Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:39 AM - Re: Re: 22 ga too small? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 05:47 AM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:21 AM - Re: Where is Bob's Z-10? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:25 AM - Re: Battery Contactor. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:29 AM - Re: P-mags: (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:40 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 06/05/05 (Ernest Christley)
7. 07:08 AM - Re: Subject: battery charger/maintainers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:11 AM - Re: Tefzel bundles (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:13 AM - Re: Radio Noise Redux (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:20 AM - Re: Stripping RG400 coax (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 08:30 AM - Re: Stripping RG400 coax (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
12. 09:07 AM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 09:28 AM - Panel Grounding (Karen and Robert Brown)
14. 09:47 AM - Re: General wiring questions for Bob (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 09:52 AM - Re: Panel Grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 10:28 AM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells (Ron Raby)
17. 10:38 AM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells (Ron Raby)
18. 11:25 AM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Jerry Grimmonpre)
19. 11:42 AM - Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Paul Folbrecht)
20. 12:56 PM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Dave Morris)
21. 12:57 PM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 01:19 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 (John Schroeder)
23. 01:26 PM - busted link to Z diagrams (D Wysong)
24. 01:41 PM - 1/8" mini jack wiring (Robert Dickson)
25. 01:44 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 01:49 PM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 01:58 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Paul Folbrecht)
28. 01:58 PM - Re: busted link to Z diagrams (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 02:05 PM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 02:15 PM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Jerry Grimmonpre)
31. 02:20 PM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Jerry Grimmonpre)
32. 02:49 PM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Stein Bruch)
33. 02:49 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Paul Folbrecht)
34. 03:23 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
35. 03:54 PM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
36. 04:20 PM - Re: Tefzel bundles (Jim Stone)
37. 04:25 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Paul Folbrecht)
38. 06:22 PM - Re: Tefzel bundles (Robert Dickson)
39. 08:12 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
40. 08:14 PM - Prestolite field resistance.... (Jim Baker)
41. 08:17 PM - Re: Tefzel bundles (Jim Stone)
42. 08:38 PM - Re: Tefzel bundles (Richard E. Tasker)
43. 09:35 PM - Re: Prestolite field resistance.... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
44. 09:39 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Paul Folbrecht)
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:37 PM 6/5/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
><BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
>I just finished doing some DB-9 connectors for a Rocky Mountain Instruments
>MicroEncoder and a Grand Rapids Technologies EIS. I had a mix of 22 and 20
>gauge wires that worked just fine with my standard crimp style pins. I did
>some .093 Molex pins recently too, and had everything from 22 to 10 gauge.
>
>I understand all the theory about crimping being better than
>soldering.
Don't know what theory you're referring too . . . crimping
and soldering are electrically and mechanically equivalent.
They're simply different processes and required different tools
and skills so a preference for one over the other is just
a personal choice.
> But I know for a fact that it's a lot easier (for me anyway) to
>make a poor crimp connection that pulls apart, than it is to make a poor
>solder connection. I have to do a lot more closer inspection of the
>finished product on a crimp connector.
Yup, if the tool doesn't match the terminal which matches the
wire and/or not properly attended to with respect to process,
a crimped joint can be must as unreliable as a poorly crafted
solder joints.
>And there is a HUGE difference between the $40 crimp tool at B&C than the
>cheaper "generic" crimp tools that just basically mangle the connector. If
>you're going to crimp, be sure to get the best possible crimp tool FOR THAT
>CONNECTOR, because if you try to "wing it" with the wrong tool or with
>pliers, your connectors will be worse than soldered.
>
>Dave Morris
Dead on sir. We just spent the weekend with about 20 real
attentive folks in North Carolina discussing this very matter.
We crimped some, we soldered some and I belive everyone went
home with an appreciation for the value and REQUIREMENTS of
both technologies.
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: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:18 PM 6/4/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
>It's been my experience that the wire breaks at the crimp point so I solder
>everything connection possible. I suspect that most companies crimp because
>it's cost not longevity.
>Wayne
Crimped and soldered wires both become one solid mass
of metal with respect to the terminal and BOTH are
vulnerable to breakage when the wire doesn't get SUPPORT
a-la PIDG terminal just past the joint.
If you're having problems with either technology, the
difficulty has a root cause in application or craftsmanship
and not with the technology. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
It doesn't matter if the joint is crimped or soldered. If
the second support point is not provided then the reliablity
of both technologies is compromised.
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Where is Bob's Z-10? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:32 PM 6/3/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
>
>Bob,
>
>Following my recent Aeroelectric posts where I mentioned utilizing your
>Figure Z-10 wiring diagram, I have gotten several questions of where
>someone can
>find it. This is your all electric airplane with 20 amp E-bus. You made it
>specifically for me when I upgraded to the SD-20 and wanted a manual
>switch to
>turn on my essential bus should the main alternator fail. I cannot find it
>with a quick look through
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11C.pdf
>and it is not in your book. Is Z-10 available in electronic form
>somewhere? I
>think Z-10 is an excellent approach, especially for an IFR panel.
Z-10 was a Rotax drawing that was retired after Revision 9. I think you're
referring to FIGURE Z-2 which was on PAGE Z-10 which is the same as
current Z-11 but with second battery and a key-lock ignition switch.
Peter is dating himself with references to the older publications. He's
been a reader for some years. Nobody is "missing out" by not having a
copy of Z-2. Go with Z-11 and add a second battery if needed by
incorporating Z-30. If you gotta have a key lock ignition switch,
add Z-26 also.
>So glad Dee has finished her Ph.D. Give her my "Well Done." Yes, do stop for
>a visit if you get nearby in the fall. My guest room is clean and waiting.
Thank you my friend . . . we'll see if we can get soemthing on the
schedule for later this year or early in 2006.
Bob . . .
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: Battery Contactor. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:23 PM 6/2/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cecil Hatfield <cecilth@juno.com>
>
>Bob, Looking at the battery contactor schmetic, it tells me that I send a
>ground wire to it, to make it operate.
>Tell me I'm right.
>Cecil
Yup, you pull the switch terminal to ground to complete the
circuit . . . but the OTHER end of the coil has to be connected
to the battery. In out 4-terminal devices, the top coil terminal
needs a jumper as illustrated in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s701-1l.jpg
you can also purchase 3-terminal contactors wherein the jumper
from coil to battery is made INSIDE the contactor . . . this
is why you see the marking "BAT" on the fat terminal of many
contactors . . . the folks who make it offer the 3-terminal
version and need to let you know which of the fat terminals
goes to the battery.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:35 AM 6/3/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
><mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
>
>Bob and all
>
>The p-mag people have never answered my important to me question. With
>mags if turn off both mags the prop stops very promptly, much faster than
>pulling the mixture. Can P-mags be turned off in a similar manner, i.e.
>stop the prop as fast as turning off both mags. By the way this important
>enough to me to verify at least once every 10 hours that mags off stops the
>engine.
>
>Matthew M. Jurotich
Sure . . . grounding the control lead (ORN) will cause
all output from the p-mag to cease . . . if the RPM is
too low for a p-mag's internal alternator to support
operation -OR- if you have an e-mag, then opening the
connection between power supply and the RED lead will
also cause operation to cease.
In the case of e-mags, you have TWO ways to shut it
down, for p-mags only ONE way if the rpms are up.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 06/05/05 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
>the
>angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the tail
>something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
>
>
>
If you're putting the LEDs in the winglets, then the light will have
quite a distance to travel before hitting the tail. You'll want a
fairly narrow angled LED. I have a webpage describing how you can embed
LEDs into a piece of plexiglass for a flush mount device. You could
embed the lamps in a composite skin with a little work. The lights
would all but disappear in the daytime.
http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Experiments/Dyke_Experiment_LED.html
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
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: Subject: battery charger/maintainers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:24 PM 6/5/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
>
>Bob, I stopped at my local Wall Mart today and they didn't have this model,
>but said they had been upgraded to model WM600A. The man at the store said
>it was the same but now "you can mount it on the wall". Price was $25.86
>here in Nashville TN. Also, I could not find either of these on the Wall
>Mart web site.
>Marty in Brentwood TN
Well, fooey. I've found that charger on several net sites
for $40 or more. Probably explains why WallyWorld priced them
at $17 to clear them off the shelves.
In any case, this experiment validates Shumacher's skills
and understanding of the task and suggests that any of their
battery charger/maintainers will operated as advertised
irrespective of price.
Soooo . . . I guess my personal maintainer of choice is still
the Deltran Battery Tender Jr which is offered in VOLUMES on
e-bay for most going under $25 with rip off shipping of 12.00
but still less than 39.95 total for buying at the corner
Batteries-R-Us stores.
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:20 PM 6/5/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
>
>Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all sorts of
>wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's no
>telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of Tefzel
>wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
When I use the word bundles, I'm pretty sure I'm always speaking
of two or more wires installed one at a time and tied together
for common support and routing . . . but I seem to recall some
discussions on the List about MULTI-CONDUCTOR cable for trim
actuators and servos . . .
Others have suggested that making up your own bundles of as
many wires as necessary is an easy task and very common
technique. Other than multi-conductor wiring that might
come in an accessory kit, 99+ percent of all wiring in
our airplanes is not multi-conductor cable.
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: Radio Noise Redux |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:06 PM 6/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Hi Bill
>Yes I'm pretty sure your best bet is to run it to your forrest of tabs.
>Ken
Agreed
Bob . . .
]
> >
> >While waiting for the return of my fried radios (got em back now...just
> >a fuse needed replacing) I fabricated one of Bob's d-sub avionics ground
> >collection gizmos. Used a female solder cup type and connected all of
> >the wells as per Bob's article. Using crimp pins on the male side.
> >Works fine. I now have one ground wire coming out of the female side,
> >8 (as of now) on the male side. Question is, can I run that single
> >ground to the forest of tabs on the firewall, or should it have its own
> >termination point somewhere, e.g., somewhere on the cage? Thanks for
> >any input.
> >Bill Yamokoski
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: Stripping RG400 coax |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:55 PM 6/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
><jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
>Bill -
>
>We used the BNC's from B&C almost exclusively because of the quality. The
>cheaper ones seemed to be harder to crimp - especially the last crimp on
>the ferrule - hard to get it fully down over the braid.
>
>Am sending a .pdf of the assembly instructions for the B&C item to you on
>the ES mail list. Can't do it on this list.
I think B&C is using the instructions I crafted some years
ago and is accessible from . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
I need to update this thing. In fact, ignore dimensions cited
and use the Gilchrist tool mentioned below . . .
> I believe they are Amphenols.
Nope, at least not when I turned that portion of the business
over to them . . . they are really inexpensive connectors screened
for compatibility with the tools we were selling for installing
connectors on RG-400 or RG-142.
>We bought the same stripper and it is hard to get the exact dimensions set
>forth in the assembly instructions, but they are close enough to get good
>seating of the center pin and good crimps on the RG-400.
The Gilchrist sripper . . .
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4693&item=5779986481&rd=1
comes nicely set up for stripping RG-400 and RG-142 and works
well with the connectors offered by B&C.
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: | Stripping RG400 coax |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
I know I have probably said this before but this little gem(tool
mentioned below) is one of my all time favorites. Its amazing and makes
it easy to put on the proper BNC. Some how I made it through my first
plane without it. I did not make the same mistake on the second.
Mike
Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stripping RG400 coax
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:55 PM 6/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
><jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
>Bill -
>
>We used the BNC's from B&C almost exclusively because of the quality.
The
>cheaper ones seemed to be harder to crimp - especially the last crimp
on
>the ferrule - hard to get it fully down over the braid.
>
>Am sending a .pdf of the assembly instructions for the B&C item to you
on
>the ES mail list. Can't do it on this list.
I think B&C is using the instructions I crafted some years
ago and is accessible from . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
I need to update this thing. In fact, ignore dimensions cited
and use the Gilchrist tool mentioned below . . .
> I believe they are Amphenols.
Nope, at least not when I turned that portion of the business
over to them . . . they are really inexpensive connectors screened
for compatibility with the tools we were selling for installing
connectors on RG-400 or RG-142.
>We bought the same stripper and it is hard to get the exact dimensions
set
>forth in the assembly instructions, but they are close enough to get
good
>seating of the center pin and good crimps on the RG-400.
The Gilchrist sripper . . .
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4693&item=5779986
481&rd=1
comes nicely set up for stripping RG-400 and RG-142 and works
well with the connectors offered by B&C.
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: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
cells
At 10:51 PM 6/3/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley"
><mcculleyja@starpower.net>
>
>Maybe I missed it but I don't believe anyone responded to my 4/26/05
>comment and question as repeated below. My assumption is that for
>confirming that the installed battery has adequate capacity to support
>some known endurance-buss load, a battery capacity-test should duplicate
>the constant current load that the buss must support for a
>pre-determined time. OR is it that most buss loads operate on
>proportionally less current as buss voltage drops, similar to the way a
>typical resistive load responds, and therefore a resistive test-load is
>adequate, rather than a constant-current load?
It's not a big deal. You have no way to predict how your
combination of e-bus loads will behave and could be a mix
of constant power or constant resistance . . . and the
test results won't be wildly different.
I'd suggest a combination of lamps to get a load equal to
that which the e-bus draws AT 12.5 VOLTS not 14.2 volts.
Measure time to drop to 11 volts and that's your e-bus runtime
give or take a few minutes.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
OK...I've read and re-read Bob's chapter (18) on audio systems...with his thoughts
on grounding panel stuff together and then going to the ground block with
one or two wires. I'm hesitant to dredge anything up here, but I finished wiring
my plane except for the engine monitor wiring to the ACS2002 analog box.
I did all of this prior to Chapter 18, so every ground terminates at the ground
block (the "forest of grounds"). While I DID label each ground going to the
block, I would certainly rather NOT redo the entire grounding system if I don't
have to. Without an engine hung yet, I can't say if there is engine noise
in my radios or intercom. Am I going to gain anything by cutting all my wire
ties and sorting all my ground wiring to pull several feet of wire back through
adels, clamps and snap bushings to make up a ground block to put the panel grounds
to and then re-run to the ground block? The panel has two radios, an audio
panel (w/integral intercom), a transponder, TruTrak Autopilots and a Trutrak
ADI and a GPS, plus switches and dimmers, etc...
My thoughts now are to "flag" the panel grounds at the ground block...if I pick
up noise in the system...I can then pull the flagged terminals, cut the terminal
ends off and pull them back through and run them to a panel ground block later.
My issue is finding out whether it really is broke or not...because if it's not,
I don't want to fix it.
Bob Brown
RV7A - wiring Trutrak ADI
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: General wiring questions for Bob |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
1) Do circuit breakers (specifically P&B W28's) have a specific +ve and -ve
terminal, or doesn't it matter which way round they're connected?
Yeah, maybe . . . most manufacturers have a 'prefered'
orientation but by friends on the inside say that the
connection involves service life on a breaker that operates
thousands of times . . . how many thousands of times do
you plan to have your breakers operate?
2) For Bob Nuckolls; On B&C's OVM-14 wiring diagram, they show the orange
lead of the OVM connected the winding of an "Alternator Disconnect
Contactor, S701-1"). I don't have such a beast. Can I just connect it to
the alternator field lead?
The OVM-14 is intended for use with alternators having
EXTERNAL regulators. The OVM-14 is then wired as shown in
figures Z-11, Z-13/8, etc. It's installed at some convenient
point downstream of your alternator field supply breaker.
This wiring is also described in installation instructions
that are shipped with the OVM-14.
3) Metal starter and master relay's "automatically" have their bodies
grounded on a metal aeroplane. For a glass plane, do I need to run specific
ground leads to the bodies of these devices?
If your contactor has fully floating coil like the
4-terminal devices illustrated in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-1l.jpg
However, there ARE some 3-terminal devices that
that tie one side of the coil to one of the
contactor's fat terminals -OR- to the contactor's
mounting base. In this last case, you DO need to
add a wire from contactor base to firewall ground
block. My sense is that the only one you'll need
to accommodate this way is the starter contactor
like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S702-1l.jpg
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Grounding |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:32 AM 6/6/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown"
><bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
>
>OK...I've read and re-read Bob's chapter (18) on audio systems...with his
>thoughts on grounding panel stuff together and then going to the ground
>block with one or two wires. I'm hesitant to dredge anything up here, but
>I finished wiring my plane except for the engine monitor wiring to the
>ACS2002 analog box. I did all of this prior to Chapter 18, so every
>ground terminates at the ground block (the "forest of grounds"). While I
>DID label each ground going to the block, I would certainly rather NOT
>redo the entire grounding system if I don't have to. Without an engine
>hung yet, I can't say if there is engine noise in my radios or
>intercom. Am I going to gain anything by cutting all my wire ties and
>sorting all my ground wiring to pull several feet of wire back through
>adels, clamps and snap bushings to make up a ground block to put the panel
>grounds to and then re-run to the ground block? The panel has two radios,
>an audio panel (w/integral intercom), a transponder, Tru!
> Trak Autopilots and a Trutrak ADI and a GPS, plus switches and dimmers,
> etc...
>
>My thoughts now are to "flag" the panel grounds at the ground block...if I
>pick up noise in the system...I can then pull the flagged terminals, cut
>the terminal ends off and pull them back through and run them to a panel
>ground block later.
>
>My issue is finding out whether it really is broke or not...because if
>it's not, I don't want to fix it.
Sounds like a plan . . .
Keep in mind that designs SHOULD evolve to take advantage
of new technologies, processes or labor saving techniques.
Just because Cessna puts a new technique into this year's
airplanes, there's little or no reason to retrofit the
technique to product already in existence unless it
helps solve a problem.
Bob . . .
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: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
To everyone:
I saw this 500 amp load tester for $49.99. Thought that there may be some
interest.
Regards
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
flying
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?function=Search
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III cells" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net> cells
>
> At 10:51 PM 6/3/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley"
>><mcculleyja@starpower.net>
>>
>>Maybe I missed it but I don't believe anyone responded to my 4/26/05
>>comment and question as repeated below. My assumption is that for
>>confirming that the installed battery has adequate capacity to support
>>some known endurance-buss load, a battery capacity-test should duplicate
>>the constant current load that the buss must support for a
>>pre-determined time. OR is it that most buss loads operate on
>>proportionally less current as buss voltage drops, similar to the way a
>>typical resistive load responds, and therefore a resistive test-load is
>>adequate, rather than a constant-current load?
>
> It's not a big deal. You have no way to predict how your
> combination of e-bus loads will behave and could be a mix
> of constant power or constant resistance . . . and the
> test results won't be wildly different.
>
> I'd suggest a combination of lamps to get a load equal to
> that which the e-bus draws AT 12.5 VOLTS not 14.2 volts.
>
> Measure time to drop to 11 volts and that's your e-bus runtime
> give or take a few minutes.
>
> 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: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
Sorry add the part # to the search selection 91129-1rhc.
Ron Raby
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?function=Search
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
'Letric Bob ...
Have you ever tried to crimp, say ... AWG-18 ... 22, in the usual fashion,
and then, secure the insulation to the plastic insulating jacket with super
glue? A fairly thick super glue would probably work better than the watery
kind I used.
Or, and maybe better yet ... before crimping, dip the conductor end of the
wire & insulation, into silicone sealant, insert conductor into the
connector and crimp in the usual fashion.
I've done a superficial test with silicone and the conduction does take
place through the silicone sealant. The curing of the sealant would seem to
ease the point of stress for the conductor somewhat, by dampening those
concentrating stress loads in the wire. It didn't take much effort to dip
into the silicone and then crimp. I would think the silicone would
guarantee a gas tight connection as well.
For what it's worth ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
> Crimped and soldered wires both become one solid mass
> of metal with respect to the terminal and BOTH are
> vulnerable to breakage when the wire doesn't get SUPPORT
> a-la PIDG terminal just past the joint.
>
> If you're having problems with either technology, the
> difficulty has a root cause in application or craftsmanship
> and not with the technology. See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
>
> It doesn't matter if the joint is crimped or soldered. If
> the second support point is not provided then the reliablity
> of both technologies is compromised.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Here is my current thought process regarding Z-14 vs. Z-19, FWIW.
First of all, the mission is an IFR RV-9 with an O-320 running two
p-mags, all-electric panel based on a GRT EFIS. Thus, engine needs
battery power but is not battery-dependent and also does not require a
high-draw fuel pump.
My #1 requirement is that there be no single point of failure for the
entire panel. I cannot have a system where any one failure causes the
whole thing to go black in the soup - which should be an uncompromisable
requirement for any aircraft with no vacuum system intended for IFR, I
think. (This is why I ruled out Z-13 - unlikely as it may be, an open
battery is total disaster. I THINK - correct me if I'm wrong there.
Anyway I prefer two batteries.)
(FWIW, part of my IFR backup includes a battery-powered Garmin 296 with
its wonderful instrument page. So, it is conceivable that I could
survive even such a complete panel failure. But it's not something I'm
willing to put in the realm of possibility nonetheless.)
The reasons I like -19 over -14 are:
1) It's slightly simpler.
2) One-alternator requirement. I do not see dual altnernators as
necessary for safety in a system with an e-bus with two power paths and
two large-capacity (17Ah) batteries. I admit cost is a driving factor
here as well, with what the good-quality alternators and regulators run.
So, question for Bob & the list: is this a sensible system for my stated
needs? As I said, as long as I've got an e-bus with two power-paths, no
single-point-of-failure, I'm happy. I've got that with Z-19. Anything
I'm failing to consider?
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
Some of that RTV uses acetic acid (hence the vinegar smell) and I wonder if
that would cause corrosion.
Dave Morris
At 01:24 PM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>
>'Letric Bob ...
>Have you ever tried to crimp, say ... AWG-18 ... 22, in the usual fashion,
>and then, secure the insulation to the plastic insulating jacket with super
>glue? A fairly thick super glue would probably work better than the watery
>kind I used.
>
>Or, and maybe better yet ... before crimping, dip the conductor end of the
>wire & insulation, into silicone sealant, insert conductor into the
>connector and crimp in the usual fashion.
>
>I've done a superficial test with silicone and the conduction does take
>place through the silicone sealant. The curing of the sealant would seem to
>ease the point of stress for the conductor somewhat, by dampening those
>concentrating stress loads in the wire. It didn't take much effort to dip
>into the silicone and then crimp. I would think the silicone would
>guarantee a gas tight connection as well.
>For what it's worth ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre
>
>
> > Crimped and soldered wires both become one solid mass
> > of metal with respect to the terminal and BOTH are
> > vulnerable to breakage when the wire doesn't get SUPPORT
> > a-la PIDG terminal just past the joint.
> >
> > If you're having problems with either technology, the
> > difficulty has a root cause in application or craftsmanship
> > and not with the technology. See:
> >
> > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
> >
> > It doesn't matter if the joint is crimped or soldered. If
> > the second support point is not provided then the reliablity
> > of both technologies is compromised.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:24 PM 6/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>
>'Letric Bob ...
>Have you ever tried to crimp, say ... AWG-18 ... 22, in the usual fashion,
>and then, secure the insulation to the plastic insulating jacket with super
>glue? A fairly thick super glue would probably work better than the watery
>kind I used.
>
>Or, and maybe better yet ... before crimping, dip the conductor end of the
>wire & insulation, into silicone sealant, insert conductor into the
>connector and crimp in the usual fashion.
>
>I've done a superficial test with silicone and the conduction does take
>place through the silicone sealant. The curing of the sealant would seem to
>ease the point of stress for the conductor somewhat, by dampening those
>concentrating stress loads in the wire. It didn't take much effort to dip
>into the silicone and then crimp. I would think the silicone would
>guarantee a gas tight connection as well.
>For what it's worth ...
What deficiency are you trying to overcome with this extra
activity? I don't know the beginning history of the PIDG
crimp technology from AMP . . . but it was the technology of
choice when I worked at Boeing in '61. Since that time
there have to have been countless billions of terminals
installed by simply stripping the wire and installing
the terminal per instructions with the recommended
tools.
When the munch is properly applied, gas tight happens. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
It's so easy to get good tools to install great terminals
that I can't understand how processes you've cited can
add value to the finished product.
Bob . . .
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: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Paul -
I would hope that if you do plan flying hard IFR in this airplane, there
will be a good, two-axis autopilot installed. IMHO :-)) Do not archive
Cheers,
John
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
> <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
> Here is my current thought process regarding Z-14 vs. Z-19, FWIW.
> First of all, the mission is an IFR RV-9 with an O-320 running two
> p-mags, all-electric panel based on a GRT EFIS.
--
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: | busted link to Z diagrams |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Hello Bob -
Got a 'Not Found' message when trying to access your "Latest Appendix Z
Diagrams" via the website. It appears that the link is still pointing
to rev B (AppZ_R11B.pdf) instead of rev C. No worries... it's Monday
here, too! :-)
D Wysong
Long-EZ (in progress)
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: | 1/8" mini jack wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Dickson <robert@thenews-journal.com>
I'm wiring up the music input to my Garmin 340 audio panel and am
curious about the terminals on the stereo mini plug jack I've got.
First, how do you determine which are the left and right channels?
Second, the jack has two extra terminals that would be appear to hot
when no plug is inserted. What are these for?
thanks,
Robert Dickson
RV-6A
Carrboro NC
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:40 PM 6/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
><paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
>Here is my current thought process regarding Z-14 vs. Z-19, FWIW.
>
>First of all, the mission is an IFR RV-9 with an O-320 running two
>p-mags, all-electric panel based on a GRT EFIS. Thus, engine needs
>battery power but is not battery-dependent and also does not require a
>high-draw fuel pump.
>
>My #1 requirement is that there be no single point of failure for the
>entire panel. I cannot have a system where any one failure causes the
>whole thing to go black in the soup - which should be an uncompromisable
>requirement for any aircraft with no vacuum system intended for IFR, I
>think. (This is why I ruled out Z-13 - unlikely as it may be, an open
>battery is total disaster. I THINK - correct me if I'm wrong there.
>Anyway I prefer two batteries.)
Then Z-13 with Z-30 ought to do it.
>(FWIW, part of my IFR backup includes a battery-powered Garmin 296 with
>its wonderful instrument page. So, it is conceivable that I could
>survive even such a complete panel failure. But it's not something I'm
>willing to put in the realm of possibility nonetheless.)
>
>The reasons I like -19 over -14 are:
>
>1) It's slightly simpler.
>2) One-alternator requirement. I do not see dual altnernators as
>necessary for safety in a system with an e-bus with two power paths and
>two large-capacity (17Ah) batteries. I admit cost is a driving factor
>here as well, with what the good-quality alternators and regulators run.
????? I'm lost here. Before all electric was an option due to
super-ordinary cost of electro-mechanical gyros, we readily
strapped a suck-system to the engine and launched into the
gray grinn'n ear-to-ear with system that were heavier, higher
parts count and certainly more expensive with respect to the
alternative energy source to run gyros.
Now, we can take the vacuum system off and replace it with
a device having 1/2 to 1/3 rd the weight and about half the
price of the suck-system. Where's the down-side here?
>So, question for Bob & the list: is this a sensible system for my stated
>needs? As I said, as long as I've got an e-bus with two power-paths, no
>single-point-of-failure, I'm happy. I've got that with Z-19. Anything
>I'm failing to consider?
I don't know . . . your worry bucket seems pretty full
and you've cited some concerns already addressed
by simply adding an e-bus to a classic C-172 system,
replacing the certified junk alternator and substituting
an abused and ignored flooded battery with a well maintained
RG battery. This quantum jump in electrical system reliability
will power flight instruments with redundant power sources
that avoids single source (suck pump) reliance for powering
gyros.
EVERYTHING you do beyond this . . . second battery, second
alternator, backups inside the instruments, flight-bag
full of hand helds, etc., etc. stacks capability on top of
capability. It becomes impossible to accurately
deduce a credible probability of experiencing a series
of events that are going to ruin your day. This is because
the risks have become infinitesimally small. My sense is
that you're worrying about things that are going to take
much of the fun out of flying.
There's another thread here on the list that
explores the percentage of one's airborne time where ANY
much less ALL of those electro-whizzies on your panel are
really useful. For the vast majority of us here on the list
is somewhere between very little and none.
I've been flying for 24 years and in 850+ hrs have punched
dozens of cloud layers for a grand total of perhaps 45 minutes
total time in the grey doing a task that one could competently
accomplish needle-ball-n-airspeed. I've put 30x that time on
the gages with a flight instructor or check-pilot in the right seat.
I've flown A-36's with a panel full of goodies and J-3's with
a road map and all of those experiences were a lot of fun.
If I had as many worries wrapped around the axle as you seem
to have, the joy in all those experiences would have be
seriously diluted.
Z-11 with modern (and well maintained) components will give
you system reliability that would mitigated all but a handful
of dark-n-stormy night stories that got darker when the lights
went out. Z-13 with P-Mags is almost overkill but it's so cheap
and light, shucks . . . why not?
I cannot recommend moving past this level without a lucid
evaluation of special needs like an electrically dependent
engine or an airplane that is being specifically configured
to spend a LOT of time in the gray. Even then, I doubt
that time in the clouds would rise to more than 10-20% of total
flight time. The reason for that capability in most projects
is to stay right side up while you navigate OUT of the gray
stuff.
Z-19 is specific to the electrically dependent engine where
only a single alternator is possible . . . my original
recommendation as elaborated upon above is the MOST that
99.9% of the OBAM aircraft community needs to consider.
The project you've described lies well within that majority.
Bob . . .
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: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
cells
At 01:32 PM 6/6/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>
>Sorry add the part # to the search selection 91129-1rhc.
>
>Ron Raby
>
>http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?function=Search
>
Good catch Ron. My local store has them. I'll go get one
and take it for a test drive.
Watch this space.
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: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
I plan a single-axis TruTrak. It's a 9A and I don't believe it'll be much more
difficult to fly in IMC than the 152 I fly now - and I fly that thing with no
AP and less sophisticated instrumentation (the EFIS is going to make things
easier in several ways).
I do not, though, really fly "hard IFR". I set my limit at 1,000 ft. cigs only
because I do NOT want to experience an engine failure in a single with anything
less than that.. it's not b/c I can't fly an ILS to mins...
do not archive
--- John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Paul -
>
> I would hope that if you do plan flying hard IFR in this airplane, there
> will be a good, two-axis autopilot installed. IMHO :-)) Do not archive
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
> > <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
> > Here is my current thought process regarding Z-14 vs. Z-19, FWIW.
> > First of all, the mission is an IFR RV-9 with an O-320 running two
> > p-mags, all-electric panel based on a GRT EFIS.
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: busted link to Z diagrams |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:34 PM 6/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
>Hello Bob -
>
>Got a 'Not Found' message when trying to access your "Latest Appendix Z
>Diagrams" via the website. It appears that the link is still pointing
>to rev B (AppZ_R11B.pdf) instead of rev C. No worries... it's Monday
>here, too! :-)
Fixed it. Thanks!
Bob . . .
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:55 PM 6/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
>Some of that RTV uses acetic acid (hence the vinegar smell) and I wonder if
>that would cause corrosion.
It could. In 1967-69 or thereabouts we experienced a rash of
ov conditions in the newly incorporated alternator systems
when the loose wire bobbin in the regulator's voltage regulation
relay rattled and broke the fine lead wire to the winding.
No big deal . . . we opened up a whole warehouse full of regulators
and stuck the bobbins down with a blob of RTV and put the covers
back on.
A short time later we were getting piles of DOA regulators back
from the field that had a thin layer of corrosion on the relay contacts
that caused the regulator to go inop. Opened them up AGAIN to
clean the contacts and all was well.
If we'd let them set open for a week or so before putting the
covers back on, the problem would have been avoided. There
are "electronic grade" RTVs that do not contain the acid but
the garden variety stuff poses no special problems as long as
you don't allow the corrosive vapors to be contained.
Bob . . .
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>>I've done a superficial test with silicone and the conduction does take
>>place through the silicone sealant. The curing of the sealant would seem
>>to
>>ease the point of stress for the conductor somewhat, by dampening those
>>concentrating stress loads in the wire. It didn't take much effort to dip
>>into the silicone and then crimp. I would think the silicone would
>>guarantee a gas tight connection as well.
>>For what it's worth ...
>
> What deficiency are you trying to overcome with this extra
> activity? I don't know the beginning history of the PIDG
> crimp technology from AMP . . . but it was the technology of
> choice when I worked at Boeing in '61. Since that time
> there have to have been countless billions of terminals
> installed by simply stripping the wire and installing
> the terminal per instructions with the recommended
> tools.
>
> When the munch is properly applied, gas tight happens. See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>
> It's so easy to get good tools to install great terminals
> that I can't understand how processes you've cited can
> add value to the finished product.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob ...
I haven't started wiring yet ... just experimenting a little with strain
relief of the smaller AWG wires.
I am primarily asking what you may have tried in order to achieve better
strain relief on the smaller wires. I have the AMP crimpers. They should
produce the best crimps possible ... but broken wires crop-up now and then
because of insufficient strain relief and vibration.
Have YOU done any experimenting to achieve a strain resistant connector for
the smaller AWG wires? If so ... what did you try and what were the
results?
Thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Thanks Dave ...
I've considered that possibility and it wouldn't be a good thing to have
that happen in possibly hundreds of connections. At this point I'm just
experimenting so nothing is at risk. I'm months from wiring.
Jerry Grimmonpre
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Some of that RTV uses acetic acid (hence the vinegar smell) and I wonder
> if
> that would cause corrosion.
>
> Dave Morris
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: | 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Well...the PIDG styly terminals already have their own built in strain
releif (hence the nylon insulation and insulation support sleeve inside them
unlike auto terminals). But, if you're not using the PIDG type terminals, or
using un-insulated terminals, then a simple piece of heatshrink will suffice
just fine. I guess you "could" put a piece of heatsrhink over the pidg
terminals, but you wouldn't be gaining much at all. For uninsulated
terminals, a piece of good heatshrink is fairly standard practice.
The above being said, on the little tiny wire gauges the additional strain
relief might be beneficial. It really depends on where you have your wires
run, how much support the terminals/bundles have, and how they are
terminated.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jerry
Grimmonpre
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small?
Bob ...
I haven't started wiring yet ... just experimenting a little with strain
relief of the smaller AWG wires.
I am primarily asking what you may have tried in order to achieve better
strain relief on the smaller wires. I have the AMP crimpers. They should
produce the best crimps possible ... but broken wires crop-up now and then
because of insufficient strain relief and vibration.
Have YOU done any experimenting to achieve a strain resistant connector for
the smaller AWG wires? If so ... what did you try and what were the
results?
Thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
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: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Bob,
Thanks for responding. My comments below.
>>My #1 requirement is that there be no single point of failure for the
>>entire panel. I cannot have a system where any one failure causes the
>>whole thing to go black in the soup - which should be an uncompromisable
>>requirement for any aircraft with no vacuum system intended for IFR, I
>>think. (This is why I ruled out Z-13 - unlikely as it may be, an open
>>battery is total disaster. I THINK - correct me if I'm wrong there.
>>Anyway I prefer two batteries.)
>>
>>
>
> Then Z-13 with Z-30 ought to do it.
>
>
Er.. Z-13 has us back at two alternators. I don't think this mission requires
two alternators.. as you note below, in the event of a failure in IMC the task
becomes to navigate to VFR or get on the ground.. battery power ought to be
sufficient for that task with minimal load.
> ????? I'm lost here. Before all electric was an option due to
> super-ordinary cost of electro-mechanical gyros, we readily
> strapped a suck-system to the engine and launched into the
> gray grinn'n ear-to-ear with system that were heavier, higher
> parts count and certainly more expensive with respect to the
> alternative energy source to run gyros.
>
> Now, we can take the vacuum system off and replace it with
> a device having 1/2 to 1/3 rd the weight and about half the
> price of the suck-system. Where's the down-side here?
>
>
Nowhere, of course.
> I don't know . . . your worry bucket seems pretty full
> and you've cited some concerns already addressed
> by simply adding an e-bus to a classic C-172 system,
>
>
You may be quite right.. I'm the newbie and you're the guru, that's for sure.
:->
> replacing the certified junk alternator and substituting
> an abused and ignored flooded battery with a well maintained
> RG battery. This quantum jump in electrical system reliability
> will power flight instruments with redundant power sources
> that avoids single source (suck pump) reliance for powering
> gyros.
>
>
I completely agree that this results in a "quantum leap in electrical system
reliability" but the difference betwixt this and a C-172 is that for us the
electrical is the primary and only IFR instrument power source, to state the
blatantly obvious. In other words.. the spam-can can tolerate an inferior
lectrical system and possibly still be "safer" than an all-electric by virtue
of the crappy, heavy and unreliable vacuum system.. (and BTW I've experienced 1
total vacuum failure already in 300 hours and I hate the things and consider
the dry pumps especially to be total junk).
> EVERYTHING you do beyond this . . . second battery, second
> alternator, backups inside the instruments, flight-bag
> full of hand helds, etc., etc. stacks capability on top of
> capability. It becomes impossible to accurately
> deduce a credible probability of experiencing a series
> of events that are going to ruin your day. This is because
> the risks have become infinitesimally small. My sense is
> that you're worrying about things that are going to take
> much of the fun out of flying.
>
>
I wish you would be more straightforward with your opinions, sir, instead of
requiring me to read between the lines so much. :->
What gives you the idea I'm worrying too much? I just want the bases covered.
Then I won't have to worry. Like most pilots, I know the risks and accept
them. I just try to minimize them realistically. I do fly IFR now in a
25-year-old Cessna 152 with no autopilot and a crappy, unreliable dry vacuum
system with no backup bank information but the standard electric TC and my
GPS's HSI. I want the RV to be as safe as realistically possible, that's all.
But I'm considering carefully everything you have to say, you may be sure.
> There's another thread here on the list that
> explores the percentage of one's airborne time where ANY
> much less ALL of those electro-whizzies on your panel are
> really useful. For the vast majority of us here on the list
> is somewhere between very little and none.
>
> I've been flying for 24 years and in 850+ hrs have punched
> dozens of cloud layers for a grand total of perhaps 45 minutes
> total time in the grey doing a task that one could competently
>
>
45 minutes actual IMC in 850 hours? I've had much more actual time in 100
hours of IFR training and flying since I got the rating... there would be more
but here in the midwest icing keeps us out of the clouds pretty effectively
half the year. So, yes, I do expect more actual time than that but not a lot,
if any, hard IFR down to mins or close. That I expect to do only when the
forecast didn't cooperate.
> accomplish needle-ball-n-airspeed. I've put 30x that time on
> the gages with a flight instructor or check-pilot in the right seat.
> I've flown A-36's with a panel full of goodies and J-3's with
> a road map and all of those experiences were a lot of fun.
> If I had as many worries wrapped around the axle as you seem
> to have, the joy in all those experiences would have be
> seriously diluted.
>
> Z-11 with modern (and well maintained) components will give
> you system reliability that would mitigated all but a handful
> of dark-n-stormy night stories that got darker when the lights
> went out. Z-13 with P-Mags is almost overkill but it's so cheap
> and light, shucks . . . why not?
>
>
You may consider my priorities out of whack, but adding that second alternator,
with the regulator, costs nearly $1,000. Is that really that cheap? Maybe I
am missing something, but I don't see the 2nd alternator as critical if you've
got two batteries and an e-bus.
However, I am going to take a hard look at Z-11 with Z-30 and see if that
doesn't make sense for me. Maybe you're right, and it does.
> I cannot recommend moving past this level without a lucid
> evaluation of special needs like an electrically dependent
> engine or an airplane that is being specifically configured
> to spend a LOT of time in the gray. Even then, I doubt
>
>
See the above - perhaps I'll be in the gray much more than you are assuming.
> that time in the clouds would rise to more than 10-20% of total
> flight time. The reason for that capability in most projects
> is to stay right side up while you navigate OUT of the gray
> stuff.
>
> Z-19 is specific to the electrically dependent engine where
> only a single alternator is possible . . . my original
>
>
I was trying to figure out exactly what was "specific" to the
electriclaly-dependent engine. Certainly, it could still be used with p-mags?
> recommendation as elaborated upon above is the MOST that
> 99.9% of the OBAM aircraft community needs to consider.
> The project you've described lies well within that majority.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Thanks for your opinions. I do value them. I have much to learn.
>
>
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: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Good debate
But I Thought the SD-8 was about $400 or so?...As my airplane will be
all lectric (electric fuel pumps with no mechanical pump) I am hoping
the SD-8 will drive a FI pump and a emag...Thus allow my battery reserve
to run everything else.
In this case, (the dynon will be battery backed up) I will probably shut
off the GPS and get ATC to guide me down the airway, should be doable as
the Dynon has a DG function and then its just a case of doing the ILS
and I believe the radio in receive mode is minimal but then there is the
transponder which may limit time in the air..
Hey sounds feasible sat here in my warm cozy office with the lights
on...:)
Frank
RV7a...Prospective IFR pilot and airplane
You may consider my priorities out of whack, but adding that second
alternator, with the regulator, costs nearly $1,000. Is that really
that cheap? Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the 2nd
alternator as critical if you've got two batteries and an e-bus.
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>I haven't started wiring yet ... just experimenting a little with strain
>relief of the smaller AWG wires.
>
>I am primarily asking what you may have tried in order to achieve better
>strain relief on the smaller wires. I have the AMP crimpers. They should
>produce the best crimps possible ... but broken wires crop-up now and then
>because of insufficient strain relief and vibration.
>
>Have YOU done any experimenting to achieve a strain resistant connector for
>the smaller AWG wires? If so ... what did you try and what were the
>results?
No, haven't had any reason to do the experiments. I've never had
nor have I heard any reports of broken wires due to lack of strain
relief on a PIDG style terminal applied with the recommended tools.
If anyone puts their hands on a broken wire in a PIDG terminal they
believe was properly installed, I'll offer $25 reward for the carcasses.
Need the terminal and about 1/2" segment of failed wire. THIS
is the experiment that needs to be conducted and it's a whole
lot easier than trying to disprove the work of AMP, Molex, T&B
that supports an astoundingly successful line of products.
Failures need to be analyzed to see if and how the product was
misapplied. This is much more fruitful than hypothesizing a
suite of fixes or work-arounds for something that my not NEED
to be fixed . . . worse yet, the activity should be carefully
evaluated to make sure it doesn't CREATE a new problem while
failing to mitigate an imagined problem.
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: Tefzel bundles |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Stein,
Do you happen to know how many conductors the Digiflight II auto pilots
require? I think that is two wire runs I don't want to make multiple times.
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch"
> <stein@steinair.com>
>
> Typically, most places carry the "M27500" (That's the mil spec for
> shielded
> multi-conductor tefzel) which is the shielded multi-conductor wire.
> Unshielded multi-conductor cables are not commonly stocked by many
> retailers
> or distributors, due to the cost, and frankly if you don't need it
> shielded
> it's just not worth the much higher cost for multi-conductor cable IMHO.
>
> B&C (http://www.bandc.biz) has a lot of wire in stock, and we stock 2,3&4
> conductor AWG22 shielded wire. Above 4 conductors gets REALLY expensive
> and
> pretty difficult to find - I know I can buy it up to 20 conductors, but
> then
> I'd have a bunch of it sitting here and never sell it. I think Van's and
> ACS also stock some multi-conductor cable as well. Wiremasters is a good
> outfit, but they're more of a distributor than retailer, and usually want
> you to buy hundreds of feet at a time (although I know people have gotten
> smaller amounts occasionally) - for someone like us who buy 10's of
> thousands of feet, those are ok places to shop, but for a few foot chunks
> they usually aren't too excited..though it can't hurt to try.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
>
> Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all sorts
> of
> wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's no
> telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of
> Tefzel
> wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
>
> Thanks folks.
>
> Chad
>
>
> Chad Sipperley
> Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
> Good debate
Ahem.. I hope to God I am not _debating_ Mr. Nuckolls as that isn't going to
turn out good for me.
> But I Thought the SD-8 was about $400 or so?...As my airplane will be
The 20A is $700 and you need a regular too.
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: Tefzel bundles |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Dickson <robert@thenews-journal.com>
Jim
I'm not Stein but I did make the bundles for my d-2 Trutrak ap. I used
the expando-sleeve stuff and it was a snap. That stuff turns a snarling
mass of wires into something that's easily handled. I even made a 5
wire bundle for the run all the way back to the electric trim. I think
the trutrak bundles were 7 and 9 wires.
Robert Dickson
RV-6A 110 hrs
Carrboro NC
On Jun 6, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Jim Stone wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone"
<jrstone@insightbb.com>
Stein,
Do you happen to know how many conductors the Digiflight II auto pilots
require? I think that is two wire runs I don't want to make multiple
times.
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch"
> <stein@steinair.com>
>
> Typically, most places carry the "M27500" (That's the mil spec for
> shielded
> multi-conductor tefzel) which is the shielded multi-conductor wire.
> Unshielded multi-conductor cables are not commonly stocked by many
> retailers
> or distributors, due to the cost, and frankly if you don't need it
> shielded
> it's just not worth the much higher cost for multi-conductor cable
> IMHO.
>
> B&C (http://www.bandc.biz) has a lot of wire in stock, and we stock
> 2,3&4
> conductor AWG22 shielded wire. Above 4 conductors gets REALLY
> expensive
> and
> pretty difficult to find - I know I can buy it up to 20 conductors, but
> then
> I'd have a bunch of it sitting here and never sell it. I think Van's
> and
> ACS also stock some multi-conductor cable as well. Wiremasters is a
> good
> outfit, but they're more of a distributor than retailer, and usually
> want
> you to buy hundreds of feet at a time (although I know people have
> gotten
> smaller amounts occasionally) - for someone like us who buy 10's of
> thousands of feet, those are ok places to shop, but for a few foot
> chunks
> they usually aren't too excited..though it can't hurt to try.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
>
> Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all
> sorts
> of
> wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's
> no
> telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of
> Tefzel
> wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
>
> Thanks folks.
>
> Chad
>
>
> Chad Sipperley
> Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
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: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:48 PM 6/6/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
><paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for responding. My comments below.
>
> >>My #1 requirement is that there be no single point of failure for the
> >>entire panel. I cannot have a system where any one failure causes the
> >>whole thing to go black in the soup - which should be an uncompromisable
> >>requirement for any aircraft with no vacuum system intended for IFR, I
> >>think. (This is why I ruled out Z-13 - unlikely as it may be, an open
> >>battery is total disaster. I THINK - correct me if I'm wrong there.
> >>Anyway I prefer two batteries.)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Then Z-13 with Z-30 ought to do it.
> >
> >
>
>Er.. Z-13 has us back at two alternators. I don't think this mission requires
>two alternators.. as you note below, in the event of a failure in IMC the task
>becomes to navigate to VFR or get on the ground.. battery power ought to be
>sufficient for that task with minimal load.
Then go Z-11 and leave the second alternator off. It can be added
at any time in the future.
<snip>
> > replacing the certified junk alternator and substituting
> > an abused and ignored flooded battery with a well maintained
> > RG battery. This quantum jump in electrical system reliability
> > will power flight instruments with redundant power sources
> > that avoids single source (suck pump) reliance for powering
> > gyros.
> >
> >
>
>I completely agree that this results in a "quantum leap in electrical system
>reliability" but the difference betwixt this and a C-172 is that for us the
>electrical is the primary and only IFR instrument power source, to state the
>blatantly obvious. In other words.. the spam-can can tolerate an inferior
>lectrical system and possibly still be "safer" than an all-electric by virtue
>of the crappy, heavy and unreliable vacuum system.. (and BTW I've
>experienced 1
>total vacuum failure already in 300 hours and I hate the things and consider
>the dry pumps especially to be total junk).
. . . then Z-11 with two batteries ought to be plenty of
support. Further, the only reason you need two batteries
is to cover a concern for failure of any battery . . . so
the second battery can be quite small to support alternator
operation in cases where the main battery is not available.
>What gives you the idea I'm worrying too much? I just want the bases
>covered.
>Then I won't have to worry. Like most pilots, I know the risks and accept
>them. I just try to minimize them realistically. I do fly IFR now in a
>25-year-old Cessna 152 with no autopilot and a crappy, unreliable dry vacuum
>system with no backup bank information but the standard electric TC and my
>GPS's HSI. I want the RV to be as safe as realistically possible, that's
>all.
>But I'm considering carefully everything you have to say, you may be sure.
Forgive me, "too much" is a non-quantified, non-engineering
term. Let's focus on YOUR phrase, "realistically possible".
Toward that goal, let's consider that the probability of TWO
failures on any single load of fuel is exceedingly remote . . .
Would we agree that two batteries (even if something like
a 17 and perhaps a 7 a.h. battery) and a single modern alternator
is extremely likely to offer 17 a.h. or greater reserve capacity
for comfortable completion of any flight?
<snip>
>You may consider my priorities out of whack, but adding that second
>alternator,
>with the regulator, costs nearly $1,000. Is that really that cheap? Maybe I
>am missing something, but I don't see the 2nd alternator as critical if you've
>got two batteries and an e-bus.
The SD-8 is about $400 including a regulator which is much
less $ and weight than the vacuum pump and system it replaces.
>However, I am going to take a hard look at Z-11 with Z-30 and see if that
>doesn't make sense for me. Maybe you're right, and it does.
>
> > I cannot recommend moving past this level without a lucid
> > evaluation of special needs like an electrically dependent
> > engine or an airplane that is being specifically configured
> > to spend a LOT of time in the gray. Even then, I doubt
> >
>
>See the above - perhaps I'll be in the gray much more than you are assuming.
Okay, suppose you spend ALL of your time flying on instruments.
What failures do you hypothesize will be unmanageable with Z-11
and two p-mags and an all electric panel? Let's stipulate at the
outset that you're concerned about battery failure so z-30 will
offer a second, small battery.
Now, which items would you drive from which busses and what
failures do you deduce cannot be simply and comfortably managed
with this configuration?
> > that time in the clouds would rise to more than 10-20% of total
> > flight time. The reason for that capability in most projects
> > is to stay right side up while you navigate OUT of the gray
> > stuff.
> >
> > Z-19 is specific to the electrically dependent engine where
> > only a single alternator is possible . . . my original
> >
>
>I was trying to figure out exactly what was "specific" to the
>electriclaly-dependent engine. Certainly, it could still be used with p-mags?
Figure Z-19 offers two, independent battery sources backed
up with a single alternator to drive redundant electronic
controlled fuel injection systems. The p-mags require no
back up, that's built in.
Bob . . .
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: | Prestolite field resistance.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
Folks,
Have been lurking here for some time soaking up the good info on
crimps and busses and the like. Have a question related to alternator
field resistance and not sure if this is the place but here goes....
Before I call Kelly Aerospace in the morning and ask them I'll ask
here. Converting over to a Zeftronics ACU/OV unit on a '71 Bellanca
Viking that has the Prestolite two field post arrangement on the
alternator. Everything I see from all sources says the resistance
between the two field posts should be 3 to 6 ohms. On the one
installed in the bird now and the rebuilt/replacement alternator unit I
just got tonight, I'll be danged if I can get anywhere near 3 to 6 ohms
(which was the reason for ordering the rebuilt unit), usually 15 ohms
and up, bouncing all over the place depending on the position of the
pulley. This result from two separate DVOMs. I'm perplexed, to say
the least. Am I missing something or just being stupid ( perhaps a
rhetorical question......)?
Thanks,
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
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: Tefzel bundles |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Thanks,
That is what I will do.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Dickson" <robert@thenews-journal.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Dickson
> <robert@thenews-journal.com>
>
> Jim
> I'm not Stein but I did make the bundles for my d-2 Trutrak ap. I used
> the expando-sleeve stuff and it was a snap. That stuff turns a snarling
> mass of wires into something that's easily handled. I even made a 5
> wire bundle for the run all the way back to the electric trim. I think
> the trutrak bundles were 7 and 9 wires.
> Robert Dickson
> RV-6A 110 hrs
> Carrboro NC
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Jim Stone wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone"
> <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> Stein,
> Do you happen to know how many conductors the Digiflight II auto pilots
> require? I think that is two wire runs I don't want to make multiple
> times.
> Thanks,
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch"
>> <stein@steinair.com>
>>
>> Typically, most places carry the "M27500" (That's the mil spec for
>> shielded
>> multi-conductor tefzel) which is the shielded multi-conductor wire.
>> Unshielded multi-conductor cables are not commonly stocked by many
>> retailers
>> or distributors, due to the cost, and frankly if you don't need it
>> shielded
>> it's just not worth the much higher cost for multi-conductor cable
>> IMHO.
>>
>> B&C (http://www.bandc.biz) has a lot of wire in stock, and we stock
>> 2,3&4
>> conductor AWG22 shielded wire. Above 4 conductors gets REALLY
>> expensive
>> and
>> pretty difficult to find - I know I can buy it up to 20 conductors, but
>> then
>> I'd have a bunch of it sitting here and never sell it. I think Van's
>> and
>> ACS also stock some multi-conductor cable as well. Wiremasters is a
>> good
>> outfit, but they're more of a distributor than retailer, and usually
>> want
>> you to buy hundreds of feet at a time (although I know people have
>> gotten
>> smaller amounts occasionally) - for someone like us who buy 10's of
>> thousands of feet, those are ok places to shop, but for a few foot
>> chunks
>> they usually aren't too excited..though it can't hurt to try.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Stein.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>> chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>>
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
>>
>> Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all
>> sorts
>> of
>> wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's
>> no
>> telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of
>> Tefzel
>> wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
>>
>> Thanks folks.
>>
>> Chad
>>
>>
>> Chad Sipperley
>> Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
>> Phoenix, AZ
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
I am not Stein either, but did just finish running the wires for my
Digiflight II servos. The roll servo uses seven wires (including power
and ground) and the pitch servo uses eight wires (including power and
ground). Obviously, if you chose to ground them locally (I did not) you
would need one less wire in the wire runs to the cockpit area.
I made up a bundle of wires for each the approximate correct length and
laced the wires together using lacing cord. Then ran the whole thing
through the corrugated conduit like Vans sells.
Dick Tasker
Jim Stone wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
>Stein,
>Do you happen to know how many conductors the Digiflight II auto pilots
>require? I think that is two wire runs I don't want to make multiple times.
>Thanks,
>Jim
>
----
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 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: Prestolite field resistance.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:13 PM 6/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
>
>Folks,
>
>Have been lurking here for some time soaking up the good info on
>crimps and busses and the like. Have a question related to alternator
>field resistance and not sure if this is the place but here goes....
>
>Before I call Kelly Aerospace in the morning and ask them I'll ask
>here. Converting over to a Zeftronics ACU/OV unit on a '71 Bellanca
>Viking that has the Prestolite two field post arrangement on the
>alternator. Everything I see from all sources says the resistance
>between the two field posts should be 3 to 6 ohms. On the one
>installed in the bird now and the rebuilt/replacement alternator unit I
>just got tonight, I'll be danged if I can get anywhere near 3 to 6 ohms
>(which was the reason for ordering the rebuilt unit), usually 15 ohms
>and up, bouncing all over the place depending on the position of the
>pulley. This result from two separate DVOMs. I'm perplexed, to say
>the least. Am I missing something or just being stupid ( perhaps a
>rhetorical question......)?
Great question! This shines a very bright light on the problems
of measuring field resistance in the alternator without disassembling
the critter. An ohmmeter simply doesn't generate enough measurement
energy to cut through the film on the alternator's slip rings. Secondly,
slip ring contact resistance can vary wildly as the shaft is rotated.
The most accurate measurement is accomplished by hooking a small
metered bench supply up to the alternator to externally excite
it independently of the ship's regulator. Fire up the engine,
turn on lots of heavy stuff like landing light, taxi light, pitot
heat, nav lights. Run up to 1000 rpm and adjust power supply to
achieve a bus voltage of 14.0 volts. Read field current and
voltage off the power supply and calculate resistance from these
values.
Now, the purpose of KNOWING resistance before installing a new
regulator is to know that the alternator is good first and at least
doesn't have an open or severely shorted field. My personal favorite
tool for this task is to fit a $low$ regulator like a VR-166 with
short leads that allow you to wire it right to the back of an installed
alternator with all but the b-lead disconnected from ship's wiring.
Start the engine and observe ship's voltmeter. If it looks okay at
idle (13.8 to 14.5 v) then increase rpm to about 1500 and turn on
lots of stuff as cited above. If you're alternator is okay, it will
come on line and carry the test loads.
Then you can remove the test regulator and reattach wires
from the ship's regulator.
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: | Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
> Then go Z-11 and leave the second alternator off. It can be added
> at any time in the future.
Yes, it looks like Z-11 + Z-30 (with the necessary small mods for p-mags) will
do it for me.
> . . . then Z-11 with two batteries ought to be plenty of
> support. Further, the only reason you need two batteries
> is to cover a concern for failure of any battery . . . so
> the second battery can be quite small to support alternator
> operation in cases where the main battery is not available.
Yes.. FWIW, I like the idea of two batts of the same size so I can rotate them
at annual and replace the older one each year.
> Forgive me, "too much" is a non-quantified, non-engineering
> term. Let's focus on YOUR phrase, "realistically possible".
> Toward that goal, let's consider that the probability of TWO
> failures on any single load of fuel is exceedingly remote . . .
Yes, of course, two failures is something you don't plan for. Big guy's
probably got your # if it comes to that, eh?
> Would we agree that two batteries (even if something like
> a 17 and perhaps a 7 a.h. battery) and a single modern alternator
> is extremely likely to offer 17 a.h. or greater reserve capacity
> for comfortable completion of any flight?
Certainly.
I'm just not totally comfortable with the systems that fail with an open
battery (-13). Possibly that's just because I don't have enough experience
with these things to have an appropriate level of trust in them.
> Okay, suppose you spend ALL of your time flying on instruments.
> What failures do you hypothesize will be unmanageable with Z-11
> and two p-mags and an all electric panel? Let's stipulate at the
> outset that you're concerned about battery failure so z-30 will
> offer a second, small battery.
In that case there's no problem at all. Totally comfortable with that. I
was/am just not real comfortable with the single batt systems that will fail
with an open battery (maybe so unlikely it doesn't bear designing for - I
really don't know).
> Now, which items would you drive from which busses and what
> failures do you deduce cannot be simply and comfortably managed
> with this configuration?
Well, to answer the question of what's on which bus, the e-bus needs to have
the EFIS, the gps/com #1, panel lighting, and pitot heat (definitely left off
unless absolutely needed!!!). I think that's it.
> Figure Z-19 offers two, independent battery sources backed
> up with a single alternator to drive redundant electronic
> controlled fuel injection systems. The p-mags require no
> back up, that's built in.
Yes, I know, what I meant was that it's a simple matter to remove things like
the ECU circuits from -19 that wouldn't be needed in the case of a non-auto
engine with p-mags. Of course, what would result from that would be pretty
close to Z-11 + 30, wouldn't it?
I think I am good with 11 + 30 (with some mods like using a B&C regular instead
of the "generic Ford")and can figure out the details. Thanks.
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! --
|