>the following:
>>
>>When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
>>item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
>>purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
>>Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
>>transmit.
>
> STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB
> sizing.
>
> On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for
> some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked
> about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a
> 22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more?
> I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list,
> folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and
> smoke at just over the "rated" current.
>
> Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment
> of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a
> thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A.
> The picture at . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg<http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg>
>
> was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire
> temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for
> 150C. I was going to increase the current until the
> wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it,
> the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need
> to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can
> finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears
> about burning wires when even severely overloaded
> with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are
> not well founded. These wires are quite robust and
> in fact, we depend on those qualities for crafting
> VERY robust electrical systems.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________
Time: 09:26:20 PM PST US
From: Scott Winn <sbwinn@gmail.com<mailto:sbwinn@gmail.com>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Winn <sbwinn@gmail.com<mailto:sbwinn@gmail.com>>
Hi,
I am utilizing a Z-13 diagram in my Long-EZ. I am trying to decide on
the location of the starter contactor, if it should be on the firewall
or in the nose with the batteries. Looking at the Z13 diagram there
is nothing to indicate that the 4AWG wire going from the battery
contactor to the starter contactor has to be especially short. This
would indicate to me that the large wire can be run the length of the
plane with the contactor on the firewall. I am actually planning to
run 2AWG because of the extra length. This allows me to connect the
alternator output to the starter contactor so I don't have to make two
runs of large wire to hook up both the alternator and the starter. If
the concactor was in the nose, I'd have to run a second large wire
just for the alternator.
My concern is that I don't see any protection for the 4AWG wire that
runs between the starter contactor and battery contactor. Is it
really OK to string an unprotected wire capable of delivering 100+
amps all the way down the plane?
Secondly, my engine has an automotive starter conversion on it. Is
there any disadavantage to using the built in soleniod instead of an
external contactor? The starter is off of a Toyota and the soleniods
are quite reliable. Obviously if I need to put the contactor in the
nose then I'll have to use an external one.
Thanks for your thoughts!
________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________
Time: 09:48:40 PM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
At 06:36 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <davgray@sbcglobal.net<mailto:davgray@sbcglobal.net>>
>
>I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not
>be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is
>made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines.
>
>http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5
>
>Any clarification would be appreciated.
The 14.4 to 14.7 value is recommended for rapid recharge
of the battery . . . and probably assumes that the battery
was deeply discharged before the recharge cycle begins.
The charging recommendations publication for Odyssey can
be found at . . .
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/odycharg_a.asp<http://www.enersysreservepower.com/odycharg_a.asp>
. . . where we read that the fast recharge voltage
should not be sustained for more than 24 hours. They
recommend reduction to a "standby" charge value of
13.6 to 13.8 volts. A value that is consistent with
the rest of the lead-acid battery industry. One could
use the numbers on this chart for ANY lead-acid technology
except that I would say that you don't leave the fast-charge
level on for more thank, say one tank of fuel duration
or much less than 24 hours. Any battery in an airplane
should be fully recharged in about one hour after
starting the engine. This is the reason for the "75%
rule" on alternator sizing in certified ships. If one
has used a max of 45A on a 60A machine to run the
airplane, you have 15A left over to quickly recharge
a deeply discharged battery. Boosting the voltage
to 14.7 increases the battery's willingness to accept
energy . . . but this level should not be maintained
indefinitely.
Check out page 8 of . . .
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf<http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf>
and you see the same kinds of fast charge and float
voltage ranges. Same goes for Panasonic where on
page 3 of . . .
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf<http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf>
. . . we find 13.7 as a recommended float charge and 14.7
as a recommended fast charge voltage at 25C.
Bottom line is that ANY lead acid battery by ANY manufacturer
will ultimately achieve 100% charge at 13.8V at 25C. It'a all
a matter of how long you want to wait. If you're in a hurry,
then jack the voltage up a tad for a SHORT period of time to
speed up the recharge process. If your system is not endowed
with a automatic recharge/float voltage controller . . . well
shucks. Guess we'll have to compromise and set the critter up
for 14.2 and quit worrying about it. That's the lead-acid
set-point of choice for light aircraft since Duane Wallace
bolted the first batteries into the C-140/C-170 products nearly
60 years ago.
With respect to the writer's objections about "Pulse Current
Amps" take a peek at . . .
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/ody_b.asp?routineody_dchrg&brandID5<http://www.enersysreservepower.com/ody_b.asp?routineody_dchrg&brandID5>
The graphical data for battery performance under various loads
is quite specific and yields factual engineering data. The
fact that Odyssey quantifies their batteries in a different manner
than some industry standards doesn't automatically mean that
their product is inferior or that the company is trying to
obscure any facts as to their product's performance.
Take a peek at . . .
http://www.batteryweb.com/faq.cfm<http://www.batteryweb.com/faq.cfm>
. . . where we find the following definitions:
Cold Cranking Amps (CCA): "Discharge load measured in amps that a
fully charged battery at 0 F can deliver for 30 seconds
while maintaining its voltage above 7.2V"
Hmmm . . . Odyssey gives similar data but at 25C. Could it
be that the majority of Odyssey's customers use their
batteries as more mundane temperatures wherein the high
discharge rate performance data is more useful when plotted
at the higher temperatures? Don't know. But I doubt that
Odyssey believes they are competing with Die Hards and
boat batteries. And what's all this 7.2 volt stuff anyhow?
B&C has quantified their batteries for a 15 second dump
based on dragging the battery down to and holding it at
8.5 volts. This is easily accomplished with the tester that
both B&C and the 'Connection use in their shops. See . . .
http://www.batteryweb.com/autometer-detail.cfm?ModelSB-5<http://www.batteryweb.com/autometer-detail.cfm?ModelSB-5>
Does that mean that B&C's marketing numbers are
bad or that they're trying to obscure any facts? No, I picked
that value 15 years ago because I didn't know of any starters
that would continue to crank an engine all the way down to
7.2 volts . . . And guess what? We DON'T do that test at
0C.
Reserve Capacity (RC): "Number of minutes a fully charged battery
at 80.F can be discharged at 25 amps until the voltage drops below
10.5 volts."
Well fooey, my e-bus runs only 5 amps . . . should I be bent
out of shape that Odyssey or any other manufacturer doesn't
give me a 5A value instead of the 25A value? Only if I'm
an ignorant consumer likely to make decisions based on a
particular manufacturer's marketing hype. If I'm a designer
who deals in engineering facts and data, then what ever data the
manufacturer supplies is GOOD data as long as it's accurate.
If I need ADDITIONAL data plotted in some other venue, then it's my
responsibility go get that data myself or request it from
the manufacturer. Most have much more data than they publish
and will supply it as needed.
Deltran's position on Odyssey products is not well researched.
It does not mirror any considered understanding of lead-acid
technology in general nor Odyssey's engineering and marketing
philosophies in particular.
The short answer is, "I'm not going to loose any sleep over it."
Bob . . .
________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________
Time: 09:52:30 PM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
At 10:44 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" <toaster73@earthlink.net<mailto:toaster73@earthlink.net>>
>
>Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it
>expensive and not worth it?
What would be the advantage of using it for house wiring? You
can purchase any kind of wire from anybody and use it any way
you like with complete confidence as long as you observe the
products limitations. But it might be an action akin to running
130 avgas in a mogas rated engine . . . expensive but doesn't
get you any more snort . . .
Bob . . .
Message 43
| 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: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" <toaster73@earthlink.net>
Thanks for the insight. Like anybody I want the best but will settle for
what works for the best price. I think the heavy iron folks are always
thinking of the bundles that are as thick as an arm and carrying lots of
load. I am use to mil-specs and Navy needs. My RV-10 won't be doing 6 month
floats.
-Chris Lucas
#40072
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 01:36 PM 5/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
>>
>>Bob,
>> As long as we're kicking around a discussion on wire, where would the
>>Raychem 44 or Raychem 55 fit in with all this for aircraft use?
>
>
> When I had the electrical/avionics group on the GP-180 project
> at Lear about 22 years ago, 22759 was an export controlled substance
> and we needed special licences to sell airplanes overseas that were
> wired with 22759. I was ready to use Spec 55 wire in the GP-180
> until my betters decided to go for the export license.
>
> It's very good wire too.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 44
| 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: | Alternator Wiring Question |
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:10:13 -0500
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" <bobair8@msn.com>
I plan on installing my alternator, then my prop on my GlaStar this weekend. I
have to have the wires on the back of the alternator before it goes in otherwise
I don't have enough access room.
My alternator is a Prestolite ALY-6421. I know, I know, the B&C alternators are
much better and lighter but this one came with the engine and is paid for.
The alternator has a 1/4"x28 stud for ALT +, a #10x32 stud for "AUX" (which I don't
plan to use and really don't know what it's for), and a #6x32 stud for the
Field.
The confusing part is there are two #10x24 termination screws near the Field post
that are labeled "F1" and "F2". Do I just terminate my 20 AWG field wire on
the threaded post? What function, if any, do the two screws have?
Thanks and best regards,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server<mailto:aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com>
To: AeroElectric-List Digest List<mailto:aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 32 Msgs - 05/17/05
*
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-17.html<http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-17.html>
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-17.txt<http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/DigestAeroElectric-List.2005-05-17.txt>
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Tue 05/17/05: 32
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:59 AM - Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant (rd2@evenlink.com<mailto:rd2@evenlink.com>)
2. 04:44 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (cgalley)
3. 06:33 AM - Re: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant (Steve
Thomas)
4. 06:36 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (Paul Folbrecht)
5. 06:37 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Chinese Tools (Casey Rayman)
6. 06:41 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>)
7. 06:41 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>)
8. 06:41 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (William Bernard)
9. 06:41 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (William Bernard)
10. 07:04 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>)
11. 07:21 AM - Re: Rash of hijacked e-mail addresses (Robert L. Nuckolls,
III)
12. 07:23 AM - Kilovac Konfession (Eric M. Jones)
13. 07:49 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 07:58 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 08:10 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 08:24 AM - Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV ()
17. 08:33 AM - Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV (BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>)
18. 08:52 AM - Re: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant (Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis))
19. 08:57 AM - Re: (no subject) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
20. 08:58 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Ronald J. Parigoris)
21. 09:12 AM - GI-106A Back Course ()
22. 09:12 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (Paul Folbrecht)
23. 09:21 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (cgalley)
24. 09:37 AM - Re: Avionics breaker (Ken Simmons)
25. 11:28 AM - Re: Kilovac Konfession (Gilles Thesee)
26. 11:37 AM - Re: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT (Richard Tasker)
27. 11:55 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>)
28. 11:57 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>)
29. 01:11 PM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 02:54 PM - Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 (Ken Simmons)
31. 03:10 PM - Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters (Charlie England)
32. 07:43 PM - Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV (John Schroeder)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 03:59:06 AM PST US
From: rd2@evenlink.com<mailto:rd2@evenlink.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com<mailto:rd2@evenlink.com>
Absolutely agree.
If we keep giving away freedoms by voting-in and agreeing with bureaucrats
and media who tell us how to behave in our families, how to raise children,
when and how to punish them - or not (in most cases), how to teach them to
use condoms (how about introducing that in kindergarden), how to accept the
unacceptable as "normal", "politically correct", or whatever nonsense
adjective or noun they describe it with, the future does not look rosy. I
don't remember that from my childhood and have my solution: that's the way
I like it, that's the way it's gonna be. Sometimes we have to fight. Oh,
well...
Rumen
do not archive
P.S.
Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address:
>>
From: bob.nuckolls@cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls@cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm<http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm>
>>
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 11:02 PM
5/16/2005 -0500)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
...........
Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 04:44:46 AM PST US
From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org>>
MLI has one I believe.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
>
>
> In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the
> older
> King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know
> that.
>
>
> How many back course approaches are still in service?
>
> I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 06:33:08 AM PST US
From: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net<mailto:lists@stevet.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net<mailto:lists@stevet.net>>
Hello Robert,
Monday, May 16, 2005, 9:02:44 PM, you wrote:
RLNI> However, I've observed first hand, a very
RLNI> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
RLNI> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
RLNI> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
I have been very impressed lately by a pervasive attitude of
entitlement. It seems to me that a lot of our crime, welfare state,
education, job, retirement, and daily life activities are becoming
centered on a you-owe-me or government-owes-me attitude. This is a
180 degree shift on what this country was founded upon. Consider this
quote from Alexis de Toqueville, a Frenchman touring this country in
the early 19th century:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers
that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
We have arrived, have we not?
Do Not Archive
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam<mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam>
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 06:36:20 AM PST US
From: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>>
It does. What got it for me was just thinking "same direction as course -
normal sensing; opposite direction of course - reverse sensing". It'll come
one day and then you'll never think about it again.
--- Matt Prather <mprather@spro.net<mailto:mprather@spro.net>> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net<mailto:mprather@spro.net>>
>
> I know this probably shouldn't turn into a "There's one here... There's
> one here too..." type thing... But, I am finishing up my instrument
> rating right now, and use the Localizer Back Course a couple of times each
> week at Boise. Fly the ILS to published missed, then vectors (normal
> because of terrain) for the BC going the opposite direction, then miss -
> climb runway heading for the procedure turn back to the ILS. Keeps the
> neurons whirring..
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
> do not archive
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> > paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the
> > older
> > King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know
> > that.
> >
> >
> > How many back course approaches are still in service?
> >
> > I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more.
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Ancient Aviator
> > Stearman N3977A
> > Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> > Downers Grove, IL 60516
> > 630 985-8502
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 06:37:04 AM PST US
From: Casey Rayman <theturbodog@yahoo.com<mailto:theturbodog@yahoo.com>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Chinese Tools
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Casey Rayman <theturbodog@yahoo.com<mailto:theturbodog@yahoo.com>>
> Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
> to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
> There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
> to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
I have had great luck with most HF tools. Their hand electric tools
like drills and jugsaws are not worth the trouble unless you are only
going to use them once or twice. The heavier tools like bandsaws and
mills are actually decent, but they are definately put together in
the quickest/easiest way possible. Out of the box they are not too
accurate or easy to work with, but once they are cleaned up they work
great.
My opinion on the future is that we, the US, has lost focus. In the
last century we had back to back war for almost the entire century.
War gives people great focus. I'm not saying we should create war or
anything, but lack of a genuine goal leads us to boredom and
lazyness. Which is where we as a nation are right now. I suspect as
oil supplies get tighter(40 or 50 years from now) we will get back in
the saddle again if we still have it in us.
Casey
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail<http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail>
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 06:41:05 AM PST US
From: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org> writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org>>
MLI has one I believe.
Good Morning Cy,
I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very
common.
The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must
remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations
were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction
you were flying. Flying toward the needle was no more normal than flying
away from the needle with the VAR. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost
comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize,
circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions,
but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month
hood check.
But I digress!
The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing
the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for
the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that
is fine with me!
I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that
function.
When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer
approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and
weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument
Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know
of
in
Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that
it
now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones
certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be
the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
used low weather runway.
I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls
Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
point.
The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where
the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 06:41:21 AM PST US
From: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
Good Morning Cy,
I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very
common.
The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must
remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations
were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction
you were flying. With the VAR, flying toward the needle was no more normal
than flying away from the needle. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost
comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize,
circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions,
but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month
hood check.
But I digress!
The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing
the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for
the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that
is fine with me!
I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that
function.
When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer
approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and
weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument
Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know
of
in
Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that
it
now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones
certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be
the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
used low weather runway.
I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls
Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
point.
The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where
the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org> writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org>>
MLI has one I believe.
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 06:41:29 AM PST US
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until I
pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to
activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine
instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic ignition
is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on.
I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to borrow
a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other problems.
The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor tests
the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly.
Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to
about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to
about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault in
the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the
battery any more.
My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is
something preventable.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
>
> At 06:56 AM 5/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> ><billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
> >
> >Hi all: I had an interesting situation yesterday afternoon, fortunately
on
> >the ground.
> >
> >I had completed a flight to another airport and when I went to start the
> >aircraft for the return tirp, there was no electricity. The trip over had
> >been about an hour earlier and no, I didn't leave the master switch on.
> >
> >The aircraft is wired using Bob's ideas with both a main and emergency
> >buss. The single electronic ignition is wired directly from a battery
> >buss. Nothing worked although the master contactor would click sometimes.
> >It sounds like a classic dead battery, but the battery is only 2 1/2 - 3
> >years old and is an RG type. There has been no obvious signs of impending
> >failure.
> >
> >I plan to replace the battery, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts
> >as to what the problem might be and how to prevent a recurrence.
>
> You say "sometimes" . . . on times that it DID click, did the
> system come up? Were you able to start the engine? How did you
> get the airplane home or is it stuck on the other airport.
>
> If your battery started the airplane earlier that day, it's
> far from DEAD. If the contactor made no noise at all, the
> most likely problem is the battery-master side of your
> DC POWER MASTER switch. Do you have a diode across the
> coil of the battery contactor as illustrated in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s701-1l.jpg<http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s701-1l.jpg>
>
> If not, then the contactor's de-energizing spike
> may have burned the contacts of the master switch
> so as to make it unreliable. Replacement of the switch
> and ADDITION of the diode would be indicated.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
>
>
--
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 06:41:29 AM PST US
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no
corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't
very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them
and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few
lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect
didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button.
That may be as good an explanation as any I'm going to get, especially as I
no longer have the battery.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
>
> At 06:30 AM 5/16/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> ><billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
> >
> >I don't believe it is a switch problem for the simple reason that three
> >switches would all have to die suddenly. The master would produce the
clicks
> >from the master contacter, but when the switch that turns on the e-buss
was
> >turned on, nothing happened either. Also, there is a power light on the
> >electronic ignition circuit and the powe comes directly from the battery.
> >That circuit was dead also.
> >
> >Replacing the battery corrected all the problems.
> >
> >I just wonder if there is a way to prevent a recurrence.
>
> Yes, periodic cap testing of your battery . . . or some
> other considered preventative maintenance program. I think
> you mentioned that the battery was several years old.
> 95% of the time, my "sudden" failures of batteries in
> my vehicles was a loose post on the battery. Several
> years ago, I did have a flooded battery behave as you've
> described. Got in the car at store 2 miles away and it
> started right up. Ten minutes after arriving home, I
> identified another procurement task and the car wouldn't
> start. Battery refused to carry even 8A worth of headlamp
> loads. I stuck one of my 32 a.h. RG instrumentation batteries
> in and drove to the parts store to buy a new battery for
> the van. This battery was several years old too . . . more
> than 3 and probably less than 5.
>
> Do you still have the old battery? Are you SURE that the
> problem wasn't a poor connection at the battery post?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
>
>
--
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 07:04:30 AM PST US
From: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
Good Morning Bill,
Just as a data point, I had a similar failure in a sealed battery on my
minivan.
One day it would start fine, the next day it did not. Tapping the
connections seemed to bring it back on line sufficiently to allow some lighting,
and so
forth, to be powered, but when I hit the starter, it went completely sour
again. Replacing the battery fixed the problem. My local auto service person
tells me that such internal failures are relatively common.
I have noted that some of the aircraft battery suppliers brag quite heavily
as to their having higher quality internal connections than are found in
competitive batteries. Unfortunately, I do not remember which provider it was
that was doing the bragging!
In any case, my last three batteries purchased for certificated aircraft
have been Recombinant Gas Concordes.
So far, so good.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/17/2005 8:47:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,
billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no
corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't
very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them
and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few
lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect
didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button.
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 07:21:11 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rash of hijacked e-mail addresses
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
P.S.
Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address:
>>
From: bob.nuckolls@cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls@cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm<http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm>
>>
Yes, I got about a dozen bounces of the same message sent to a
lot of folks I don't know and services I don't subscribe to.
Actually, the bob.nuckolls@cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net> is my personal account that
I run with a server based spam filter. The filter is fairly effective
but I still get 20-30 pieces a of spam per day to that account.
I've been hijacked several times before and both were cases
where my email address was clearly published on my website.
Since I went to a hidden address accessed through a form-mailer,
the incidences have dropped way off . . . but that still doesn't
keep the 'bots from finding your address in someone's address
files.
This goes directly to the point I was making about how children
are raised. A very wise philosopher once noted:
-----------------
"If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought
to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid
the punishment, but have no sense of shame. "If they be
led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them
by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense
of shame, and moreover will become good."
------------
With the probability of punishment becoming ever more remote
in both our courts and other institutions of authority, many
citizens are operating as if "freedom" means a license to
indulge in any whim. When our parents (AND TEACHERS) don't
endow their charges with a sense of shame, then it is
expected that many will take pleasure in attacking the
liberties of others be it through direct assault upon their
persons or property or indirectly through things like floods
of spam on the 'net.
It takes no great talent or resources to be terribly
destructive or disruptive. 9-11 demonstrated that. The roots
of that behavior by any individual are firmly
grounded in the absence of shame for not behaving
in honorable ways. I have to believe that this is what
the philosopher was thinking about when it was observed
that, "The sins of the fathers shall beset the children
for generations." This wasn't about observance of any
particular dogma but the byproduct of having lost or
ignored one's sense of shame.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________
Time: 07:23:31 AM PST US
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net<mailto:emjones@charter.net>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Kilovac Konfession
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net<mailto:emjones@charter.net>>
In case you were wondering, John, Steve, Scott and others...I confess--Yes,
it was I who snatched up all the Kilovac EV200AAANA contactors on eBay
yesterday.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com<http://www.periheliondesign.com/>
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net<mailto:emjones@charter.net>
"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my father did....
Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his airplane."
--anonymous
________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________
Time: 07:49:28 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
At 08:09 AM 5/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
><billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
>
>Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no
>corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't
>very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them
>and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few
>lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect
>didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button.
>
>That may be as good an explanation as any I'm going to get, especially as I
>no longer have the battery.
Too bad. I would ask that anyone on the list who
observes or experiences a mystifying failure of ANY
device . . . be it a battery, contactor, switch, etc.
to try and capture the offending article and send it
to me.
We are beset by innumerable anecdotal incidences that
go forever unexplained and never understood. Yet
the fear of potential consequences for these incidences
prompt decisions that drive up costs and may even drive
system reliability down. In any case, no real considered
design changes can take place unless we can get beyond
the "tis so, taint so" phase of deliberations and deduce
the simple-ideas upon which the failure was based.
This battery may have suffered some form of chemical
failure which might have been deduced in advance by
periodic testing. It may have suffered a crack in a
major conductor.
I note that many battery manufacturers are moving away
from pure lead terminal posts and bringing harder, more
durable connections to the outside world. But in any
case, please consider using 4AWG welding cable jumpers
for your short leads from battery(-) to ground and
battery(+) to contactor. This will greatly reduce the
installation and operating stresses on the battery's
terminals.
Bob . . .
________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________
Time: 07:58:06 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
At 08:03 AM 5/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
><billbernard@worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard@worldnet.att.net>>
>
>Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until I
>pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to
>activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine
>instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic ignition
>is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on.
>
>I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to borrow
>a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other problems.
>The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor tests
>the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly.
>Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to
>about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to
>about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault in
>the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the
>battery any more.
>
>My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is
>something preventable.
>
>Bill
It sounds very much like a mechanical failure . . . cracked conductor
perhaps? Without a teardown inspection, we'll never know. We DO know
that batteries are manufactured in the millions and that the vast majority
will perform as designed over the service life of the battery. We
also know that most of the VSLA products are being used in stationary
and/or relatively benign portable applications. Our use of such products
in aircraft is undoubtedly pushing any battery's performance envelope
with respect to both mechanical capabilities and chemical activity.
In another post, I've encouraged everyone to capture mystifying failures
and get them to me (or any other willing investigator) for failure
evaluation. Without such data, the vast majority of decisions made
on the evidence known are simple "whistles in the dark." Worse yet,
such cases often tie brand names to failures that tend to unfairly
reduce perceived value of the brand.
Bob . . .
________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________
Time: 08:10:33 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
>
>I have noted that some of the aircraft battery suppliers brag quite heavily
>as to their having higher quality internal connections than are found in
>competitive batteries. Unfortunately, I do not remember which provider
>it was
>that was doing the bragging!
>
>In any case, my last three batteries purchased for certificated aircraft
>have been Recombinant Gas Concordes.
>
>So far, so good.
>
>Happy Skies,
When I visited the Concord manufacturing facility about two
years ago, folks there shared their personal experiences concerning
internal connection failures (do to battery abuse) which
ultimately produced a battery explosion. I related this
story in a post about a month ago. Since that time, the
same batteries have been deliberately abused by Navy battery
testing labs in Crane, Indiana. The failure mode could not
be re-produced.
I've seen the Hawker production facilities too . . . they
spot weld their inter-cell connections. One could debate
reliability due to process sensitivity of the hand welded
(see http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_1.jpg<http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_1.jpg>
and http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_2.jpg<http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_2.jpg> )
crossovers versus spot welded. I know that both companies
have submitted numerous test articles to the Crane labs
for evaluation and both companies are qualified suppliers
to the military based on those evaluations.
I cannot speak to other brands . . . However, this failure
mode included a pre-abuse cycle of the battery that damaged
the crossovers. An aggressive recharge was next followed
by an attempt to start which produced the final failure
of the crossover and the explosion (which did no damage
to the airplane). This is not likely to occur in a piston
powered light aircraft.
This, my friends, is the kind of data upon which rational
design, purchasing and operating decisions are made. Anything
less than this detail is is only fodder for television
advertising or perhaps an "investigative report" by
popular news media.
Bob . . .
________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________
Time: 08:24:42 AM PST US
From: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder"
<jschroeder@perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder@perigee.net>>
<<Hello OC - Page 34 of the Installation Manual for the SL-30 is partially
quoted below:
Calibrating the Resolver Indicator Head Type....skip......
Hope this sheds some light on the subject. John>>
5/17/2005
Hello John, Thanks for the input. Yes, I think the light is coming on a
little. I am at a real disadvantage in discussing this subject since I know
very little about the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of CDI's and the
means of feeding them.
Here is my current thinking / guessing. The problems arise when you are
trying to feed two different CDI's with one SL-30 and try to shift between
CDI's. Since each CDI (and its resolver?) is a bit different it is not
possible / convenient to accurately calibrate both of them to the one SL-30.
But if you have one CDI, as I do, you can calibrate that one CDI to the one
SL-30 using the set up procedure in the SL-30 manual and it will remain in
calibration as you shift the CDI away from and then back to that same SL-30
by means of the multiple pole relay box installed.
I am not sure how or why that same CDI stays accurately matched up to both
the GPS outputs and the VOR/LOC outputs from the Garmin GNS 430, as mine
does, when that source is connected to the CDI. It may have something to do
with the nature of the signals coming from the GNS 430 and the devices
within the CDI receiving those signals so that, no matter how the CDI may
have been calibrated to the SL-30, the GNS 430 outputs are accurately
displayed.
So my conclusion about all the problems people discuss regarding shifting
back and forth between CDI's and SL-30's is only a real problem if one is
trying to feed two different CDI's / resolvers with one SL-30. Or if one is
trying to feed one CDI with an SL-30 and another source (including a second
SL-30) that demands that the CDI also be calibrated to it and the two
calibrations are not compatible.
It would be nice if David Buckwalter or John Stark would participate on this
subject and provide some additional insight.
OC
PS: The pagination in my SL-30 manual is a bit different than yours. Mine is
dated February 2000 on the front with a UPS part number of 560-0404-01. What
is the date, company, and part number of your manual?
________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________
Time: 08:33:07 AM PST US
From: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/17/2005 10:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net> writes:
But if you have one CDI, as I do, you can calibrate that one CDI to the one
SL-30 using the set up procedure in the SL-30 manual and it will remain in
calibration as you shift the CDI away from and then back to that same SL-30
by means of the multiple pole relay box installed.
Good Morning OC,
The entire discussion is way over my head, but I do know that my local
electronics guru does occasionally use a "smart box" to convert a non compatible
signal to a compatible one when mixing various boxes together. What is inside
the smart boxes and what the efficiency, or failure rate is, is another
thing about which I know nothing, but it does seem to work!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________
Time: 08:52:02 AM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
HF tools are very good value for money...
Good tools I have bought
10" wood compound miter saw $100
14" benchtop bandsaw $100
6" chop saw/aluminium oxide wheels for alu angles $34
Due grinders...Superb $8 to 29
14" metal chop saw $49
Bunch of other stuff...which I can't remember right now.
As to how fast the economy is going to slip away...try working in hi
tech...All of our IT support is already in India and if you go on the
web and put in "China manufacturing" you will get forms to fill in, send
a drawing and the quote will come back...All shipping and customs taken
care of. They will do anything from injection molding to CNC machining.
I bet within 10 years we won't have a manufacturing economy and to be
honest there is only so much innovation that the world needs.
Sad but I think when you realise the Global rate for an IT professional
is $320 a month....Well...we're screwed!
Do not archive
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rd2@evenlink.com<mailto:rd2@evenlink.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com<mailto:rd2@evenlink.com>
Absolutely agree.
If we keep giving away freedoms by voting-in and agreeing with
bureaucrats and media who tell us how to behave in our families, how to
raise children, when and how to punish them - or not (in most cases),
how to teach them to use condoms (how about introducing that in
kindergarden), how to accept the unacceptable as "normal", "politically
correct", or whatever nonsense adjective or noun they describe it with,
the future does not look rosy. I don't remember that from my childhood
and have my solution: that's the way I like it, that's the way it's
gonna be. Sometimes we have to fight. Oh, well...
Rumen
do not archive
P.S.
Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address:
>>
From: bob.nuckolls@cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls@cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm<http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm>
>>
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 11:02 PM
5/16/2005 -0500)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
...........
Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________
Time: 08:57:49 AM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: (no subject)
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>>
The $7.99 trickle chargers (voltage sensing) have worked great for me
for the last five years.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
TSaccio@aol.com<mailto:TSaccio@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: (no subject)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com<mailto:TSaccio@aol.com>
Sometime ago there was an article written on this site about low cost
battery chargers from Harbor Freight. Does anyone have information as to
the best one to buy? Tom Saccio
________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________
Time: 08:58:18 AM PST US
From: "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US<mailto:rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us<mailto:rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>>
Watch it if you wish to tap on connections of a suspect bad internal connection
battery. My
brother did such a thing on a car, it really was a bad connection internal where
the
terminals were, anyway the thing exploded and spewed acid all over. We had a
pool
pretty
close, besides burning in his eyes for a while he was OK. Symptoms were as described,
started OK, then bearly would light a few lights. When it exploded I was in the
car and only
the key was in the on position, no other load. I forget brand but it was kinda
sortta a
maintenance free battery, but you could still take the covers off to top up,
but
they were
the type that were plenty stuck in place.
Ron Parigoris
> Tapping the
> connections seemed to bring it back on line sufficiently to allow some lighting,
and so
> forth, to be powered, but when I hit the starter, it went completely sour
> again."
________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________
Time: 09:12:19 AM PST US
From: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
<<....skip....... I wouldn't spend much to have back course capability. Old
Bob
5/17/2005
Hello Old Bob, I agree, but then one doesn't have to spend anything extra to
have localizer back course capability in their aircraft. If they have basic
localizer front course capable airborne equipment they also have the
capability to fly a published back course approach. They just need to
remember to turn away from the needle to get to the localizer course
centerline when actually flying inbound on a localizer back course approach.
The fundamental airborne equipment capability is the same for either front
course or back course operations.
The only additional cost consideration for the airborne equipment is whether
you want to add some localizer back course bells and whistles:
1) One can have just an indicator in the cockpit that tells the pilot "You
are flying a localizer back course -- make sure that you turn away from the
needle to get to the course centerline."
2) One can have equipment selectability that feeds the CDI in a fashion so
that one would turn towards the needle to get to the localizer course
centerline even though one is flying a localizer back course. This
capability should also be accompanied by a cockpit indicator showing that
that capability has been selected.
UPS / Garmin built item 2) capability inherently into the SL-30 VHF Nav
Comm. It probably took only a few lines of computer code in that digital
device and the cost differential was trivial. But, as has been pointed out,
published localizer back course approaches are not very common these days
and as more GPS approaches and WAAS capability become available localizer
back courses may become even rarer.
OC
PS: One should also use caution in attempting to fly on the localizer
center line beyond the localizer antenna into the back course region if
there is no published back course approach for that facility. There may be
no relationship between your position, your CDI indications, and a
hypothetically projected back course localizer centerline.
________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________
Time: 09:12:19 AM PST US
From: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>>
Bob,
I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC
backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach,
outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the
full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and have
reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches are
very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill..
do not archive
--- BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote:
> The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
>
> I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
> you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
> that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________
Time: 09:21:32 AM PST US
From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org>>
You see what happens when old memory and being a non-instrument pilot
brings.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
>
> Good Morning Cy,
>
> I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
>
> That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
>
> When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were
> very
> common.
>
> The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
> obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
>
> As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
> ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we
> must
> remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range
> stations
> were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the
> direction
> you were flying. With the VAR, flying toward the needle was no more
> normal
> than flying away from the needle. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots
> lost
> comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
>
> The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and
> utilize,
> circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
> approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
>
> By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
> training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those
> conditions,
> but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six
> month
> hood check.
>
> But I digress!
>
> The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
>
> I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt
> if
> you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The
> ones
> that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
>
> If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not
> providing
> the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt
> for
> the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
>
> If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost,
> that
> is fine with me!
>
> I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
>
> S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
> substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide
> that function.
>
> When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course
> localizer
> approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space,
> and
> weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
>
> Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in
> Instrument
> Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
> difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I
> know of in
> Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
>
> Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
>
>
> I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
> believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see
> that it
> now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first
> ones
> certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to
> be
> the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
> used low weather runway.
>
>
> I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho
> Falls
> Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
> point.
>
> The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways
> where
> the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument
> conditions.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
> In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org> writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org>>
>
> MLI has one I believe.
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________
Time: 09:37:27 AM PST US
From: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com<mailto:ken@truckstop.com>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics breaker
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com<mailto:ken@truckstop.com>>
Bob,
Thanks for the reply. I hadn't thought about the basic similarity to the Z drawings.
I do have another question for you. I understand the diode in the Z drawings
prevents back feeding the main bus during a "main buss loss" event. In my
case I can isolate these two buses by the use of the avionics master/relay without
a diode.
I can see a potential procedural problem if feeding the aux avionics breaker
from
the battery, though. If the normal avionics master and the aux avionics switch
were on at the same time during a start I can see a potential for a big current
through a little wire problem. I'm sure I can add the diode, but if I can
eliminate a component and achive the same functionality, why not?
I could "interlock" the two switches by using a double throw, but I have the
Honeywell/Microswitch
AML34 series rocker switches. I can't find one of these in
a double through configuration, just SPST and DPST. If you or anyone else knows
otherwise please let me know.
It may be a moot point anyway. Moving the feed for the aux avionics breaker to
the battery will take a bunch more work. There is a wire from the battery now
(in the rear of the plane) to the breaker panel that feeds an LSE ignition. It's
only 16AWG, though, so I couldn't enlist it to feed the aux avionics breaker.
That's assuming I'm reading the current capacity numbers correctly.
I hope I made all that clear enough.
Thanks.
Ken
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
>
>At 09:18 AM 5/14/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com<mailto:ken@truckstop.com>>
>>
>>My flying Glastar has a "conventional" electrical system with an avionics
>>master switch and solenoid. I guess for fault tolerance reasons there is
>>also a separate "aux avionics switch" with a separate breaker that can
>>bypass the avionics solenoid and feed the avionics bus directly.
>>
>>This seems to add a level of complexity that provides very little if any
>>benefit. There are only three pieces of avionics, a GNC250XL(10A), a
>>GTX320(3A) and an intercom(1A). The aux avionics breaker is 15 Amps.
>>
>>As they say "if it ain't broke don't fix it". In this case I'm not trying
>>to fix it, I'm trying to add a Trutrak autopilot and I'm trying to figure
>>out the best way to wire in the power. The quickest would be to feed it
>>separately from the main bus and not use the avionics bus. The most
>>complex would be to re-wire the entire plane using a Z-drawing type
>>configuration. I'm looking for a in-between solution, preferably closer to
>>the first idea.
>
> the only difference between what you describe and what I've recommended
> in the z-figures is where the alternate power feed for the endurance
> (avionics) bus comes from. I prefer to take it right from the battery
> bus . . . and then move a few useful items like minimal panel lighting,
> turn coordinator and perhaps a voltmeter to the endurance bus.
>
> your autopilot could run from the endurance bus nicely . . . I think
> I'd add a no-feedback diode into the normal feedpath and move the second
> feedpath to the battery. The "aux avionics" breaker could move to the
> battery bus and you could use miniature contactor (relay) to support
> the larger than normal aux feed path. See figure Z-32.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________
Time: 11:28:11 AM PST US
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr<mailto:Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Kilovac Konfession
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr<mailto:Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>>
>-Yes,
>it was I who snatched up all the Kilovac EV200AAANA contactors on eBay
>yesterday.
>
>
>
Eric,
Would you care to conduct some tests on these babies and share the
results with us ?
Two questions keep nagging at me :
- What was that Kilovac-induced noise that was disturbing my LVWM ?
- Do the Kilovacs really need a diode across the coil/control wires ?
To this moment I've not been in a position to perform such tests,
although I've just been given an ITT/Metrix OX 7520 oscilloscope.
By the way, anyone around happen to have a manual for this 'scope ?
Thanks,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________
Time: 11:37:53 AM PST US
From: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net<mailto:retasker@optonline.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net<mailto:retasker@optonline.net>>
Perhaps not all hope is not lost. My company is doing fine
(www.astsensors.com<http://www.astsensors.com/>) and we do all our design and manufacturing in the
USA. We do buy a few machined parts from China when the cost is
significantly lower, but we buy the majority from US suppliers. Yes,
the prices are a little higher for the US parts but that is outweighed
by the response time, the ease of interfacing with local vendors and the
lack of international shipping. Our annual sales have been growing by
40-50% per year for the last five years and we expect that to continue
(60% for the first quarter this year). We successfully compete with
manufacturers in the US, Europe (including Eastern Europe) and China for
sales internationally. It turns out that treating your employees right,
good customer support and a quality product allows you to remain
competitive despite slightly higher manufacturing costs. Our major
hindrance to even faster growth is lack of available financing. It
seems that the banks (and everyone else for that matter) don't want to
talk to you unless you don't really need money or unless you have a
pie-in-the-sky idea with no actual product. Someone like us - who have
a viable product and growing sales - don't interest them. Sorry for the
rant, but it is very frustrating and one of the reasons there are not
more successful small businesses.
Dick Tasker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
>
>At 02:21 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com<mailto:terry@tcwatson.com>>
>>
>>A couple of nights ago I was working out on a stair machine at my health
>>club in a Seattle suburb, reading Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is
>>Flat", which Eric mentioned.
>>
>>
>
> I just ordered that book on a audio CD from my local library.
> I'll keep it in the CD player in my car for the next week or so.
>
>
>
>
>>We can all have our own reasons for buying or not buying from any company or
>>country we want, but to dismiss anything manufactured in China as being of
>>low quality is to be maybe a quarter of a century behind the times.
>>
>>
>
> Well put. I've been gigged by many dishonorable and/or incapable
> individuals over the years. Some were in China, most were not.
> I have several machine tools from HF that have demonstrated
> some limitations but for the most part, have been good value.
> I was able to produce parts that sold for a great deal more than
> the tools cost. In the grand scheme of things, the consumer/
> supplier transactions were all accomplished to the satisfaction of
> persons involved.
>
> Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
> to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
> There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
> to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________
Time: 11:55:57 AM PST US
From: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/17/2005 11:14:36 A.M. Central Standard Time,
paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com> writes:
Bob,
I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC
backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach,
outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the
full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and
have
reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches
are
very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill..
do not archive
Good Afternoon Paul,
Obviously, if one is to fly outbound via the localizer front course, the
pilot should be aware of how that is done.
What I was trying to emphasize is that there is very little, if any,
advantage to be gained by spending any extra funds to get an autopilot that will
track in that mode. If you can get the capability in a flight management system
or on an autopilot at no cost in dollars, weight or extra panel space, I
would go for it, but I would not spend one red cent, give up one once of
payload, one inch of panel space, for that capability.
Modern navigation is all To-To navigation and flying outbound on any
approach is such a very rare thing that I feel it can be handled comfortably
using
raw data and visual pilot observation and manipulation.
If someone absolutely has to use an autopilot to fly that outbound leg, use
the heading mode!.
Better yet, load the point being flown TO in an IFR approved GPS and couple
the autopilot to that.
More than one way to skin a cat.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________
Time: 11:57:49 AM PST US
From: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>
In a message dated 5/17/2005 11:11:52 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net> writes:
The only additional cost consideration for the airborne equipment is whether
you want to add some localizer back course bells and whistles:
1) One can have just an indicator in the cockpit that tells the pilot "You
are flying a localizer back course -- make sure that you turn away from the
needle to get to the course centerline."
Good Afternoon OC,
That is, of course, completely correct.
I was commenting primarily on those autopilots and flight directors which
have the extra bells and whistles to help the folks who have not been taught
to
"pull" the needle. As I mentioned earlier, in the days of VARs, we all knew
how to do that, but the technique is rarely used these days.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________
Time: 01:11:24 PM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
At 09:11 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
><paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>>
>
>Bob,
>
>I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC
>backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach,
>outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the
>full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and have
>reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches are
>very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill..
At Cessna in the 60's we offered an optional double-pole, double-throw
switch next to the LOC indicator that would reverse the connections to the
needle for flying the back-course. It's an easy thing to add to an
installation
where the back-course capability is desired.
Bob . . .
________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________
Time: 02:54:09 PM PST US
From: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com<mailto:ken@truckstop.com>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com<mailto:ken@truckstop.com>>
Does anyone know a source for these rocker switches other than NewGlasair. I
finally
got ahold of them today and the factory has given them a six week lead time.
Thanks.
Ken
DO NOT ARCHIVE
________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________
Time: 03:10:21 PM PST US
From: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net<mailto:ceengland@bellsouth.net>>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net<mailto:ceengland@bellsouth.net>>
AI Nut wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net<mailto:ainut@hiwaay.net>>
>
>Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I
>don't mean just the boats, either.
>And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with
>impunity.
>
The 1st statement is obviously not true.
As to the 2nd, perhaps you are better informed than the rest of us & can
enlighten us?
Charlie
________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________
Time: 07:43:40 PM PST US
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder@perigee.net>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder@perigee.net>>
On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:24:17 -0400, <bakerocb@cox.net<mailto:bakerocb@cox.net>> wrote:
> PS: The pagination in my SL-30 manual is a bit different than yours.
> Mine is dated February 2000 on the front with a UPS part number of
> 560-0404-01. What is the date, company, and part number of your manual?
OC:
My Manual is: August 2003 560-0404-03A
I would agree with your interpretation of the page I referenced: You
should not switch the SL-30's between separate OBS's (CDI's) without
calibrating the instrument per the book before using the OBS.
As to why yours appears to work when it is switched from the 430 between
its nav section to its GPS section: Perhaps, Garmin specked that their
"G-106A" have circuitry that automatically does this. Another alternative
is that the signals in the 430 are sync'd to a standard before they are
sent to the OBS (G-106). These are guesses.
Does the installation manual for the 430 have a calibration procedure for
the VOR/ILS section to an external OBS? From the GPS section to an
external OBS. Might be worth a check.
Best,
John
--
Message 45
| 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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 05/19 8:59, Chuck Jensen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> Walter wrote...
> The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would
> equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit
> into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun.
>
> Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2".
> Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns.
>
> I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound
more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but
fossilized minds want to know--at least this one.
You are right, they were essentially measureing barrel/sphere diameters
and barrel length, hence the guage. Today's shotguns shoot a variety
of pellet sizes, not slugs, or single lead spheres. Of course you
can still buy slug for shotguns today but they are less popular.
A standard shot sphere size was determined after much trial and error.
Powder, shot, wads, casings, caps, crimps, barrel length, chokes and a
bunch of other things are taken into consideration when creating today's
shotgun shells, of any guage.
The shot size, shot weight, barrel length, powder type, etc, need to
be such that an appropriate amount of gunpowder will effectivly eject
the shot, kill it's intended victim, and not blow up the barrel and shooter.
You must remember that way back in the day, steel wasn't the steel
we have today. I wouldn't put today's 12ga shotgun shells into a
Damascus barrel shotgun more than a few times, for fear of it blowing up.
The physics of creating the perfect shot shell is something that
ballistics experts continue to tinker with today.
You can't have a 6' long barrel and it can't be 5" in diameter.
Neither of them will kill anything, except perhaps the shooter.
You can only get so much lead into any given configuration, and have
it fire in an expected, repeatable way, and kill something you want
to eat, or otherwise. There is a happy medium (of shot sphere size)
for any given barrel length and amount of powder, and type of powder.
Since I wasn't there when the guages were developed, I'm recanting
what I know from heresay and book reading. Don't take my word for it
but it sounds fair.
Does that make any sense or should I have another glass of wine?
do not archive
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Message 46
| 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: | 12/14v instruments and accessories in a 24/28v plane |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID487JeTD5N0290X38
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
Hi folks - newcomer to the list.
My family is building a Lancair IV P-T here in Arizona. It's got a
starter/generator as the main electrical supply at 28v. Most of the stuff on
the panel and in the plane is happy at either 14/28v or at 28v only. However,
one critical Becker comm. is 14v only (on the essential bus). There's also
some creature comfort entertainment stuff that's designed to run off 14v as
well (very low on the priority list).
For a battery we're stacking two Oddessy batteries in series.
It occurs to me that we could run two separate DC-DC converters to step down
the 28v to 14v. Or we could simply run a couple of busses off the lower
potential battery and get out 12v directly.
Anyone have any thoughts on a down side to running my 12v stuff diretly off
one battery? Will there be a problem as the two batteries will be (slightly)
unevenly loaded? My understanding is that the spare electrons from the higher
potential battery will migrate to the second battery and both will then charge
from the generator.
There'd be no problem adding a few DC-DC converters if strictly necessary, but
I liked the elegance of not including them if possible.
Thanks-
Chad
Chad Sipperley
chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
Phoenix, AZ
Message 47
| 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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
>Walter wrote...
>The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would
>equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit
>into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun.
>
>Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2".
>Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns.
>
>I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound
more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but
fossilized minds want to know--at least this one.
>
>chuck
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
I had to scratch body parts for a while, too. My take: the balls are the
same diameter as the bore of the barrel. Add balls to the scale until
you get a pound, count the balls & that's your gauge. .410 is 410
thousanths of an inch.
Charlie
Message 48
| 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: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
At 07:34 PM 5/19/05, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
><retasker@optonline.net>
>
>If you take one pound of lead and make exactly 12 perfect spheres with
>it, their diameter is the bore size of a 12 ga. shotgun. Likewise for
>16 ga. or 20 ga. There used to be larger gauges like 10 or 8 ga., but
>the gauges above 12 are not used any more.
Not true. There are plenty of 10 guage autos, pumps, doubles and singles
on the market. Browning has a very nice auto 10 called the "Gold Hunter"
for geese and turkeys.
Now, I have a 4 gage side by side "punt gun" with Damascus barrels that's -
um - difficult to get ammo for. It was meant for market hunting - go out
in a small boat and take out a flock of ducks with 2 shots, sell them at
market.
Do not archive
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! --
|