Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:45 AM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells (Ron Raby)
2. 05:44 AM - Re: harbor freight battery load tester (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:14 AM - battery maintainer (Ernest Christley)
4. 06:23 AM - Re: Prestolite field resistance.... (George Braly)
5. 06:47 AM - MY Defiant Plans on eBay (Harley)
6. 06:54 AM - Re: Internally regulated alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:19 AM - Re: battery maintainer (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
8. 07:37 AM - Re: Ground Planes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:46 AM - Re: battery maintainer (Barry Chapman)
10. 07:47 AM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
11. 07:54 AM - Re: Re: 22 ga too small? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 08:45 AM - Re: battery maintainer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 09:41 AM - Small starter contactor (ultralight size) (Richard Riley)
14. 01:22 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (Dan Checkoway)
15. 02:00 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (Joe Larson)
16. 02:26 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
17. 02:26 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
18. 02:28 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (Paul Folbrecht)
19. 03:13 PM - Re: Small starter contactor (ultralight size) (Eric M. Jones)
20. 03:15 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (Paul Folbrecht)
21. 04:14 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
22. 04:29 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (SkyKing)
23. 04:51 PM - Z-19 vs. Z-14 (Larry E. James)
24. 05:11 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 SpamAssassin (score=-2.56, required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
25. 06:12 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (glaesers)
26. 07:02 PM - Re: battery maintainer (David Carter)
27. 07:19 PM - Aerosport Supplied Alternator and Overvoltage - Request for comments (Tim Olson)
28. 07:23 PM - Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 SpamAssassin (score=-2.56, required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60) (Paul Folbrecht)
29. 07:25 PM - Re: battery maintainer/load tester (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 07:27 PM - Re: Devil's advocate (Paul Folbrecht)
31. 07:30 PM - Re: Aerosport Alternator and Overvoltage - (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 07:47 PM - Re: battery maintainer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
33. 08:08 PM - Re: battery maintainer/load tester (Richard E. Tasker)
34. 09:08 PM - Re: Aerosport Alternator and Overvoltage - Request for comments (Denis Walsh)
35. 09:36 PM - Re: Aerosport Alternator and Overvoltage - Request for comments (Chris Byrne)
36. 10:02 PM - Intercom Wiring (Guy Buchanan)
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: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
Bob
There is also a cheaper one for 27.99 item # 90636-0rhh.
Same company Chicago Electric power tools.
Ron
----- 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 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 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: harbor freight battery load tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:43 AM 6/7/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>
>Bob
>
>There is also a cheaper one for 27.99 item # 90636-0rhh.
>Same company Chicago Electric power tools.
This one is a fixed load device . . . in fact, it's
on sale right now for about $14
The other one says it has a carbon pile (BIG variable
resistor) with which to load the battery under test.
The technique is to apply enough load on the battery
to drag it down to some consistent test value like
9V. Keep load applied and adjust over time to maintain
9V. Read load current after 15 seconds.
This is a general test of cranking ability. You need
something in excess of 200A. New batteries will test
at 400-700A depending on size.
The big question about this el-cheeso model is if it
will take a 15 second load test of a robust battery.
I have a lunch appointment on the west side today.
I'll stop by HF and pick one up. We shall see . . .
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: | battery maintainer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Time: 07:08:35 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 . . .
Bob,
Thank you for coming to NC. The timing was perfect for my
situation, as I have 'just a little more' work to do on the structure
and I'll be ready to run some wire.
Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
out to a couple of aligator clips. They also have the solar battery
charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
lighting?
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
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: | Prestolite field resistance.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Bob,
I sort of think he was wanting to check the alternator before he installed it on
the aircraft...
Regards, George
-----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: 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 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: | MY Defiant Plans on eBay |
1.30 UNDISC_RECIPS Valid-looking To "undisclosed-recipients"
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Morning...
Just thought I'd put the word out that I have put my Rutan Defiant plans
up for bids on eBay. I had grandiose thoughts of building one of these
after I finished my Long EZ, but at the rate I am going on the Long, and
my fast approaching "old age" <G>, I don't think I will ever have the
time or desire to do them.
So, I want to pass them on to someone who can use them. I would
appreciate it if you know someone who may also be interested, please let
them know as well. I have also included the appropriate Canard Pusher
newsletters in pdf format on CDs along with a few other items such as
the owners manual, an HTM copy of the EZ Squadron's resource list and
RAF introductory letters.
BTW...the Defiant will make a great platform for a couple of Renesis
engines you could scavenge from those RX-8s you see all over the road
now! <VBG>
The plans are on eBay for 10 days, no reserve, starting at under $100
and no buy-it-now price. So they will sell for whatever the market bears.
Just search for my offers (ageless_wings), or search using the keywords
"Defiant Plans", or go directly to the item at:
cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4555013840
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ
Canandaigua, NY
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: Internally regulated alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>Sorry to labour this, Bob, and thanks for your input so far, but....
>
>what does "If your alternator is internally regulated (it is), then
>I have no recommendations for adding the OVM-14 crowbar ov module
>to the system" mean?
>
> 1) don't use it
> 2) you can't use it
> 3) put it anywhere on the Alt output side
> 4) You can't add an OVM to an internally reg'd alternator.
> 5) ????
I can't tell you to DO anything. I can tell you NOT to do anything.
The original thrust of Z-24 (revision 10, removed at rev 11) was
to suggest a means of adding ov protection to an internally regulated
alternator. Field experience and further analysis of the architecture
illuminated design problems with Z-24 that have no immediate elegant
solution.
There are folks who will tell you that running an internally
regulated alternator is no big risk. However, we have documented
field experiences from others who have suffered damage to their
airplanes due to uncontrollable failures in internally regulated
alternators.
So until I have time and resources to develop a practical solution
-OR- someone else comes forward with a repeatable experiment to
demonstrate a solution that withstands a critical review, I have
no recommendations to make to assist you in installation of the
internally regulated alternator.
Sorry, but I can't be helpful on a matter for which I have no
specific knowledge. Van will tell you that there are thousands
of his designs flying with stock automotive alternators . . . and
he is probably right. I cannot share his enthusiasm for this
technology. There are too many different configurations that span
too many years and thousands of overhaul shops that might have touched
your prized automotive alternator. The generic "internally regulated
alternator" is a non-quantified, non-qualified entity. As a system
designer who has no control over the alternator's source and
characteristics, I'm duty bound to ASSUME that an ov condition is
possible and to deduce a means for dealing with it.
>What are my alternatives for checking for over-voltage on an internally
>reg'd alternator?
(1) you need a way to KNOW that an OV condition exists. A flashing
light could be fabricated. Some builders have told me that they
simply keep an eye on their voltmeter. If you have a GOOD battery
in place, it's unlikely that a failed alternator will push the
bus higher than 18 volts or so for a few seconds. This might be
sufficient time to react to a light and shut the thing off but
ONLY IF . . .
(2) you need a way to flip a switch and positively shut down a
failed alternator . . . this is the HARD part. I HAVE a good way
to sense and react to an ov condition, I don't have a way to
bring the runaway alternator to heel.
Check the archives . . . this has been thrashed soundly over
the past year.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | battery maintainer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Funny you should ask this because I did a similar experiment with a HF
charger a few years ago.
Firstly let me say the plug in charger works great, plug 'em in walk
away.
So I had the bright idea of cutting off the little square box which had
the voltage sensing gizmo in it and wiring it to my alternator output in
the plane to charge a small second emergency battery. Of course the
chargr is limited to 600mA so If I needed the battery to run my fuel
pump it was not going to keep up but for 20 minutes of emergency flying
it seemed an ideal solution.
Sadly the voltage regulator needed quite a bit more than the 14V from
the airplane's (I used my car to test) electrical system to make it
work.....Somewhere above 20 volts I seem to remember.
My guess is you will find the same thing if you try to hook it to a 12v
solar array...I.e it won't work.
Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
out to a couple of aligator clips. They also have the solar battery
charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
lighting?
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
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: Ground Planes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:37 PM 6/3/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
>At 12:07 PM 6/3/2005, you wrote:
> >The coax cable to use is 50 Ohm RG-400 cut 16 feet long. Not about "15
> >feet" - cut it 16 feet long. The extra could be looped into a large coil
> >at least 2 feet in diameter. You will need 4 of the leads, they each must
> >be 16 feet long, and they should measure 2.5 dB to 3.5dB at 1 GHz.
>
>I don't understand this. If it is being used as normal feedline, then the
>length is totally irrelevent, except that it should be as short as possible
>to reduce losses at 1GHz (difference in loss between 1GHz and the aircraft
>band is a whopping 14.3dB). Maybe they just want all the feedlines to be
>exactly the same length so as to avoid differences in time of arrival of
>the signals from all 4 antennas.
>
>Also, as I understand it, the reason for having antennas on top and on
>bottom of the aircraft is to get a clear shot of the surrounding airspace
>and avoid attenuation in the shadow of the metal fuselage. If your plane
>is a composite, there is little to impede the signal, right? Maybe there
>could be a (cheaper) 2 antenna version for composites.
If we're talking about TCAS, the system deduces position
of responding aircraft by measuring TIME differences between
signals arriving from two antennas. Here the feedline length
is critical. Coaxes fabricated and installed professionally
are individually tested and matched to each other to plus
or minus one inch or better. They're also checked for qualities
that are affected by coax material and variability of installation
in connectors.
. . . definitely not a NORMAL feedline.
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: battery maintainer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Barry Chapman" <bcrnfnps@swoi.net>
Ernest,
Check the amp hour rating of this system. I picked one up to maintain a
tractor battery and it was rated for up to 125ah, I think. It wouldn't
maintain my battery...but that could be because the battery was dead or on
its way...anyhow I changed the battery and haven't tried it since.
Barry Chapman
Student pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: battery maintainer
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> Time: 07:08:35 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 . . .
>
>
> Bob,
> Thank you for coming to NC. The timing was perfect for my
> situation, as I have 'just a little more' work to do on the structure
> and I'll be ready to run some wire.
>
> Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
> Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
> wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
> out to a couple of aligator clips. They also have the solar battery
> charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
> about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
> regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
> solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
> into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
> couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
> clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
> added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
>
> Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
> insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
> lighting?
>
> --
> ,|"|"|, |
> ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
> o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
No but as you get bashed into a quivering pulp the rest will learn a lot
in the process...Kinda cool really...:)
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 vs. Z-14
--> 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 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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>***** The biggest problem with a 22 gage wire is handling it and the crimp
>connector itself. With a smaller 22-gage wire, the crimp connector size
>is important. Any connector you use, the 22-gage wire is going to be on
>the small end of the crimp connectors range which is usually from 18-22
>gage. The smaller 22-gage wire does not fill the crimp terminal as well a
>18 gage and therefore good crimp operations; technique, connector
>quality/size and good quality tool are more critical. ******
This is unsupported by fact. I've cross-sectioned many an installed
terminal and have yet to find a red PIDG terminal applied with an
adequate tool that was not gas-tight over a 22AWG wire.
Therefore, the desire to "fill the crimp terminal" better with
larger wire is a non-issue. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>There are work-arounds, but make sure you have the proper sized crimp
>terminal. Also some just feel that 22 gage is harder to stip and handle,
>that is a good reason also to use a bigger wire (smaller gage).
There are countless stripping tools . . . again, specifically
designed for Tefzel . . . but they're not necessary. Just last
week in Apex, NC about 18 folks got first hand experience in
stripping 22AWG Tefzel with an $8 pair of flush cutters! See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html
"Too hard to strip" is an excuse, not a reason . . .
If one can learn to drive a rivet, one can learn to
strip wire.
We've been using 22AWG as the smallest wire in the airframe
for decades on certified ships. For the first time, (as far
as I know) Premier went to 24AWG wire for some requirements.
Yup, there was some fuss from the production line early-on
but haven't heard a beef about it for over a year now.
>Strength wise the bigger wires are going to be slightly physically
>stronger and likely to take more abuse and vibration. However this is not
>always factor, so the 22 gage gets the job done and can be just as
>durable. Why add the weight. Again for the small amount of wires in a
>small plane it does not make too much difference.
Yes a bigger wire has more tensile strength than a smaller wire which
has nothing to do with installed robustness. Keep in mind that RESISTANCE
to bending induced stresses goes down markedly with diameter. See page
8-3 in the 'Connection. Just because a wire is smaller does not
translate into lesser as-installed robustness. Yes, the smaller
wire is less suited for cargo tie-down but a wire fails in vibration
because of stress risers (mitigated by the insulation grip on the
PIDG terminal) which are a function of g-loads and WEIGHT. So while
the smaller wire is not as 'strong' it is also LESS capable of
inducing stresses in it's own materials due to vibration.
In fact, smaller wires are less likely to suffer bending induced
stress cracks than larger wires. Folks who worry about this have
been giving credibility to too many third-hand ol' mechanics tales.
>As far as soldering, I don't want to make this a debate because there has
>been so much definitive things written about it, but you can solder very
>carefully and strain relief to get a good quality joint. However in most
>cases a good crimp joint is best (if done properly) and is well suited for
>large commercial production. As an individual we can take our time to make
>"watch work" joints with carefully applied dabs of solder and heat shrink
>and get a good joint, but it takes more time and skill.
. . . and is a waste of $time$
> Soldered wires where they want to flex is bad, as we know.
. . . just as crimped wires. There's no difference.
> If they don't flex or you keep solder away from those areas, it is not
> a problem. Makes sense.
To be having this discussion discounts decades of development
work and flight-centuries of field experience of a very mature
technology. Band-Aid work-arounds and extra-ordinary processes
added for peace-of-mind cannot replace using the right tool with
the right terminals to install connections per instructions. This
requires no extra-ordinary knowledge on the part of the builder
and doesn't have to be expensive either.
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: | battery maintainer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:20 AM 6/7/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Funny you should ask this because I did a similar experiment with a HF
>charger a few years ago.
>
>Firstly let me say the plug in charger works great, plug 'em in walk
>away.
Do you have data on how this charger performs? For a "maintainer"
we need a charge cycle that terminates somewhere above 14 - 14.5
volts that reverts to a maintenance level around 13 - 13.5 volts.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/schumacher_2.jpg
Do you know if the device you tested does this? I had to
discount one HF "maintainer" because it wouldn't go to
the charge mode unless the battery to be charged was
severely discharged.
Snip . . .
>Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
>Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
>wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
>out to a couple of aligator clips.
I'll see if I can get one of these too and check it out.
> They also have the solar battery
>charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
>about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
>regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
>solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
>into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
>couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
>clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
>added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
>
>Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
>insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
>lighting?
Don't know. Let's find out. On the way home from Apex, I
crafted a DIY maintainer controller. I'll add the drawing
to the battery maintenance article as soon as I can get
around to it. I don't recommend that anyone build such a
device when they're dirt cheap to buy already working. I
think our best effort would research which products do
it right.
Thanks for your feedback.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Small starter contactor (ultralight size) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
I'm working on a 103 legal ultralight with a 22 hp engine. It has electric
start, and I can afford the weight of a battery. I'm looking for a starter
contactor that isn't grossly oversized. The manufacturer says the starter
motor takes 25 amps.
Any suggestions?
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: Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Wow, not too many replies to this thread! Either people aren't flying IFR,
or they just don't want to admit how little IFR they really do fly despite
their fancy electrical systems.
Given all the RV builders I know who have or are installing backup
alternators and all sorts of fancy whizbang electronic toys, I doubt any of
them will actually ever make use of it! It's interesting, at least to me.
I see a LOT of money being spent on toys for peace of mind, and then the
pilot never flies in the clouds, or even at night!
It's so easy for us to get caught up in much more complex installations than
are actually required. Just because it's "affordable" doesn't mean you
should use it!
Bob's recent replies on the "Z-19 vs. Z-14" thread have validated my
thoughts (thanks, Bob). Keep it simple. Z-11, while simple, lightweight,
and inexpensive, is more than sufficient 99.999% of the time for 99.999% of
us pilots...even the ones flying IFR.
Keep the stress off the battery terminals, keep a healthy battery, and
proceed as usual... Enjoy looking at what's *outside* the plane, and put
the $$$ into gas for your travels. Probably not a popular sentiment among
all these electrophiles, but oh well.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Devil's advocate
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
<dan@rvproject.com>
>
> Homebuilt fliers out there who are instrument rated and keep current and
> really do fly IFR in your plane...here is a poll of sorts:
>
> - What % of your flying is IFR?
> - What % of your flying is in solid IMC without a VFR "out"?
>
> I consider myself more active than the average private pilot who flies for
> fun. In the past 12 months, I flew 405 hours, 13.5 of which were actual
> instrument...3% of my flying. Approximately 3 of those hours were in
solid
> IMC with no VFR "out." That's less than 1% of my flying. Zero hours IFR
at
> night in the past year.
>
> Has anybody out there ever actually used a standby alternator in IMC?
>
> How about in VMC...has anybody had a primary alternator fail, and then
flew
> multiple legs home (more than just a local hop, i.e. a real cross country
> trip) using the standby alternator?
>
> Just curious.
>
> do not archive
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
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: Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joe Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
> Wow, not too many replies to this thread! Either people aren't
> flying IFR,
> or they just don't want to admit how little IFR they really do fly
> despite
> their fancy electrical systems.
>
> Given all the RV builders I know who have or are installing backup
> alternators and all sorts of fancy whizbang electronic toys, I
> doubt any of
> them will actually ever make use of it! It's interesting, at least
> to me.
> I see a LOT of money being spent on toys for peace of mind, and
> then the
> pilot never flies in the clouds, or even at night!
>
It's not piece of mind if the equipment being backed up ever fails
while in the clouds. It could easily be the difference between an
uneventful arrival at home and a crash.
It's piece of mind until something fails. Then suddenly it's
critical equipment.
-Joe
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: | Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Too busy building, no time (or money) to fly. :-) I agree that most
people probably load up their panel and electrical systems for piece of
mind and then almost never use it's capability. One of my struggles is
cost vs covering the 0.001% when that one piece of hardware could save
the life of me and, more importantly, my wife and daughter. Gives new
meaning to can't take it with you. At the same time complexity can kill
a person just as quickly. People jump in old aircraft all the time that
are very simple and have minimal redundancy and never think twice while
launching into hard IFR.
My mission profile is simple. I plan on having an electrically
dependant aircraft that can launch in any weather that I feel
comfortable with (and the aircraft can handle), fly 1000 miles in the
upper teens, and land in whatever my personal minimums are at. I need
to minimize (without risking safety) any unplanned departure and arrival
delays.
The main things of note in that whole paragraph is electrically
dependant and IFR. Even going with one Pmag and one Lightspeed or Emag,
I don't feel comfortable with the idea of a single battery. Alternator
maybe, but not one battery. I also want to be able to isolate critical
systems on an ebus so a minor inconvenience doesn't invite Murphy and
become a major problem.
Now if my profile was weekend hamburger hops in good weather below
10k, I would be single bus, single battery, lightspeed and probably a
good ole mag for backup with minimal instruments and something like a
dynon or BMA Lite.
Thankfully my -10 is only up to the elevators so I have a ways to go
before I need to put a design to paper. I'm putting a lot of thought
into redundancy vs overkill, most people might not but to each his own.
Michael Sausen
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Checkoway
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Devil's advocate
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
--> <dan@rvproject.com>
Wow, not too many replies to this thread! Either people aren't flying
IFR, or they just don't want to admit how little IFR they really do fly
despite their fancy electrical systems.
Given all the RV builders I know who have or are installing backup
alternators and all sorts of fancy whizbang electronic toys, I doubt any
of them will actually ever make use of it! It's interesting, at least
to me.
I see a LOT of money being spent on toys for peace of mind, and then the
pilot never flies in the clouds, or even at night!
It's so easy for us to get caught up in much more complex installations
than are actually required. Just because it's "affordable" doesn't mean
you should use it!
Bob's recent replies on the "Z-19 vs. Z-14" thread have validated my
thoughts (thanks, Bob). Keep it simple. Z-11, while simple,
lightweight, and inexpensive, is more than sufficient 99.999% of the
time for 99.999% of us pilots...even the ones flying IFR.
Keep the stress off the battery terminals, keep a healthy battery, and
proceed as usual... Enjoy looking at what's *outside* the plane, and
put the $$$ into gas for your travels. Probably not a popular sentiment
among all these electrophiles, but oh well.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Devil's advocate
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
<dan@rvproject.com>
>
> Homebuilt fliers out there who are instrument rated and keep current
and
> really do fly IFR in your plane...here is a poll of sorts:
>
> - What % of your flying is IFR?
> - What % of your flying is in solid IMC without a VFR "out"?
>
> I consider myself more active than the average private pilot who flies
for
> fun. In the past 12 months, I flew 405 hours, 13.5 of which were
actual
> instrument...3% of my flying. Approximately 3 of those hours were in
solid
> IMC with no VFR "out." That's less than 1% of my flying. Zero hours
IFR
at
> night in the past year.
>
> Has anybody out there ever actually used a standby alternator in IMC?
>
> How about in VMC...has anybody had a primary alternator fail, and then
flew
> multiple legs home (more than just a local hop, i.e. a real cross
country
> trip) using the standby alternator?
>
> Just curious.
>
> do not archive
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
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: | Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I'm guessing but like a lot of folk who live on the West coast of the US
and spend time wondering if they go will they be able to get back VFR,
start out their $70k RV project and decide to make it IFR and go get
their upgraded ticket...I mean whats another 15k for the instruments
right?
AFTER that point they realise what a royal pain in the butt IFR flying
actually is (says he with a massive 10 hours in the soup)...I mean its
not fun and the recurrancy is a pain and if you have half an ounce of
common sense you realise that to be safe you have to go practice flying
in crappy weather. It sounds like a real chore to be honest.
Hence the RV ends up being a VFR plane after all with a lot of toys in
it.
Sad thing is I can easily see me going down the same path!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Larson
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Devil's advocate
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joe Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
> Wow, not too many replies to this thread! Either people aren't flying
> IFR, or they just don't want to admit how little IFR they really do
> fly despite their fancy electrical systems.
>
> Given all the RV builders I know who have or are installing backup
> alternators and all sorts of fancy whizbang electronic toys, I doubt
> any of them will actually ever make use of it! It's interesting, at
> least to me.
> I see a LOT of money being spent on toys for peace of mind, and then
> the pilot never flies in the clouds, or even at night!
>
It's not piece of mind if the equipment being backed up ever fails while
in the clouds. It could easily be the difference between an uneventful
arrival at home and a crash.
It's piece of mind until something fails. Then suddenly it's critical
equipment.
-Joe
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: Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>Wow, not too many replies to this thread! Either people aren't flying IFR,
>or they just don't want to admit how little IFR they really do fly despite
>their fancy electrical systems.
>
>
Interesting topic. I meant to respond to the original poster and didn't
get around to it. In hte last 2 months I've logged about 31 hours with
5 actual but benign IMC (>2000' cigs).
>Given all the RV builders I know who have or are installing backup
>alternators and all sorts of fancy whizbang electronic toys, I doubt any of
>them will actually ever make use of it! It's interesting, at least to me.
>I see a LOT of money being spent on toys for peace of mind, and then the
>pilot never flies in the clouds, or even at night!
>
>
I'm still pretty new to the experimental/RV community, so I'll have to
take your word for that, but I do know 2nd-hand of several local RVers
that do a lot of IFR in their birds. Maybe they are the exception.
As for me, I just got my IFR ticket in January, but now that it's not
freezing at 5-6000' anymore I've already started racking up the actual
time and do plan on lots of it. Even if you're only a 1,000' descent
away from VFR you still have to have some backup. It's insurance -
rarely - quite possibly never - used, but necessary nonetheless.
>It's so easy for us to get caught up in much more complex installations than
>are actually required. Just because it's "affordable" doesn't mean you
>should use it!
>
>
What's affordable? :-> It's crazy what a lot of this stuff costs
(avionics). Of course. I am planning on keeping my panel under $20K,
but just barely, and yet still have a very capable and dependable IFR
panel. It would not be difficult to spend double that, which does
strike me as pretty crazy unless you're flying serious IFR weekly or
better.
(As of now I plan a GRT EFIS Sport, GNS 300XL GPS/com, SL-30 nav/com
(dang that's a nice piece of equipment), Garmin 327 xponder, backup
electric TC, analog ASI and alt, and single-axis AP and that's about
it. Flying IFR with this setup will be pure heaven compared to my
current bare-bones C-152. I think it is a sane IFR panel for the amount
and type of flying I plan and am currently doing.)
>Bob's recent replies on the "Z-19 vs. Z-14" thread have validated my
>thoughts (thanks, Bob). Keep it simple. Z-11, while simple, lightweight,
>and inexpensive, is more than sufficient 99.999% of the time for 99.999% of
>us pilots...even the ones flying IFR.
>
>
With a 2nd battery, I completely agree. Possibly even without the 2nd
battery. :-> (Or perhaps just two batts in parallel instead of on
another bus which negates the slim open-cell risk.)
>Keep the stress off the battery terminals, keep a healthy battery, and
>proceed as usual... Enjoy looking at what's *outside* the plane, and put
>the $$$ into gas for your travels. Probably not a popular sentiment among
>all these electrophiles, but oh well.
>
>do not archive
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Devil's advocate
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
>>
>>
><dan@rvproject.com>
>
>
>>Homebuilt fliers out there who are instrument rated and keep current and
>>really do fly IFR in your plane...here is a poll of sorts:
>>
>>- What % of your flying is IFR?
>>- What % of your flying is in solid IMC without a VFR "out"?
>>
>>I consider myself more active than the average private pilot who flies for
>>fun. In the past 12 months, I flew 405 hours, 13.5 of which were actual
>>instrument...3% of my flying. Approximately 3 of those hours were in
>>
>>
>solid
>
>
>>IMC with no VFR "out." That's less than 1% of my flying. Zero hours IFR
>>
>>
>at
>
>
>>night in the past year.
>>
>>Has anybody out there ever actually used a standby alternator in IMC?
>>
>>How about in VMC...has anybody had a primary alternator fail, and then
>>
>>
>flew
>
>
>>multiple legs home (more than just a local hop, i.e. a real cross country
>>trip) using the standby alternator?
>>
>>Just curious.
>>
>>do not archive
>>)_( Dan
>>RV-7 N714D
>>http://www.rvproject.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: Small starter contactor (ultralight size) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
>I'm working on a 103 legal ultralight with a 22 hp engine. It has electric
>start, and I can afford the weight of a battery. I'm looking for a starter
>contactor that isn't grossly oversized. The manufacturer says the starter
>motor takes 25 amps. Any suggestions?
Richard,
The Bosch 40A or 75A 12V relays will do this job.
See:
http://order.waytekwire.com/CGI-BIN/LANSAWEB?WEBEVENT+L093F58850CC883CED28BB02+M37+ENG
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
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: Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>AFTER that point they realise what a royal pain in the butt IFR flying
>actually is (says he with a massive 10 hours in the soup)...I mean its
>not fun and the recurrancy is a pain and if you have half an ounce of
>common sense you realise that to be safe you have to go practice flying
>in crappy weather. It sounds like a real chore to be honest.
>
>
Amen to that. I realized this shortly after getting my ticket.
I don't think you have to fly in actual to stay current but you do have
to fly regularly in sim conditions at least. My current schedule is a
night of doing approaches every other week which seems to do it for me.
Any longer than that and I am definitely feeling rusty. I cover up my
side window as well for NO outside peripheral references and it does not
feel much different to me than actual.
On one hand it's a chore but on the other it's a good excuse to fly more.
>
>
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: | Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Out of interest Paul, How long do you spend doing approaches during this
two weekly refresher?...I mean 1 hour, two??
That doesn't sound too bad...and I guess its not often that you will
actually get grounded by the weather is it?....:)
Frank
Do not archve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Devil's advocate
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
--> <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>AFTER that point they realise what a royal pain in the butt IFR flying
>actually is (says he with a massive 10 hours in the soup)...I mean its
>not fun and the recurrancy is a pain and if you have half an ounce of
>common sense you realise that to be safe you have to go practice flying
>in crappy weather. It sounds like a real chore to be honest.
>
>
Amen to that. I realized this shortly after getting my ticket.
I don't think you have to fly in actual to stay current but you do have
to fly regularly in sim conditions at least. My current schedule is a
night of doing approaches every other week which seems to do it for me.
Any longer than that and I am definitely feeling rusty. I cover up my
side window as well for NO outside peripheral references and it does not
feel much different to me than actual.
On one hand it's a chore but on the other it's a good excuse to fly
more.
>
>
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: Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SkyKing <skyking135@mindspring.com>
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>Wow, not too many replies to this thread! Either people aren't flying IFR,
>or they just don't want to admit how little IFR they really do fly despite
>their fancy electrical systems.
>
>Given all the RV builders I know who have or are installing backup
>alternators and all sorts of fancy whizbang electronic toys, I doubt any of
>them will actually ever make use of it! It's interesting, at least to me.
>I see a LOT of money being spent on toys for peace of mind, and then the
>pilot never flies in the clouds, or even at night!
>
>It's so easy for us to get caught up in much more complex installations than
>are actually required. Just because it's "affordable" doesn't mean you
>should use it!
>
>Bob's recent replies on the "Z-19 vs. Z-14" thread have validated my
>thoughts (thanks, Bob). Keep it simple. Z-11, while simple, lightweight,
>and inexpensive, is more than sufficient 99.999% of the time for 99.999% of
>us pilots...even the ones flying IFR.
>
>Keep the stress off the battery terminals, keep a healthy battery, and
>proceed as usual... Enjoy looking at what's *outside* the plane, and put
>the $$$ into gas for your travels. Probably not a popular sentiment among
>all these electrophiles, but oh well.
>
>do not archive
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Devil's advocate
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
>>
>>
><dan@rvproject.com>
>
>
>>Homebuilt fliers out there who are instrument rated and keep current and
>>really do fly IFR in your plane...here is a poll of sorts:
>>
>>- What % of your flying is IFR?
>>- What % of your flying is in solid IMC without a VFR "out"?
>>
>>I consider myself more active than the average private pilot who flies for
>>fun. In the past 12 months, I flew 405 hours, 13.5 of which were actual
>>instrument...3% of my flying. Approximately 3 of those hours were in
>>
>>
>solid
>
>
>>IMC with no VFR "out." That's less than 1% of my flying. Zero hours IFR
>>
>>
>at
>
>
>>night in the past year.
>>
>>Has anybody out there ever actually used a standby alternator in IMC?
>>
>>How about in VMC...has anybody had a primary alternator fail, and then
>>
>>
>flew
>
>
>>multiple legs home (more than just a local hop, i.e. a real cross country
>>trip) using the standby alternator?
>>
>>Just curious.
>>
>>do not archive
>>)_( Dan
>>RV-7 N714D
>>http://www.rvproject.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Good call, Dan. I've been following this thread like so many others and
was thinking to myself better to keep it simple unless you have a
buttload of money and time. Even then, keep it simple in the beginning
and add to it later. I think the vast majority of flight time logged is
VFR anyway, afterall that's the funnest kind.
I certainly understand how folks can get caught up in the building
process, especially the panel design. I mean cripes, who doesn't want a
kick-butt panel? I've been on a "builders high" for the last year and a
half. Building your own airplane is more fun than s.e.x. Well, maybe.
Keep it simple, keep it safe.
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 |
|
SpamAssassin (score=-2.56, required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
>>> 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).
Another good thread. I went through a similar thought
process a few weeks ago with Bob and one defining moment for
me was in talking with Bill at B&C: when he said that the
SD-8 would work without the battery. That means to me that
if both the primary alt and only batt fail; I still have
8amps of power. Then, 1-1/2 lbs for the SD-8 vs. 12 lbs for
the extra batt made my mind up to go with the single batt /
dual alt configuration. Of course this is only my reasoning
..... still sound ???
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket
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: | Z-19 vs. Z-14 SpamAssassin (score=-2.56, |
required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
That's exactly where I got to Larry except I really don't believe a
battery will fail...I mean maybe short a cell or go open circuit...In
that case the primary alt will continue to run the ships power.
Like you the sd-8 (infinite flying time) vs a hunking great weight of
lead (some limited flying time) was a no brainer.
My only issue is will an SD-8 keep up with an electric fuel pump us I
have no mechanical pump?...Really must get around to measuring the draw
one of these days..
In my current plane I have a home grown version of the dual batt set
up...More than once I have come back to the hanger with dead batteries,
due mainly to the hangar power supply going off and not charging the
batts...I.e how do you KNOW how much flying time you got in those
batteries.
After 5 years I found this to be an ongoing problem...Unless one
actually changes out the batteries yearly of course which I have not.
Frank
Corvallis Oregon, RV7A
Another good thread. I went through a similar thought process a few
weeks ago with Bob and one defining moment for me was in talking with
Bill at B&C: when he said that the
SD-8 would work without the battery. That means to me that if both the
primary alt and only batt fail; I still have 8amps of power. Then,
1-1/2 lbs for the SD-8 vs. 12 lbs for the extra batt made my mind up to
go with the single batt / dual alt configuration. Of course this is
only my reasoning ..... still sound ???
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket
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: Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
I used to do a lot of charter flying and instructing when I lived in St.
Louis (15 years ago). It's not the profile Dan requested, but just for the
heck of it I I checked my logbook. Overall I averaged about 12% IFR over
2500 hours and about 25% of my time is at night (I was an engineer at
McDonnell Douglas during the day). At times I'd wait for IFR weather to fly
with instrument students, so my average may be skewed a bit.
Only one time did I have an electrical problem - at night, in and out of
IMC - but was able to complete the flight uneventfully (don't remember the
diagnosis any more). I'm glad I didn't know then what I know now about
electrical systems!
I'm planning on a Z-19 architecture (one alt - two batteries) because I'll
have an electrically dependent engine. That architecture can tolerate the
failure of any one thing (alternator, battery, switch) and still keep juice
flowing to the engine and essential equipment - and that's my requirement.
I agree with Dan - keep it simple but effective, and that also fits my other
requirement - keep the price down!
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A empennage arriving next week!
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: battery maintainer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Bob, if I remember correctly, you have recently obtained a Schumaker (sp?)
charger. Or someone else has and the overall opinion was favorable.
So, with regard to you post below, saying , "For a "maintainer" we need a
charge cycle that terminates somewhere above 14 - 14.5 volts that reverts to
a maintenance level around 13 - 13.5 volts."
That is essentially what the Schumaker does - when voltage increases to 14.4
or so, it shuts 'OFF' and lets battery "free fall" (internally discharge) to
12.99 (13 v) at which time the voltage & current is turned back on until
reaching 14.4 again. It doesn't "cook" the battery in a "maintenance" mode.
With a fully charged battery, it takes time for about one blink of an eye to
go from 12.99 to 14.4v and shutoff. I think this fills the "requirement" or
"goal".
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: battery maintainer
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 07:20 AM 6/7/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
> ><frank.hinde@hp.com>
> >
> >Funny you should ask this because I did a similar experiment with a HF
> >charger a few years ago.
> >
> >Firstly let me say the plug in charger works great, plug 'em in walk
> >away.
>
> Do you have data on how this charger performs? For a "maintainer"
> we need a charge cycle that terminates somewhere above 14 - 14.5
> volts that reverts to a maintenance level around 13 - 13.5 volts.
> See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/schumacher_2.jpg
>
> Do you know if the device you tested does this? I had to
> discount one HF "maintainer" because it wouldn't go to
> the charge mode unless the battery to be charged was
> severely discharged.
>
> Snip . . .
>
>
> >Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
> >Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
> >wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
> >out to a couple of aligator clips.
>
> I'll see if I can get one of these too and check it out.
>
> > They also have the solar battery
> >charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
> >about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
> >regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
> >solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
> >into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
> >couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
> >clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
> >added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
> >
> >Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
> >insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
> >lighting?
>
> Don't know. Let's find out. On the way home from Apex, I
> crafted a DIY maintainer controller. I'll add the drawing
> to the battery maintenance article as soon as I can get
> around to it. I don't recommend that anyone build such a
> device when they're dirt cheap to buy already working. I
> think our best effort would research which products do
> it right.
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> 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: | Aerosport Supplied Alternator and Overvoltage - Request |
for comments
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hi all, I'd love to hear some comments regarding the alternator and
overvoltage system that come with my Aerosport engine. They use I think
a Denso 80 Amp Internally Regulated Alternator which I think is
supplied by niagaraairparts.com.
Here is a link to info on a similar 40A alternator install:
http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
Here is a link to info on the OV protection....the 2nd page
has the 100A version.
http://www.niagaraairparts.com/ASP101-PIT%201.pdf
I'd love it if people "in the know", like especially Bob, would provide
any feedback on the good and bad of this system. Currently I am
getting it provided with my engine, which I'll have at OSH. If there's
a major issue though where something is substandard, I'd love to hear
about it while I can still do something about it.
Thanks for any info you can provide.
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
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: Z-19 vs. Z-14 SpamAssassin (score=-2.56, |
required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Now I am confused b/c in searching the archive doing my research I came across
a thread that specifically stated that the SD-8 MUST in fact have a batt online
to get excited. If what you say is true I would also consider a 2nd batt
totally unnecessary.
> Another good thread. I went through a similar thought
> process a few weeks ago with Bob and one defining moment for
> me was in talking with Bill at B&C: when he said that the
> SD-8 would work without the battery. That means to me that
> if both the primary alt and only batt fail; I still have
> 8amps of power. Then, 1-1/2 lbs for the SD-8 vs. 12 lbs for
> the extra batt made my mind up to go with the single batt /
> dual alt configuration. Of course this is only my reasoning
> ..... still sound ???
> --
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | battery maintainer/load tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
> >Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
> >wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
> >out to a couple of aligator clips.
>
> I'll see if I can get one of these too and check it out.
My local store was sold out of the $low$ maintainers. I did
pick up a load tester:
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=91129
See photos:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_0.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_4.jpg
This little beastie is surprisingly useful. It has
an audible 15 second timer to help you conduct a
cranking test. The voltmeter does remote sense from
the battery test clips for accurate readings at
high current. The voltmeter is also quite accurate.
I conducted a 500A test first crack out of the box
and got a lot of stinky smoke (new carbon pile
parts). Subsequent tests were less distasteful.
You DO want to let it cool between high current
tests. My $high$ tester has a built in fan, it
wouldn't be hard to add one to this guy but I suspect
most folks won't need it.
The only down side was when I reassembled it, the
1.5MM machine screws threaded into too-thin sheet
metal stripped out when the little battery powered
screwdriver I was using bottomed out the screws . . .
If that's the ONLY thing I can find to carp about,
then this device is a steal at $60. Between this
load tester and the CBA-II cap checker at:
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
. . .you can have all the equipment you need to keep very
close tabs on not just the battery in your airplane
but all the batteries in your life.
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: | Devil's advocate |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Usually 3 approaches each (me & the safety pilot) which is usually a bit under
2 hours.
In the winter we had to cancel plenty of times due to wx. No cloud time when
the freezing level is below the cig was the rule. Also my home airport has
only a LOC approach with an MDA of around 500 agl. Worse if you have to
circle. That can keep you on the ground too.
do not archive
--- "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Out of interest Paul, How long do you spend doing approaches during this
> two weekly refresher?...I mean 1 hour, two??
>
> That doesn't sound too bad...and I guess its not often that you will
> actually get grounded by the weather is it?....:)
>
> Frank
>
> Do not archve
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: Aerosport Alternator and Overvoltage - |
Request for comments
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Request for comments
At 09:18 PM 6/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
>Hi all, I'd love to hear some comments regarding the alternator and
>overvoltage system that come with my Aerosport engine. They use I think
>a Denso 80 Amp Internally Regulated Alternator which I think is
>supplied by niagaraairparts.com.
>
>Here is a link to info on a similar 40A alternator install:
>http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
>
>Here is a link to info on the OV protection....the 2nd page
>has the 100A version.
>http://www.niagaraairparts.com/ASP101-PIT%201.pdf
>
>I'd love it if people "in the know", like especially Bob, would provide
>any feedback on the good and bad of this system. Currently I am
>getting it provided with my engine, which I'll have at OSH. If there's
>a major issue though where something is substandard, I'd love to hear
>about it while I can still do something about it.
Aha! They're doing b-lead disconnect protection on internally
regulated alternators . . . Wonder if they've tested their
recommended disconnect relay in the output of a runaway
alternator running at over 10,000 rpm?
I'll have to call my ol' friend Femmi at Zeftronics (assuming
he's still there. Last time I saw him was at OSH about 12 years
ago).
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: battery maintainer |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:00 PM 6/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
><dcarter@datarecall.net>
>
>Bob, if I remember correctly, you have recently obtained a Schumaker (sp?)
>charger. Or someone else has and the overall opinion was favorable.
I tested a specific model WM-1562A . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Maintenance/Schumacher_Bat_Maintainer_2.jpg
. . . and found it satisfactory which I'll suggest bodes well
for all of Schumacher's products. Battery chargers ARE their
core business.
>So, with regard to you post below, saying , "For a "maintainer" we need a
>charge cycle that terminates somewhere above 14 - 14.5 volts that reverts to
>a maintenance level around 13 - 13.5 volts."
Yup, here's the charging trace from the maintainer cited:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Maintenance/Schumacher_Bat_Maintainer.jpg
>That is essentially what the Schumaker does - when voltage increases to 14.4
>or so, it shuts 'OFF' and lets battery "free fall" (internally discharge) to
>12.99 (13 v) at which time the voltage & current is turned back on until
>reaching 14.4 again. It doesn't "cook" the battery in a "maintenance" mode.
>With a fully charged battery, it takes time for about one blink of an eye to
>go from 12.99 to 14.4v and shutoff. I think this fills the "requirement" or
>"goal".
Yes, I've published a compendium of maintainer data in
this .pdf file:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Maintenance/Charger_Maintainers.pdf
Thus far, the only one I found that was NOT satisfactory
is a Harbor Freight product that I couldn't get to jump out
of the maintainer mode into the charge mode without severely
discharging the battery.
I'll report on more maintainers and test equipment as I have
time and opportunity.
Bob . . .
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: battery maintainer/load tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
oops... Should be:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_4.jpg
Dick Tasker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
>
>
>>>Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
>>>Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
>>>wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
>>>out to a couple of aligator clips.
>>>
>>>
>> I'll see if I can get one of these too and check it out.
>>
>>
>
>
> My local store was sold out of the $low$ maintainers. I did
> pick up a load tester:
>
>http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=91129
>
>
>See photos:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_0.jpg
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_1.jpg
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_2.jpg
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_3.jpg
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_4.jpg
>
>
> This little beastie is surprisingly useful. It has
> an audible 15 second timer to help you conduct a
> cranking test. The voltmeter does remote sense from
> the battery test clips for accurate readings at
> high current. The voltmeter is also quite accurate.
>
> I conducted a 500A test first crack out of the box
> and got a lot of stinky smoke (new carbon pile
> parts). Subsequent tests were less distasteful.
> You DO want to let it cool between high current
> tests. My $high$ tester has a built in fan, it
> wouldn't be hard to add one to this guy but I suspect
> most folks won't need it.
>
> The only down side was when I reassembled it, the
> 1.5MM machine screws threaded into too-thin sheet
> metal stripped out when the little battery powered
> screwdriver I was using bottomed out the screws . . .
>
> If that's the ONLY thing I can find to carp about,
> then this device is a steal at $60. Between this
> load tester and the CBA-II cap checker at:
>
>http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
>
> . . .you can have all the equipment you need to keep very
> close tabs on not just the battery in your airplane
> but all the batteries in your life.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
--
----
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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aerosport Alternator and Overvoltage - Request |
for comments
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
I can add a single point of data. I have a 40A Denso from Niagara.
I have taken it to no load several times, both inadvertently and
vertently. Not knowing any better, I just wanted to see if pulling
the B lead circuit breaker would shut it down. What the hay, we are
experimenters ain't we?? It did, and nothing else happened that I
know of. I have also shut it down in flight several times using the
alternator switch which is feeding the 12V to the alternator
(regulator). This line goes by several names, but it is not field
current; but it can be used for turn the alternator on and off, which
I do every flight.
Consequently I am using Bob's (discontinued, I believe) OV module
with the contactor on the B lead (and on the 12V line to the
regulator) for (additional) OV protection.
Being a belt and suspender fellow, and stubborn by nature I also have
Bob's low volts warning flasher mounted in line with my nose.
I love my 40A Denso, and know many (virtually all of Bart's
customers) who have one. Have heard of only one failure at about 700
hours, which may be related to vibration. If so it would be
compelling evidence that B&Cs version is worth the extra bucks just
for the balancing. But I wish they would retain that internal
regulator to save a couple hundred bucks. It has passed my tests so
far, and its charging volts seems to be just right.
WARNING: This Denso is not the same as the one Van's sells! It looks
a lot like it but Van's 60A model is rebuilt with a much much
different internal regulator in it. The one Niagara sells, and its
deluxe brethern from B&C is brand new and has later technology.
I repeat the introductory remark. This is a single point of data.
Not recommending any one else perform my test! Especially don't do
it if you have a Van's 60A alternator!
I also have a radio master switch and a Cessna split master switch
but have renamed them because I hate to admit that I use them. I
like them and they have advantages which I feel outweigh the risks of
having them. Other than these minor flaws in my thinking I am a firm
disciple of Bob N's.
Denis Walsh
On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III Request for
comments wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net> Request for comments
>
> At 09:18 PM 6/7/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>>
>> Hi all, I'd love to hear some comments regarding the alternator and
>> overvoltage system that come with my Aerosport engine. They use I
>> think
>> a Denso 80 Amp Internally Regulated Alternator which I think is
>> supplied by niagaraairparts.com.
>>
>> Here is a link to info on a similar 40A alternator install:
>> http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
>>
>> Here is a link to info on the OV protection....the 2nd page
>> has the 100A version.
>> http://www.niagaraairparts.com/ASP101-PIT%201.pdf
>>
>> I'd love it if people "in the know", like especially Bob, would
>> provide
>> any feedback on the good and bad of this system. Currently I am
>> getting it provided with my engine, which I'll have at OSH. If
>> there's
>> a major issue though where something is substandard, I'd love to hear
>> about it while I can still do something about it.
>>
>
> Aha! They're doing b-lead disconnect protection on internally
> regulated alternators . . . Wonder if they've tested their
> recommended disconnect relay in the output of a runaway
> alternator running at over 10,000 rpm?
>
> I'll have to call my ol' friend Femmi at Zeftronics (assuming
> he's still there. Last time I saw him was at OSH about 12 years
> ago).
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: Aerosport Alternator and Overvoltage - Request |
for comments
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Byrne" <jack.byrne@bigpond.com>
Bob
Any info on this alternator/regulator setup will be very handy.
Am just unpacking my Aero Sport engine with a 40AMP Alt.
Regards
Chris Byrne
Sydney
> Aha! They're doing b-lead disconnect protection on internally
> regulated alternators . . . Wonder if they've tested their
> recommended disconnect relay in the output of a runaway
> alternator running at over 10,000 rpm?
>
> I'll have to call my ol' friend Femmi at Zeftronics (assuming
> he's still there. Last time I saw him was at OSH about 12 years
> ago).
>
> 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
I'm attaching an Icom A200 VHF to a Sigtronics ST-400 intercom.
The Sigtronics instructions say to connect three wires to the "MIC AUDIO",
"RADIO MIC KEY", and "HEADPHONE AUDIO" pins of the "Aircraft Radio".
Another set of Sigtronics installation instructions, for the SPA-400,
specifically denotes the H, J, and 9 pins, respectively, of the A200 for
these three functions. Does this mean I don't connect anything to the
corresponding aircraft radio ground pins for these functions? Is the
Sigtronics using the power ground as a return? Will this set up a ground loop?
Thanks in advance,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
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! --
|