Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:26 AM - Re: Z-13/Z-30 (Larry E. James)
2. 09:53 AM - Re: trim relay deck trim speed control (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/Z-30 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 10:13 AM - Re: OVP thoughts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 10:42 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/Z-30 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:42 AM - Re: OVP thoughts (Bob C.)
7. 10:43 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/Z-30 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 11:19 AM - Re: OVP thoughts (Roger L. Mell)
9. 11:58 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/Z-30 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
10. 12:27 PM - Re: Re: Z-13/Z-30 (Harley)
11. 01:10 PM - FW: [c-a] Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 1 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
12. 01:10 PM - FW: [c-a] Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
13. 03:30 PM - NARCO Help ()
14. 04:15 PM - Re: Avionics-List: NARCO Help (Wayne Sweet)
15. 07:42 PM - "Air" Switch & Antenna Ground Plane ()
16. 08:34 PM - Re: "Air" Switch & Antenna Ground Plane (Bruce Gray)
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 |
|
SpamAssassin (score=-2.58, required 3.7, autolearn=not spam,
AWL 0.02, BAYES_00 -2.60)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
>>Now I thought someone on this list
talked to B&C who said the >>SD-8 would
self excite??
That would be me :-) I spoke with Jim @
B&C and that is what I got from our
conversation. But, I am also not that
electrically savvy and could have
mis-understood something. It would be a
good thing for someone here with a good
handle on the issues to talk with Jim
and verify.
--
Larry E. James Bellevue, WA Harmon
Rocket II
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: trim relay deck trim speed control |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Lui,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I've downloaded
the data you cited below and I'm sorry to report that the
Ray Allen speed control module and Infinity relay deck
are not compatible.
For compatibility, the relay deck needs to have separate
supply lines to relay coils for control and motor power
so that the adjustable output voltage of the speed controller
affects only the motor and leaves relay coil supply power
at full bus voltage.
Bob . . .
At 10:34 AM 8/11/2005 -0500, youwrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lui Esc"
><f1rocketbuilder@hotmail.com>
>
>
>I have the Infinity Aeropsace Trim Relay Deck, see at
>
>http://www.infinityaerospace.com/Relay_Deck_Wiring_Schematic.jpg
>
>I am trying to install a Ray Allen Speed control for the pitch trim but have
>a few ?? on the wiring.
>
>http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionsSPD.pdf
>
>Not sure where to connect the red wire from the Speed control to the
>Infinity Relay Deck. The Relay Deck only has a
>
>1. A port for Trim motor
>2. B port for Trim motor
>3. +12 v
>4. Ground
>
>It doesn't have a provision for "blue wire" like shown on Diagram 2 of the
>Ray Allen schematic. I guess it is so simple that I don't see it.
>
>
>Thank you,
>
>Lui
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> Z-13 + Z30 looks good to me.
>Now
> >if Bob would only add the Z-30 extra battery to the Z-13/SD-8 drawing
> >and show it as one sheet...
> See http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z13-30.pdf
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>So, you thought maybe there was something to it and decided to draw it, eh?
>:-)Thanks Bob!
Note that the drawing doesn't have a z-figure . . . and probably
won't. I've had several requests for this particular configuration
and it didn't take too long to customize a copy of Z-13 and add
it to PagePerSystem drawings on the website . . .
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: OVP thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Folks, keep in mind that
(1) OV comes from ONE and ONE source only, a mis-behaving alternator.
Further, there are more devices in the airplane vulnerable to the
ov condition than just "avionics".
(2) If one subscribes to the notion that your particular choice
of internally regulated is sufficiently immune to OV runaway
events, then a choice of OV protection schemes is a moot point.
(3) If you subscribe to the notion that your alternator of choice
needs to be controllable for conducting pre-flight tests of auxiliary
alternators -AND- for dealing with smoke-in-the-cockpit events,
then some means of positive ON/OFF control from the cockpit is
indicated.
(4) If you're not convinced with respect to immunity from OV
failures, then an OV event can be brought to heel in a relatively
by means of positive ON/OFF control cited in (3). What ever
means of OV sense, reaction and control, the alternator should
be shut down in a reasonably short period of time (say under
500 milliseconds assuming a healthy battery - - and none of
us plan to fly with a sick battery - - right?).
>Someone else originally posted this link to Jim Weir's site where he
>uses one or more crowbar OVMs to pop the fuse(s) to the avionics. I
>think this is reasonable for VFR operations. It is not useful for those
>of us with electric dependant engines.
(5)If you control the OV condition at the SOURCE, then ALL
vulnerable features of the aircraft's electrical system
are protected irrespective of whether or not your engine
is electrically dependent.
>http://www.rst-engr.com/kitplanes/KP0109/KP0109.htm
>You might want a handheld VHF and GPS though as then you lose main
>battery power to the avionics. You could use CB's and reset them after
>killing the alternator but I hate relying on multi-step manual
>procedures when under stress.
>
>On my machine I did not use battery contactors but all the non engine
>loads do route through a contactor to a fuse block. An OVM could also be
>wired to trip that contactor and protect the avionics. That presents a
>single point of failure for all avionics power though. No main battery
>power to the avionics during a trip is the problem with these methods so
>it is not a great solution for IFR where you want uninterupted power. It
>might have merit for expensive devices that have internal battery
>backups and warnings though.
Would you care to post some power distribution diagrams that
describe your architecture. The lack of battery contactors piques
our interest. You've expressed some interest in management
of an OV event . . . it seems that elimination of battery contactors
offers possibilities for some equally exciting failure modes
that battery contactors are expected to control . . .
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 07:09 AM 8/17/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Now I thought someone on this list talked to B&C who said the SD-8 would
>self excite??
>
>Remember also that if you did have a battery terminal break, your main
>alternator will still provide power and keep the battery contactor
>closed.
>
>Personally I intend to connect the SD-8 directly to the battery buss (I
>have a electrically dependant airplane) so assuming it will self excite
>it takes care of the failure of both the battery terminal and a failed
>#1 alternator.
No, it won't. But it's easy to make sure you don't break a
battery terminal . . .
>Am I out to lunch here??
The SD-8 in its present configuration has been unchanged since
day-one and will not come on line by itself. To the best of my
knowledge, there are no plans to change this . . . although it
would be easy to do.
Folks who are unhappy about this and would like to see a well-
considered product improvement are encouraged to make their
wishes known to B&C. You ARE, after all, the CUSTOMERS.
In the mean time, my personal choice for system architecture
in an OBAM aircraft would be Z-13/8 and dual p-mags. This
combination offers quantum jumps in system reliability over
and above current certified products which are ALREADY
relatively immune to electrical system failures that grow
into catastrophic events.
If you're willing to launch into the gray stuff in a
well equipped certified ship, then an airplane fitted with
upgrades offered by the Z-13/8 w/p-mags stands very
tall over the certified iron.
In the interest of consistency and well considered, incremental
improvements to the best we know how to do today, I'll
suggest that forward thinking individuals take one of
the Z-figures and then identify ways in which their personal
design goals are not being met. Proposed changes/additions
are easy to evaluate for potential "gotchas" . . .
just put them out here on the list for discussion. Folks
who are still in the decision-making modes should be cautious
of embracing proposed derivatives before they've been
posted to the list and reduced to their component simple-
ideas.
This is not a discouragement of anyone's plans to install
whatever system offers them the most comfort. I'm only
suggesting that the neophyte builder embrace such
enhancements with caution and ideally only after new
ideas have been evaluated for failure to meet all
design goals.
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: OVP thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
Bob,
This seems to be the most talked about subject on this list and to some
extent the most confusing.
What is your current recommendation for a "positive off within 500ms" . . .
I had heard / read that you had concerns regarding earlier proposed
solutions (due to parts not performing as planned)??
Thanks,
Bob Christensen
On 8/18/05, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
> nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> Folks, keep in mind that
>
> (1) OV comes from ONE and ONE source only, a mis-behaving alternator.
> Further, there are more devices in the airplane vulnerable to the
> ov condition than just "avionics".
>
> (2) If one subscribes to the notion that your particular choice
> of internally regulated is sufficiently immune to OV runaway
> events, then a choice of OV protection schemes is a moot point.
>
> (3) If you subscribe to the notion that your alternator of choice
> needs to be controllable for conducting pre-flight tests of auxiliary
> alternators -AND- for dealing with smoke-in-the-cockpit events,
> then some means of positive ON/OFF control from the cockpit is
> indicated.
>
> (4) If you're not convinced with respect to immunity from OV
> failures, then an OV event can be brought to heel in a relatively
> by means of positive ON/OFF control cited in (3). What ever
> means of OV sense, reaction and control, the alternator should
> be shut down in a reasonably short period of time (say under
> 500 milliseconds assuming a healthy battery - - and none of
> us plan to fly with a sick battery - - right?).
>
>
> >Someone else originally posted this link to Jim Weir's site where he
> >uses one or more crowbar OVMs to pop the fuse(s) to the avionics. I
> >think this is reasonable for VFR operations. It is not useful for those
> >of us with electric dependant engines.
>
>
> (5)If you control the OV condition at the SOURCE, then ALL
> vulnerable features of the aircraft's electrical system
> are protected irrespective of whether or not your engine
> is electrically dependent.
>
> >http://www.rst-engr.com/kitplanes/KP0109/KP0109.htm
> >You might want a handheld VHF and GPS though as then you lose main
> >battery power to the avionics. You could use CB's and reset them after
> >killing the alternator but I hate relying on multi-step manual
> >procedures when under stress.
> >
> >On my machine I did not use battery contactors but all the non engine
> >loads do route through a contactor to a fuse block. An OVM could also be
> >wired to trip that contactor and protect the avionics. That presents a
> >single point of failure for all avionics power though. No main battery
> >power to the avionics during a trip is the problem with these methods so
> >it is not a great solution for IFR where you want uninterupted power. It
> >might have merit for expensive devices that have internal battery
> >backups and warnings though.
>
> Would you care to post some power distribution diagrams that
> describe your architecture. The lack of battery contactors piques
> our interest. You've expressed some interest in management
> of an OV event . . . it seems that elimination of battery contactors
> offers possibilities for some equally exciting failure modes
> that battery contactors are expected to control . . .
>
> 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:01 PM 8/18/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Barrow"
><bobbarrow10@hotmail.com>
>
>
>Frank, the SD8 will not self excite. Period. And even if it is running it
>may not reliably continue to do so without a battery connected.
If the capacitor shown in schematics that feature the SD-8
is included, the SD-8 will run fine sans battery . . . but
it's extremely unlikely that it will ever be required to do
so.
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: OVP thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger L. Mell" <rmell33@msn.com>
Bob, As a new builder trying to develop an understanding of aircraft electrical
systems, I would appreciate your detailed recommendation for achieving "control
of the OV condition at the SOURCE" as stated in (5) below. I've followed the
OV discussions for several weeks and remain totally confused.
Thanks,
Roger Mell
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com<mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OVP thoughts
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>>
Folks, keep in mind that
(1) OV comes from ONE and ONE source only, a mis-behaving alternator.
Further, there are more devices in the airplane vulnerable to the
ov condition than just "avionics".
(2) If one subscribes to the notion that your particular choice
of internally regulated is sufficiently immune to OV runaway
events, then a choice of OV protection schemes is a moot point.
(3) If you subscribe to the notion that your alternator of choice
needs to be controllable for conducting pre-flight tests of auxiliary
alternators -AND- for dealing with smoke-in-the-cockpit events,
then some means of positive ON/OFF control from the cockpit is
indicated.
(4) If you're not convinced with respect to immunity from OV
failures, then an OV event can be brought to heel in a relatively
by means of positive ON/OFF control cited in (3). What ever
means of OV sense, reaction and control, the alternator should
be shut down in a reasonably short period of time (say under
500 milliseconds assuming a healthy battery - - and none of
us plan to fly with a sick battery - - right?).
>Someone else originally posted this link to Jim Weir's site where he
>uses one or more crowbar OVMs to pop the fuse(s) to the avionics. I
>think this is reasonable for VFR operations. It is not useful for those
>of us with electric dependant engines.
(5)If you control the OV condition at the SOURCE, then ALL
vulnerable features of the aircraft's electrical system
are protected irrespective of whether or not your engine
is electrically dependent.
>http://www.rst-engr.com/kitplanes/KP0109/KP0109.htm
>You might want a handheld VHF and GPS though as then you lose main
>battery power to the avionics. You could use CB's and reset them after
>killing the alternator but I hate relying on multi-step manual
>procedures when under stress.
>
>On my machine I did not use battery contactors but all the non engine
>loads do route through a contactor to a fuse block. An OVM could also be
>wired to trip that contactor and protect the avionics. That presents a
>single point of failure for all avionics power though. No main battery
>power to the avionics during a trip is the problem with these methods so
>it is not a great solution for IFR where you want uninterupted power. It
>might have merit for expensive devices that have internal battery
>backups and warnings though.
Would you care to post some power distribution diagrams that
describe your architecture. The lack of battery contactors piques
our interest. You've expressed some interest in management
of an OV event . . . it seems that elimination of battery contactors
offers possibilities for some equally exciting failure modes
that battery contactors are expected to control . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Couldn't agree with you more. Now if they only had the 6 cyl version of the Pmag
out. Oh well, maybe some day. Anyone know where they are at with developing
a 6 cyl ver?
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 wing ribs
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: Re: Z-13/Z-30
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:09 AM 8/17/2005 -0700, you wrote:
snip
In the mean time, my personal choice for system architecture
in an OBAM aircraft would be Z-13/8 and dual p-mags. This
combination offers quantum jumps in system reliability over
and above current certified products which are ALREADY
relatively immune to electrical system failures that grow
into catastrophic events.
If you're willing to launch into the gray stuff in a
well equipped certified ship, then an airplane fitted with
upgrades offered by the Z-13/8 w/p-mags stands very
tall over the certified iron.
In the interest of consistency and well considered, incremental
improvements to the best we know how to do today, I'll
suggest that forward thinking individuals take one of
the Z-figures and then identify ways in which their personal
design goals are not being met. Proposed changes/additions
are easy to evaluate for potential "gotchas" . . .
just put them out here on the list for discussion. Folks
who are still in the decision-making modes should be cautious
of embracing proposed derivatives before they've been
posted to the list and reduced to their component simple-
ideas.
snip
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: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
>>Anyone know where they are at with developing a 6 cyl ver?<<
Probably not too far along...with all the problems they've been
encountering and trying to fix with their current versions, they
probably don't have time yet to develop something new.
In case you weren't aware, Marc Zeitlin in the Canard Aviators group has
been more-or-less "beta" testing it for them...he is one of the first to
fly with both the e-mag and the p-mag on a regular basis, and they are
bending over backward to solve all the problems that are occurring.
If you want to read more about their efforts, you can go to the Canard
Aviators group at Yahoo groups (
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canard-aviators ) and search the messages
with the keyword p-mag and you'll get a bunch of very informative
emails on the topic.
To be Fair, Emagair is to be commended for doing everything they can to
fix all the little problems, and notifying other owners of the fixes, as
well as offering free repairs and updates...but, as you said, it is
still a new and very different technology and there are bugs to be
worked out.
I have both an e-mag and a p-mag myself, not flying yet...waiting for
Brad and Tom (EmagAir) to say they've finally got it all sorted out! <G>
If anyone has trouble retrieving any of the messages at Yahoo groups, I
can post here a couple of the summaries that Marc submitted ... he has
been very thorough and detailed in his reports.
Harley Dixon
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> Couldn't agree with you more. Now if they only had the 6 cyl version of the
Pmag out. Oh well, maybe some day. Anyone know where they are at with developing
a 6 cyl ver?
>
>Michael Sausen
>-10 #352 wing ribs
>
>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
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13/Z-30
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 07:09 AM 8/17/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
>snip
>
> In the mean time, my personal choice for system architecture
> in an OBAM aircraft would be Z-13/8 and dual p-mags. This
> combination offers quantum jumps in system reliability over
> and above current certified products which are ALREADY
> relatively immune to electrical system failures that grow
> into catastrophic events.
>
> If you're willing to launch into the gray stuff in a
> well equipped certified ship, then an airplane fitted with
> upgrades offered by the Z-13/8 w/p-mags stands very
> tall over the certified iron.
>
> In the interest of consistency and well considered, incremental
> improvements to the best we know how to do today, I'll
> suggest that forward thinking individuals take one of
> the Z-figures and then identify ways in which their personal
> design goals are not being met. Proposed changes/additions
> are easy to evaluate for potential "gotchas" . . .
> just put them out here on the list for discussion. Folks
> who are still in the decision-making modes should be cautious
> of embracing proposed derivatives before they've been
> posted to the list and reduced to their component simple-
> ideas.
>snip
>
>
>
>
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: | FW: [c-a] Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 1 |
0.06 HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY BODY": aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Seeing how there has been suggestions that Pmags are the way to go, I thought
I would forward this on as a heads up from the canard group.......
-----Original Message-----
From: canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com [mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marc J. Zeitlin
Subject: [c-a] Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 1
Folks:
Yesterday I flew down from Fitchburg, MA to Brookhaven, NY to visit Ken Miller's
shop. I had arranged with Ken to purchase an impulse magneto from him to replace
the PMag that I've had on my engine. Ken would supervise the installation
and help out with any issues that arose.
The Emagair folks had suggested one last test for my flight down. I had thought
that heat might be damaging the electrolytic capacitors in the unit, so I put
a 2200 mF, 35V electrolytic across the +/- leads into the PMag (as they suggested).
The thought was that if the internal caps were damaged or degraded, this
would add enough capacitance to reverse the damage. No such luck (if you'd
call it luck to pinpoint the problem, rather than having it still be undefined)
- the capacitor did NOT change the "missing" issue that I've been having.
Anyway, after an uneventful flight, I sent my wife off to visit her mother, and
took the cowling off to let the engine cool a bit. I removed the Pmag, the auto
plugs and the wiring harness, disconnected the MP tap to the Pmag, and made
a small jumper harness to connect the magneto P-Lead back to the airplane.
One thing that jumped (and I mean JUMPED) out at Ken when he examined the Pmag
was damage/wear to the Pmag gear. This is supposed to be a non-impulse mag gear,
which you can either take off of a non-impulse magneto, buy at a flea market,
spend $400 purchasing new from Lycoming, or buy from Emagair as shown at:
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
Emagair has contracted to have these made for them, but they are NOT certified.
After the first 5-10 hours of use, I had seen what I thought was excessive wear
on this gear. I had mentioned it to Emagair, and during one of the PMag's
frequent visits home, they got to see it. At any rate, there was a LOT of wear.
Ken was VERY concerned, and since I had been planning on doing an oil change
within the next few hours anyway, I decided to do it there. Ken also called
in two engine experts that were in hangars nearby and got them to look at the
gear, as well as to look inside the accessory case and check out the engine
gears.
Upon inspecting the accessory case gears, no excessive wear or damage was found,
except for a few small dings in the drive gear which they did not find troubling
(and were probably caused by the magneto being loose last year during my
flight from VA to TN to MO). This was a good thing.
When we cut open the filter and examined it, there was a fair amount of ferrous
metal in the filter - Ken said he's seen way worse, but it was definitely more
than there should be, and it was something to be concerned with. All three
of the engine folks (Ken and the other two) were convinced that the metal had
come off of the Pmag produced gear. They all said that the gear should have been
hardened, and shouldn't have been able to wear like that. We took a file
to one tooth, and it cut easily - it obviously was NOT hardened, as the engine
guys said it should have been.
After much discussion and a phone call to Mattituck, they determined that since
the engine had been running for about 40 - 50 hours to make the metal in the
filter, and since there did not seem to be any degradation in the power output,
there PROBABLY was no other damage inside the engine, but that the gear was
a BIG problem. So I did the oil change, we put on a new filter, and we would
test the "no damage" theory, later.
to be continued:
--
Marc J. Zeitlin mailto:marc_zeitlin@alum.mit.edu
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2005
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canard-aviators/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
canard-aviators-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
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: | FW: [c-a] Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 |
0.06 HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY BODY": aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com [mailto:canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marc J. Zeitlin
Subject: [c-a] Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2
continued:
We installed the new Impulse Magneto, wiring harness, and a set of iridium plugs,
and timed it. With Ken's help, timing the impulse mag, which had taken me
the better part of a day and a great deal of a few folks sanity to perform last
year in St. Louis, took about 10 minutes. To paraphrase Sean Connery in "The
Wind and the Lion": "It is good to know what one is doing". After hooking
up everything, connecting the wires, hoses, lines, tie wraps, and every other
damn thing that we had taken apart, we did a 2 minute test run of the engine to
look for leaks or other problems. There were none.
I then went up for a 20 minute flight to circulate the oil through the filter and
take out any remaining metal, if any. After landing, I removed the cowl and
filter, and we cut that open. There was a completely insignificant amount of
ferrous metal in it, if any. That indicated to Ken that at least the engine
wasn't making any metal on it's own, at least not much. He said to keep a close
eye on it, so I'll be changing/checking filters every 25 hours for the next
few oil changes, rather than 50 hours.
The flight with the magneto was fine - no "missing", no issues whatsoever. Both
mags have almost exactly the same RPM drop during runup, and everything is nominal.
It feels VERY strange to be reverting to 60-70 year old technology, but
I needed an airplane that I could fly every day without having to explain to
my wife why it sounds like my old Volkswagen fastback that I bought for $75
in 1980, when it was already 10 years old.
So there are two big issues here, as I see them.
First, the "missing" issue. We still have no idea why my unit(s) continued to
exhibit the "missing" problem, even after the firmware update that was supposed
to fix it. Especially since it SEEMED fixed for about 15 hours just before
and during OSH, and then reappeared on the temporary Emag, and then immediately
on the "permanent" Pmag. This is an issue for Emagair to investigate, should
they choose to do so. They will have both of my units by mid-next week, and
will be refunding my money in full (which will pay for the magneto, the gear,
the wiring harness, the plugs, and leave me with a couple hundred $$$ left over
for some dinners in Lancaster, when we get out there :-) ).
Secondly, the "gear" issue. Since Lycoming sees fit to charge $400 for a gear
that, were it manufactured in quantity, would cost about $10-$20, there is great
pressure to find a cheaper source. The $85 gear from Emagair is just that.
However, it seems that AT LEAST FOR THE GEAR THAT I HAD ON MY PMAG, either the
material, the hardening, and/or the tooth shape was NOT correct. We held the
gear up to the gear on the impulse mag, and it did NOT appear identical in tooth
shape, although it was a bit hard to tell due to the material displacement/wear.
Since a file could touch it, we know that it was not hardened. Because
of these problems, I had a lot of metal in my engine that shouldn't have been
there.
I may be lucky and not have this cause a problem, but if it does, I will have to
have some serious conversations with Emagair regarding expenses incurred to
deal with them. Let's all hope that doesn't happen.
I would suggest, however, that anyone with an Emag or Pmag on their running engine
remove them to examine the gear for wear/damage. Maybe my gear was an anomaly
- god knows that I seem to have more than my fair share of them, but if there
was a bad run of gears, folks should check to make sure that they're not
making metal in their engines, too. Try to file a tip of one gear tooth - if
the file takes off metal, it's not hardened. Check with YOUR engine experts to
see if they concur that it SHOULD be hardened - that's what Ken and his two
guys said.
Anyway, I do want to reiterate that Brad and Tom at Emagair are terrific people,
with a great focus on customer support and satisfaction. I REALLY hope that
they are successful, and can figure out what's going on here so that in time
I can get one of these units on my airplane. I request that anyone flying with
these units report back to everyone, letting us know how they work, on a regular
basis - if I'm the one exception that proves the rule, so be it - there's
always one or two.
Thanks.
--
Marc J. Zeitlin mailto:marc_zeitlin@alum.mit.edu
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2005
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canard-aviators/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
canard-aviators-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
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: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/18/2005
Hello Avionics Experts, My friend has a Cessna 172 with a NARCO CP 136 TSO
audio control panel in it. One selects which radio to transmit on or which
receivers to listen to by pushing in round buttons. No intercom is
incorporated.
He has been having VHF radio transmitter problems that appear after an hour
or so of flight. Since both transmitters send out just basic carrier with no
voice included after this failure mode happens it has been assumed that the
failure may be heat related and caused within the audio panel since both
transmitters are affected the same way at the same time.
When the problem was discussed with a local avionics shop their analysis was
that it could not be a heat related problem within the audio panel because
the audio panel was a simple mechanical device with no electronics inside.
Nevertheless their solution was to replace the audio control panel with a
modern PS Engineering audio control panel and intercom at the cost of big
bucks.
Can anyone confirm this description of the inner workings and hidden
mechanisms of this audio control panel? Can anyone come up with a better
(cheaper) cure than the one described above? Thank you.
OC
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: Avionics-List: NARCO Help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I had that problem when I first wired my MustangII. The audio out from the
mic was grounded through a pinched wired to ground behind the instrument
panel. Does both pilot and copilot have that same problem?
Find the audio out wire from the audio panel (btw, I have found NARCO stuff
to be CRAP!) and from the affected mic and check it with a multimeter to
ground. If it shows continuity to ground, that's the problem
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: NARCO Help
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 8/18/2005
>
> Hello Avionics Experts, My friend has a Cessna 172 with a NARCO CP 136
> TSO
> audio control panel in it. One selects which radio to transmit on or which
> receivers to listen to by pushing in round buttons. No intercom is
> incorporated.
>
> He has been having VHF radio transmitter problems that appear after an
> hour
> or so of flight. Since both transmitters send out just basic carrier with
> no
> voice included after this failure mode happens it has been assumed that
> the
> failure may be heat related and caused within the audio panel since both
> transmitters are affected the same way at the same time.
>
> When the problem was discussed with a local avionics shop their analysis
> was
> that it could not be a heat related problem within the audio panel because
> the audio panel was a simple mechanical device with no electronics inside.
> Nevertheless their solution was to replace the audio control panel with a
> modern PS Engineering audio control panel and intercom at the cost of big
> bucks.
>
> Can anyone confirm this description of the inner workings and hidden
> mechanisms of this audio control panel? Can anyone come up with a better
> (cheaper) cure than the one described above? Thank you.
>
> OC
>
>
>
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: | "Air" Switch & Antenna Ground Plane |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: bniles@cfl.rr.com
Many airports now want transponders on for all ground movement. If
not I would just use STBY. If you forget, DEP control will remind you.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
> A couple of questions...
>
> In researching Transponders, many of the Install Manuals reference
> the use
> of an "Air Switch" to switch the Transponder in and out of Standby
> mode as
> the aircraft's airspeed crosses 30 kts+/-. Does anyone know
> anything about
> these Air Switches and/or a source for them?.....skip......
8/18/2005
Hello Bill and bniles, A couple of points if I may:
1) Many modern avionics installations have an interface between the GPS box
and the transponder that automatically turns the transponder on into
"Standby" and then on into "Altitude" modes when appropriate.
Applying power to my avionics bus causes the Garmin GNS 430 to come on if
the on box switch is left in the ON position. Applying power to my avionics
bus causes my GTX 327 to come on in the Standby mode regardless of any on
box switch positions (they are all momentary push buttons). When the GPS
tells the transponder that the airplane is airborne and going above a
certain speed the transponder automatically shifts from Standby to Altitude
mode -- no action at all is required by the pilot.
This feature could be considered an "Air Switch" by some people.
2) If operation of the transponder is done automatically as described above,
those airports that are expecting the transponders to be on while the
aircraft is on the ground will have to implement some sort of override
action by the pilots in order to make this happen.
OC
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: | "Air" Switch & Antenna Ground Plane |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
On my GTX 330, pressing the on button overrides the stby function and the
transponder functions, even if on the ground and under 30 kts.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Air" Switch & Antenna Ground Plane
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: bniles@cfl.rr.com
Many airports now want transponders on for all ground movement. If
not I would just use STBY. If you forget, DEP control will remind you.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
> A couple of questions...
>
> In researching Transponders, many of the Install Manuals reference
> the use
> of an "Air Switch" to switch the Transponder in and out of Standby
> mode as
> the aircraft's airspeed crosses 30 kts+/-. Does anyone know
> anything about
> these Air Switches and/or a source for them?.....skip......
8/18/2005
Hello Bill and bniles, A couple of points if I may:
1) Many modern avionics installations have an interface between the GPS box
and the transponder that automatically turns the transponder on into
"Standby" and then on into "Altitude" modes when appropriate.
Applying power to my avionics bus causes the Garmin GNS 430 to come on if
the on box switch is left in the ON position. Applying power to my avionics
bus causes my GTX 327 to come on in the Standby mode regardless of any on
box switch positions (they are all momentary push buttons). When the GPS
tells the transponder that the airplane is airborne and going above a
certain speed the transponder automatically shifts from Standby to Altitude
mode -- no action at all is required by the pilot.
This feature could be considered an "Air Switch" by some people.
2) If operation of the transponder is done automatically as described above,
those airports that are expecting the transponders to be on while the
aircraft is on the ground will have to implement some sort of override
action by the pilots in order to make this happen.
OC
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! --
|