Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:11 AM - Re: Low System Voltage Troubleshooting (Ken)
2. 06:52 AM - Radio problems (TimRhod@aol.com)
3. 08:02 AM - Re: Battery In Tail Questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:07 AM - Re: AMP connector pin source (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:15 AM - Re: Transponder "air switch" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:29 AM - Re: OVP thoughts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:32 AM - Re: recharge/jump start recepticle (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:46 AM - Re: OVP thoughts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:47 AM - Re: OVP thoughts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:51 AM - Re: Battery In Tail Questions (Sean Stephens)
11. 09:07 AM - Re: Battery In Tail Questions (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
12. 09:07 AM - Question on Z-14 dual alt system! (Mike Larkin)
13. 09:32 AM - Re: IR Alternator OVP (Leo Corbalis)
14. 09:33 AM - Re: Battery In Tail Questions (Sean Stephens)
15. 10:52 AM - Re: OVP thoughts (Ken)
16. 11:00 AM - Re: Battery In Tail Questions (Mickey Coggins)
17. 11:24 AM - Re: Radio problems (John Schroeder)
18. 11:25 AM - Re: Low System Voltage Troubleshooting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 11:56 AM - recharge/jump start recepticle (Larry E. James)
20. 12:04 PM - Re: Battery In Tail Questions (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
21. 12:08 PM - Re: Re: Transponder "air switch" (Mike Larkin)
22. 12:19 PM - Re: Battery In Tail Questions (Sean Stephens)
23. 12:25 PM - Re: Battery In Tail Questions (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
24. 12:41 PM - Re: OVP thoughts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 12:52 PM - Re: recharge/jump start recepticle (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 12:52 PM - Re: IR Alternator OVP (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 12:54 PM - Re: Battery In Tail Questions (John W. Cox)
28. 01:03 PM - Re: Question on Z-14 dual alt system! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 02:18 PM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Matt Prather)
30. 03:03 PM - Re: recharge/jump start recepticle SpamAssassin (Larry McFarland)
31. 03:07 PM - Re: recharge/jump start recepticle SpamAssassin (score=-2.58, required 3.7, autolearn=not spam, AWL 0.02, BAYES_00 -2.60) (Leo Corbalis)
32. 03:36 PM - Re: recharge/jump start recepticle SpamAssassin (sc... (BobsV35B@aol.com)
33. 04:59 PM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Mike Larkin)
34. 05:20 PM - Re: Low System Voltage Troubleshooting (Dale Ensing)
35. 06:16 PM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Richard McCraw)
36. 07:18 PM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Wayne Sweet)
37. 07:58 PM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Rick titsworth)
38. 08:18 PM - Re: risks to battery for in situ recharging (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
39. 08:25 PM - Re: Low System Voltage Troubleshooting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
40. 08:55 PM - Re: IR Alternator OVP (Speedy11@aol.com)
41. 09:20 PM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Mike Larkin)
42. 09:23 PM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Mike Larkin)
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: Low System Voltage Troubleshooting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>
> At
>Oshkosh, Bill Bainbridge immediately handed me his cell phone after dialing
>up Tim Johnson & Tim explained that in theory this was correct but the
>regulator may not have enough output ability to boost the system voltage
>back to the proper range as the reg. was starting with a lower voltage.
>
>
Interesting story Brian.
I believe you are saying that the Cessna switch was preventing the
alternator from getting sufficient field current. The switch itself must
have been running somewhat warm.
Some guys would have found this with just a voltmeter but I'd guess that
at least a few of us with such a problem might have jumpered the
regulator and when that didn't fix it, replaced the alternator. So I'd
say you did well to track this down with only a spare regulator to show
for it. (Jumpering from the battery to the alternator would have fixed
it but not just jumpering across the regulator.)
The thing that I like about a key switch is that nobody can crank the
engine if the key is in my pocket. I'm using a marine key switch for
cranking that has a 25 amp rating. Not for mags, just for cranking.
thanks for sharing
Ken
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
Fellow builders:
I am building a Velocity XLRG. I wonder if you could make some suggestions
to help me to trouble shoot a radio problem Im having. I have Garmin CNX-80
and SL-30 radios. I am able to transmit fine but both radios will only
recieve if you are within several hundred feet. Beyond that no reception. I have
dipole antennas, nav and comm in each wing that were prebuilt so I have no
acess to the antennas Each wing has one comm and one nav antenna. Each radio is
connected to a different antenna, right and left wing. Im not sure which
antenna is the nav and which is the comm but I tried both , one working better
than the other but neither one beyond a few hundred feet. From the RG-58 cable
comming from the wing I have a connection in the strake to RG-400 cable that
runs to the radio with one more connection about a foot behind the radio from a
prewired radio stack. I would appreciate any input you could suggest.
Thanks Tim
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery In Tail Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:05 AM 8/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>
>First off, I'd like to make the statement that I am a "noob" when it
>comes to some of these things, but I am slowly putting things together
>after reading The Connection and lurking here. So be gentle if I use
>some incorrect "terminology". :)
>
>I will most likely have some form of Z-13. At this point most likely a
>Z-13/Z-30 derivative. The dual bats will be in the tail.
How are you going to equip and use the airplane that
you find a need for four power sources?
>I believe that a good place to establish the main power distribution bus
>connection is to connect from the starter contactor.
Yes.
> Maybe an ANL
>between? Is that correct?
No
>My biggest sticking point is with the bat bus and aux bat bus being in
>the tail. The feeds to the bat/aux bat bus items along with the e-bus
>alt feed will have to run the length of the fuse. I read in The
>Connection that it is wise to run all these wires along one side of the
>plane (Page-7 Note 5)? Is it ok to have all the large and small wires
>routed together in one conduit?
Yes, bundle them right together with the battery feeders.
> Are there other issues I have to be
>concerned with?
>
>Maybe I'm just making too big a deal out of it and as long as my fuses
>and wires are properly sized, the battery buses being located in the
>tail will be just fine? I guess I just need confirmation that I'm on
>the right track and maybe a few "gotchas" that I need to look out for.
No, you're okay with the architecture described. I'm just concerned
that you are perhaps carrying around way too much harware and wire
for the task. Why wouldn't Z-13/8 and a single 17 a.h. battery
on the firewall NOT meet the needs of your proposed flight system?
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: AMP connector pin source |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:45 AM 8/21/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Mickey Coggins
><mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
><<Hi, I'm trying to locate a website where I can buy
>AMP pins that go into a strobe AMP connector.
>
>I'm sure someplace like Digikey has them, but
>I can't find them on their website.
See http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T052/0122-0132.pdf
Page 127
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: | Re: Transponder "air switch" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:06 AM 8/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>Thanks, guys, for your help. Unfortunately, I still haven't gotten an answer
>to my question. I originally asked:
>
>"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?"
>
>Allow me to add some additional information:
>
>The Transponder that I have narrowed my focus to is the Microair T2000. The
>"Air Switch" is used to either ground a pin or lift the pin from ground
>(configurable). It will not accept GPS information.
>
>Don't laugh, but I will be using the transponder on a US Part 103
>Ultralight. I will be operating just outside of the Chicago Class "B", so
>I'd like to make sure that I stick out a bit. I checked with the FSDO and
>they said I could do it, but the XPDR will have to undergo the same
>inspections and checks that it would if it were installed in a GA plane.
>
>And since I will be operating out of an untowered airport, there would be no
>advantage to having the XPDR "on" while on the ground.
>
>So, any help with the switch would be greatly appreciated....
The "air switch" was suggested as a means for keeping the
transponder from being accidently left ON during ground ops.
Some airport radar systems were vulnerable to strong signal
overload when bunches aircraft taxiing on the ground were replying
to radar interrogations.
This is unlikely to be an issue for the way you'll use a Part 103
aircraft. Even if it were an "issue" . . . it's one that is easily
addressed with attention to checklists that turn transponder ON on
takeoff roll and turn it back off as you leave the active runway.
I recommend you not install this feature. The vast majority
of certified ships flying do not have such a switch.
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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:41 PM 8/19/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> >
> >
> > 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 . . .
> >
> >
> >
>Sorry but my diagrams are in pencil and not very neat ;)
>
>Essentially I have a Z-14 with no battery contactors. My main interest
>is two hot battery busses to feed the electrically dependant engine and
>I don't ever want to disconnect those engine computers from a battery.
>
>Each of those busses distributes through a 6 fuse fuseblock and has low
>voltage warnings. Almost everything else, including the starter, is
>routed through a contactor and then a 10 fuse fuseblock. If I open that
>contactor then it kills everything but the battery busses which is no
>problem as the primary gyros are vacuum operated. I know vacuum is less
>reliable but I prefer a six pack and vacuum was affordable at the time.
>There is a low vacuum warning. Instead of plumbing an engine intake
>manifold backup vacuum source I added a $30. flymarket 28 volt electric
>T&B which works just fine on 12volts with surprisingly little change in
>rpm or current draw.
Do you plan to have a wing leveler? If so, this is a 99% better
backup to vacuum gyros than hand-flying needle-ball-airspeed.
> A handheld vhf and gps backup is available if
>needed and one cigarette lighter outlet is powered from a battery bus.
>There is an OVM and a B-lead contactor/relay on both the main 40 amp
>alternator and the 20 amp PM alternator.
>
>This was fairly carefully considered as appropriate for my needs and a
>bit simpler than the stock Z-14. There is no separate starter contactor
>but I can still kill power to the automotive starter. This also
>eliminates two battery contactors but adds in that one power
>distribution contactor. The batteries are wee 8 AH units and the
>crossfeed closes for cranking. Since I have 3 busses, all switches are
>color keyed red (left battery bus for backup engine controls), blue
>(right battery bus for primary engine), and yellow (the switched non
>essential) bus. Pilot operating simplicity was very much a
>consideration. All warnings (except low fuel and crossfeed closed) are
>done with a Grand Rapids EIS.
My first impression is that you've stirred a lot of separate
worries into a really big bucket full of "solutions". If you
have a vacuum system, why Z-14? How is your engine electrically
dependent? What loads must be powered to keep the engine running?
What advantage for eliminating battery contactors outweighs the
value of maximizing control over the electrical system. It's
not clear what your design goals were for the changes you've cited.
Can be back up to a stock Z-14 and discuss how it falls short?
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: | Re: recharge/jump start recepticle |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:40 AM 8/21/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
><jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
>Bob -
>
>We installed your ground power system in addition to the Z-14 in our
>Lancair ES. I bought a small power supply on eBay that you had recommended
>(12V nominal that had been set to 13.5V by the seller). We use it all the
>time to check out the electrical system and instrumentation. Great setup.
>Works great.
>
>I would like to use the external power receptacle to plug in a battery
>charger/maintainer. It should work well to charge/maintain the #1 battery
>when just the ground power switch/cb is on and the contactor is closed.
>This means we give up .8 amp off the top of the charger's capacity.
>
>However, the problem comes when we want to charge/maintain the #2 battery.
>By using the external power jack, we have to have all four of the
>contactors closed - giving up 3.2 amps. The entire electrical system of
>the aircraft would be hot while the batteries charge. We then worry about
>one battery being over charged if the other one is lower. Any
>tender/maintainer will stay on the charge cycle until it senses the lowest
>battery at the peak charge before going to the maintain mode. Correct?
>
>Question: Is it a good idea to use the ground power system to charge and
>maintain the batteries?
>
>If so, can you recommend a maintainer and a circuit change that can do
>the job?
>
>Or, would it be better to just add 4 more wires and a couple of plugs to
>the batteries and use two of the smaller tenders?
The ground power jack was never intended to be useful for
battery maintenance. It's main attributes are to supply high
current, external power for ground maintenance operations and
as battery assist during cold weather starts. If you want
to install maintainers (largely unnecessary on RG batteries)
then a small, 3 pin connector for ground, bat 1, bat 2 with
relatively small wires tied to fuses on each battery's hot
battery bus is the way to support the batteries while hangared.
The self-discharge rate on RG batteries is exceedingly low. If
you fly just once every 6 months, there's little benefit to
be realized by "plugging in".
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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:08 PM 8/18/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> 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
For the moment, don't waste any good sleeping time over this
discussion. There are two schools of thought being considered:
Classic ov protection systems have simply shut down the offending
alternator/regulator combination when an ov condition was detected.
This philosophy (Plan-A) has been in place for decades and is illustrated
in any Z-figures that offer ov protection solutions.
Since internally regulated alternators cannot be controlled
from outside during an OV event, Plan-B suggests a sprinkling
of ov clamping devices (transorbs) downstream of circuit
protection devices (breakers or fuses) to protect each feeder to a
vulnerable component. This philosophy has also been offered as a
prophylactic against the load-dump transients which ANY form of
engine driven power system will produce under the right circumstances.
The big question to be answered for a rational design approach
is to Plan B (1) figure out a way to disconnect the errant alternator
during an OV event and (2) size any load-dump clamping hardware
so that it's not at-risk for failure as a result of the load-dump
event.
There are multiple issues intertwined here. Both load-dump and
ov events are rare. Don't spend much time worrying about them and
concentrate on getting your airplane finished. What ever the
elegant solution turns out to be, it can be addressed at any
time later in your building process.
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: OVP thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:41 PM 8/18/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> 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
See my post of a few minutes ago on the same subject.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery In Tail Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 11:05 AM 8/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>>
>> First off, I'd like to make the statement that I am a "noob" when it
>> comes to some of these things, but I am slowly putting things together
>> after reading The Connection and lurking here. So be gentle if I use
>> some incorrect "terminology". :)
>>
>> I will most likely have some form of Z-13. At this point most likely a
>> Z-13/Z-30 derivative. The dual bats will be in the tail.
>>
>
> How are you going to equip and use the airplane that
> you find a need for four power sources?
>
IFR Panel, Dual Chelton screens. Initially, single lightspeed ignition,
but thinking if dual. Would go dual p-mag if they were out for 6 cyl.
Most common use for this bird would be long x-country family trips with
the kids in the back. Z-13/20 single bat would probably cover it, but
what's the extra PC680 hurt? Especially if I plan a future upgrade to
dual elec ignition? Also will have elec fuel pump.
>
>> I believe that a good place to establish the main power distribution bus
>> connection is to connect from the starter contactor.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> Maybe an ANL
>> between? Is that correct?
>>
>
> No
>
>
Ok, thought I saw that somewhere in The Connection, but can't find it now.
>
>> My biggest sticking point is with the bat bus and aux bat bus being in
>> the tail. The feeds to the bat/aux bat bus items along with the e-bus
>> alt feed will have to run the length of the fuse. I read in The
>> Connection that it is wise to run all these wires along one side of the
>> plane (Page-7 Note 5)? Is it ok to have all the large and small wires
>> routed together in one conduit?
>>
>
>
> Yes, bundle them right together with the battery feeders.
>
>
>> Are there other issues I have to be
>> concerned with?
>>
>> Maybe I'm just making too big a deal out of it and as long as my fuses
>> and wires are properly sized, the battery buses being located in the
>> tail will be just fine? I guess I just need confirmation that I'm on
>> the right track and maybe a few "gotchas" that I need to look out for.
>>
>
> No, you're okay with the architecture described. I'm just concerned
> that you are perhaps carrying around way too much harware and wire
> for the task. Why wouldn't Z-13/8 and a single 17 a.h. battery
> on the firewall NOT meet the needs of your proposed flight system?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Would most likely be a Z-13/20 if going with Z-13-single bat. Also, the
battery has to be in the tail for w&b reasons in the RV-10. With the
IO-540-D4A5 up front it is a little nose heavy as it is already. Hence
the engineering of the bat tray in the rear. I WISH, believe me, that I
could have a single bat on the firewall with an IO-540 up front. It
would make things SOOOOO much simpler. The only way I would be able to
do that is to add more dead weight in the tail.
I see your point about the need for dual bat. But I was just thinking
ahead along the dual elec ignition route. The only thing I was
wondering is all those darn wires running up to the front and back.
Anything off the bat bus, including e-bus alt feed, aux alt back to the
battery contactor, etc. It's about a 10 foot run from the bat tray in
the tail of the RV-10 to the front.
Even if I went the standard Z-13/20 route without adding the Z-30, the
requirement of the bat in the tail would dictate a lot of big wire runs
to the front and back. It would seem that adding in Z-30 for future
expansion would be minimal compared to the runs that are already needed?
Thanks Bob...
-Sean
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: | Battery In Tail Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
How about split the difference with Main Battery in back and a smaller aux battery
in front?
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sean
Stephens
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery In Tail Questions
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 11:05 AM 8/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>>
>> First off, I'd like to make the statement that I am a "noob" when it
>> comes to some of these things, but I am slowly putting things together
>> after reading The Connection and lurking here. So be gentle if I use
>> some incorrect "terminology". :)
>>
>> I will most likely have some form of Z-13. At this point most likely a
>> Z-13/Z-30 derivative. The dual bats will be in the tail.
>>
>
> How are you going to equip and use the airplane that
> you find a need for four power sources?
>
IFR Panel, Dual Chelton screens. Initially, single lightspeed ignition,
but thinking if dual. Would go dual p-mag if they were out for 6 cyl.
Most common use for this bird would be long x-country family trips with
the kids in the back. Z-13/20 single bat would probably cover it, but
what's the extra PC680 hurt? Especially if I plan a future upgrade to
dual elec ignition? Also will have elec fuel pump.
>
>> I believe that a good place to establish the main power distribution bus
>> connection is to connect from the starter contactor.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> Maybe an ANL
>> between? Is that correct?
>>
>
> No
>
>
Ok, thought I saw that somewhere in The Connection, but can't find it now.
>
>> My biggest sticking point is with the bat bus and aux bat bus being in
>> the tail. The feeds to the bat/aux bat bus items along with the e-bus
>> alt feed will have to run the length of the fuse. I read in The
>> Connection that it is wise to run all these wires along one side of the
>> plane (Page-7 Note 5)? Is it ok to have all the large and small wires
>> routed together in one conduit?
>>
>
>
> Yes, bundle them right together with the battery feeders.
>
>
>> Are there other issues I have to be
>> concerned with?
>>
>> Maybe I'm just making too big a deal out of it and as long as my fuses
>> and wires are properly sized, the battery buses being located in the
>> tail will be just fine? I guess I just need confirmation that I'm on
>> the right track and maybe a few "gotchas" that I need to look out for.
>>
>
> No, you're okay with the architecture described. I'm just concerned
> that you are perhaps carrying around way too much harware and wire
> for the task. Why wouldn't Z-13/8 and a single 17 a.h. battery
> on the firewall NOT meet the needs of your proposed flight system?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Would most likely be a Z-13/20 if going with Z-13-single bat. Also, the
battery has to be in the tail for w&b reasons in the RV-10. With the
IO-540-D4A5 up front it is a little nose heavy as it is already. Hence
the engineering of the bat tray in the rear. I WISH, believe me, that I
could have a single bat on the firewall with an IO-540 up front. It
would make things SOOOOO much simpler. The only way I would be able to
do that is to add more dead weight in the tail.
I see your point about the need for dual bat. But I was just thinking
ahead along the dual elec ignition route. The only thing I was
wondering is all those darn wires running up to the front and back.
Anything off the bat bus, including e-bus alt feed, aux alt back to the
battery contactor, etc. It's about a 10 foot run from the bat tray in
the tail of the RV-10 to the front.
Even if I went the standard Z-13/20 route without adding the Z-30, the
requirement of the bat in the tail would dictate a lot of big wire runs
to the front and back. It would seem that adding in Z-30 for future
expansion would be minimal compared to the runs that are already needed?
Thanks Bob...
-Sean
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: | Question on Z-14 dual alt system! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
Bob,
Why did you use a 4AWG line from the large alternator on the Z-14
drawing? I was thinking you could use a 10AWG line for runs of less
then 10 feet or so without any problems. I was wondering if I am
overlooking something, what are your thoughts on this?
Mike Larkin
Lancair Legacy
Kitfox
TS-11 Iskra
-----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: OVP thoughts
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:08 PM 8/18/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> 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
For the moment, don't waste any good sleeping time over this
discussion. There are two schools of thought being considered:
Classic ov protection systems have simply shut down the offending
alternator/regulator combination when an ov condition was detected.
This philosophy (Plan-A) has been in place for decades and is
illustrated
in any Z-figures that offer ov protection solutions.
Since internally regulated alternators cannot be controlled
from outside during an OV event, Plan-B suggests a sprinkling
of ov clamping devices (transorbs) downstream of circuit
protection devices (breakers or fuses) to protect each feeder to a
vulnerable component. This philosophy has also been offered as a
prophylactic against the load-dump transients which ANY form of
engine driven power system will produce under the right
circumstances.
The big question to be answered for a rational design approach
is to Plan B (1) figure out a way to disconnect the errant
alternator
during an OV event and (2) size any load-dump clamping hardware
so that it's not at-risk for failure as a result of the load-dump
event.
There are multiple issues intertwined here. Both load-dump and
ov events are rare. Don't spend much time worrying about them and
concentrate on getting your airplane finished. What ever the
elegant solution turns out to be, it can be addressed at any
time later in your building process.
Bob . . .
--
8/18/2005
--
8/18/2005
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: | Re: IR Alternator OVP |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
I came across this article while looking for something else. "Is Your
Aircraft Alternator Really Airworthy ?" in the 1990 April issue of Sport
Aviation page90. It is designed to detect open or shorted diodes and arcing
brushes. Could this be useful for spotting impending failures? The output is
to 3 LEDs so it should be easy to add to a crowded panel. I have a Rotax 912
so it's not very useful to me.
Leo Corbalis
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IR Alternator OVP
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> speedy11@aol.com wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: speedy11@aol.com
>>
>>
>> Suppose one installed an internally regulated alternator and wanted
>> overvoltage protection.
>>Suppose the alternator has a B lead to power the bus, a S lead to sense
>>voltage on the bus and adjust the alternator output, and a "G" lead for
>>grounding.
>>Question 1 - would breaking the ground wire cause the alternator to quit?
>>Question 2 - If so, then could one have a sensor on the B lead that,
>>during an overvoltage, would command a contactor in the ground wire to
>>open and thus shut down the alternator?
>>Question 3 - Could said contactor be a solid state relay instead?
>>Ready for the flames.
>>Stan Sutterfield
>>RV-8A
>>
>
> It's likely that the case is common with the G terminal. You can check
> with an ohm meter. Even if it isn't, there would be no advantage to
> breaking the ground because the same current flows in the return path as
> the B+ path. As long as the solid state relay can handle the voltage &
> current, sure, it will work.
>
> (There are all kinds of subtle reasons why you can and/or can't do any
> of the above, but the experts would have to kill you if they explained
> it.) < obligatory :-) >
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
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: Battery In Tail Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Tim Dawson-Townsend wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
>
>
> How about split the difference with Main Battery in back and a smaller aux battery
in front?
>
> TDT
>
>
I thought about that Tim. But doesn't it still require runs to the
tail? If using Z-30 for example? A run between bat contactors and a
run for the e-bus alt feed to the main bat bus?
I'm struggling with minimizing large wire runs. I guess I just can't
picture it. Maybe if I saw something in front of me it would just click
I guess. "The light would go on". :)
-Sean
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sean
> Stephens
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery In Tail Questions
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>
>> At 11:05 AM 8/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>>>
>>> First off, I'd like to make the statement that I am a "noob" when it
>>> comes to some of these things, but I am slowly putting things together
>>> after reading The Connection and lurking here. So be gentle if I use
>>> some incorrect "terminology". :)
>>>
>>> I will most likely have some form of Z-13. At this point most likely a
>>> Z-13/Z-30 derivative. The dual bats will be in the tail.
>>>
>>>
>> How are you going to equip and use the airplane that
>> you find a need for four power sources?
>>
>>
> IFR Panel, Dual Chelton screens. Initially, single lightspeed ignition,
> but thinking if dual. Would go dual p-mag if they were out for 6 cyl.
> Most common use for this bird would be long x-country family trips with
> the kids in the back. Z-13/20 single bat would probably cover it, but
> what's the extra PC680 hurt? Especially if I plan a future upgrade to
> dual elec ignition? Also will have elec fuel pump.
>
>>
>>
>>> I believe that a good place to establish the main power distribution bus
>>> connection is to connect from the starter contactor.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Maybe an ANL
>>> between? Is that correct?
>>>
>>>
>> No
>>
>>
>>
> Ok, thought I saw that somewhere in The Connection, but can't find it now.
>
>>
>>
>>> My biggest sticking point is with the bat bus and aux bat bus being in
>>> the tail. The feeds to the bat/aux bat bus items along with the e-bus
>>> alt feed will have to run the length of the fuse. I read in The
>>> Connection that it is wise to run all these wires along one side of the
>>> plane (Page-7 Note 5)? Is it ok to have all the large and small wires
>>> routed together in one conduit?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, bundle them right together with the battery feeders.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Are there other issues I have to be
>>> concerned with?
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm just making too big a deal out of it and as long as my fuses
>>> and wires are properly sized, the battery buses being located in the
>>> tail will be just fine? I guess I just need confirmation that I'm on
>>> the right track and maybe a few "gotchas" that I need to look out for.
>>>
>>>
>> No, you're okay with the architecture described. I'm just concerned
>> that you are perhaps carrying around way too much harware and wire
>> for the task. Why wouldn't Z-13/8 and a single 17 a.h. battery
>> on the firewall NOT meet the needs of your proposed flight system?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
> Would most likely be a Z-13/20 if going with Z-13-single bat. Also, the
> battery has to be in the tail for w&b reasons in the RV-10. With the
> IO-540-D4A5 up front it is a little nose heavy as it is already. Hence
> the engineering of the bat tray in the rear. I WISH, believe me, that I
> could have a single bat on the firewall with an IO-540 up front. It
> would make things SOOOOO much simpler. The only way I would be able to
> do that is to add more dead weight in the tail.
>
> I see your point about the need for dual bat. But I was just thinking
> ahead along the dual elec ignition route. The only thing I was
> wondering is all those darn wires running up to the front and back.
> Anything off the bat bus, including e-bus alt feed, aux alt back to the
> battery contactor, etc. It's about a 10 foot run from the bat tray in
> the tail of the RV-10 to the front.
>
> Even if I went the standard Z-13/20 route without adding the Z-30, the
> requirement of the bat in the tail would dictate a lot of big wire runs
> to the front and back. It would seem that adding in Z-30 for future
> expansion would be minimal compared to the runs that are already needed?
>
> Thanks Bob...
>
> -Sean
>
>
>
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: OVP thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>
> My first impression is that you've stirred a lot of separate
> worries into a really big bucket full of "solutions". If you
> have a vacuum system, why Z-14? How is your engine electrically
> dependent? What loads must be powered to keep the engine running?
> What advantage for eliminating battery contactors outweighs the
> value of maximizing control over the electrical system. It's
> not clear what your design goals were for the changes you've cited.
> Can be back up to a stock Z-14 and discuss how it falls short?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
For an experimental one off system with many homemade components and
wiring, I have chosen to provide complete electronic redundancy. Sure
this is probably overkill but I will not be uncomfortabe taking this
automotive powered airplane on long trips or over hostile territory as
far as fuel and ignition concerns. Many auto conversions never seem to
go very far from home base and I don't want to stay close to home for
hundreds of hours while establishing system reliability. This electrical
architecture is far more flexible than adding extra small batteries for
ignition or injection backup.
Anyway when I realized that the vast majority of my wiring was ignition
and fuel injection that would go on a battery bus anyway and that
nothing else was what I considered essential, then classic battery
contactors don't seem to offer me an advantage. They would add another
contactor or two and not really let me de-energise any extra wiring
since the contactors and batteries are all very close together.
I guess one design goal was that there is no way that the battery can be
disconnected from an alternator while leaving that alternator connected
to any loads. That is in some ways an extension of the philosophy of
running the engine off a battery bus and I think it is perhaps
appropriate for an IR alternator, which is the only type that I can
personally envision purchasing anymore for a new installation. I can
still de-energise everything that battery contactors would de-energise.
Ken
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery In Tail Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> I'm struggling with minimizing large wire runs. I guess I just can't
> picture it. Maybe if I saw something in front of me it would just click
> I guess. "The light would go on". :)
I have not run a W&B on the RV10, but it might be possible to take
the amount of weight you are adding in wiring and add it to the
very end of the fuselage, and put the batteries on the firewall.
I've got my batteries behind my baggage area on my RV8, but
since I'm using a Subaru engine, which has a starter that
does not draw as much current as a Lycoming, I only need
AWG#6 welding cable from the batteries to the starter.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Radio problems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Tim -
Do you have an audio/intercomm box installed?
In the setup section of theSL30, there are several choices to make in the
system. Same for the 480 in its ground maintenance mode. If you have not
already done so, check these settings. I don't have the manuals with me,
but there are gain settings in both radios. If you have a Garmin 340 audio
box, it may not be wired right for the audio feed to your headsets. Also,
are the two comm antennae installed vertically in the wing tip?
John
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:50:30 EDT, <TimRhod@aol.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
>
>
> I am able to transmit fine but both radios will only recieve if you are
> within several hundred feet. Beyond that no reception. > I have
> dipole antennas, nav and comm in each wing that were prebuilt so I
> have no access to the antennas Each wing has > one comm and one nav
> antenna. Each radio is connected to a different antenna, right and
> left wing. Im not sure which
> antenna is the nav and which is the comm but I tried both , one working
> better than the other but neither one beyond a few > hundred feet.
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: Low System Voltage Troubleshooting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
I'm keeping Brian's posting together in it's entirety with this
response so that the whole story will be available in one message.
The "Cessna style" split rocker switches have been a source
of regulator instability problems on both production and certified
ships for decades. This simple fact might lead one to believe
that the split rocker switch was of inferior design or manufacture.
Please know that all the switch guts behind the panel for the
classic split rocker are exactly the same as for the S700 series
toggle switches offered by B&C and others. Both switches are
made by Carling. The S700 are catalog items, the split rocker
is a custom.
The REASON for voltage regulations problems has root cause
of increased contact resistance in the closed switch. When
field current AND regulator voltage sense come through the
same contacts, the switch can ADD to the sum total of ALL
resistances in this pathway. When they rise to a sufficiently
high level, the voltage regulator can mis-behave. Quite
often, folks have made the problem go away by replacing the
switch . . . but this is only one of several components that
contribute to the instability.
There are so many split rocker switches in service (tens of
thousands) that the probability of spotlighting one of these
switches as contributor to voltage instability is quite high.
However, replacing the split rocker with a toggle is NOT
a golden solution. There is potential for the same problem
to arise later no matter which style of switch is used.
There are some design philosophies that will make the problem
go away entirely. Its a good thing to separate field supply and
voltage sense feed lines. This change was made to the B&C
product lines years ago. Unfortunately, builders who use the
generic Ford regulators are not able to separate the lines.
Not a big deal . . . but to live comfortably with this
configuration, one should minimize joints in series with
the field/sense feed line. This was one of the considerations
that made crowbar ov protection attractive 20 years ago . . .
it provides a means for OV sense and shutdown while adding
NO series resistance to the circuit.
New spilt rocker switches are often tagged as problem
children. Probably because they're a special order switch
that tend to set in the warehouse for a long time. An
unused but new switch may have some storage corrosion
on what used to be shinny contacts. This may well reduce
service life on what the installer believes is a
"good as new" switch.
This is NOT a recommendation to avoid either the split
rocker OR the generic three-wire regulators. The purpose
of this dissertation is to make folks aware of how these
components behave under certain conditions. When and
if one has a voltage instability problem, total resistance
between the bus and the regulator should be reduced . . .
which may include replacement of the battery master switch.
At 12:28 PM 8/20/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Cross <bcross2160@rogers.com>
>
>Hi Folks
>
>I just wanted to comment on a problem I had been having for 6 years on my
>aircraft. This is in response to a previous post I made about 3 weeks ago
>& Kevin Horton & Ken Klehman were kind enough to supply some advice.
>
>The electrical system is a classic Nuckolls system. It is very similar to
>Z-1 as published in 1996. This is a simple system with a linear
>regulator, mine is a B&C LR-3B. I did not use a toggle switch but a
>standard aircraft key switch & Cessna style Battery/Alternator Master switch.
>
>My helper during construction was a very bright guy who has his masters in
>Elec. Engineering. The electrical installation is really really good due
>to his work. He even used waxed lacing for wire ties which looks and
>performs beautifully. Only 1 operational problem right from day one which
>was July 25, 1999.
>
>I was having so much fun flying etc. that I did not work too hard to solve
>it as it did not keep me out of the air but bugged me as I know it was not
>right.
>
>The problem was the system voltage peaked at about 13.8 V and decreased
>each time I added a load of any kind to the system. Each load would drop
>the system load by about 0.1-0.2 volts. I could easily drop the system
>voltage down to 12.8-12.9 volts but as most of my flying was day VFR, it
>rarely got there.
>
>I have an EI gauge to show volts/amps & also my Garmin 195 would display
>the same. (I reasoned that it made sense to have the EI gauge mounted on
>the Essential bus as I would want to know the condition of the battery if I
>had to feed the E bus directly per the alternate feed switch if the
>alternator went down). I did realize that my EI gauge was fed from the
>Essential bus and therefore would read a lower voltage due to the drop
>across the bridge rectifier which feeds the Essential bus from the Main
>bus, (or buss?). I also checked it with 2 portable digital multimeters
>which did not show anything was wrong with the readings. I also adjusted
>the trim pot on the regulator which did not help very much.
>
>I changed belts for the alternator, discussed the matter with B&C &
>followed the trouble shooting specs. as supplied which were all within the
>stated limits. Finally I decided in my finite wisdom that it must be the
>regulator so I purchased a new reg. at $228 from B&C and installed it with
>high hopes. As you probably guessed, I restarted the engine and the
>numbers were EXACTLY the same. What a downer!
>
>I posted my problem 3 weeks ago as I mentioned. Kevin suggested that I
>move the feed point of the EI gauge to the Main bus. This helped but still
>the drop continued. Ken suggested that I check all the points from the
>alternator back to the main bus i.e. look for voltage drops at each
>connection starting with the B lead and so forth. I did realize that I was
>working with a digital multimeter and was testing the system with no load
>applied during the resistance check & does not represent real life but I
>did turn loads on the see if that would show any voltage drop. All
>resistance drops were less than 1 ohm & therefore could see nothing obvious.
>
>I called B&C again and Tim Johnson suggested a similar course of action as
>per Ken & Kevin. However, his ears perked up when I mentioned my master
>switch. He said that may be a problem.
>
>Sure enough, I bypassed the master switch & the 5A feed breaker, (per Z-1),
>running a jumper from the Main bus directly to pin #6 on the regulator
>which is feed for the alternator field voltage & voil, after 6 years with
>13 something volts max, I had 14.2-14.4 volts. I could not believe
>it. After many more minutes with rudder pedals digging into my head,
>torque tube in my back & sweat in my eyes, I only bypassed the Cessna
>switch & the results were the same.
>
>Now I am happily flying with a spare reg., no switch to turn the alternator
>off & on except for thebreaker in the system which I can pull out if I need
>to & making the voltage output I had always wanted.
>
>Sure makes you think though, the wonderful brand new certified part in my
>system was causing undue voltage drop across the switch itself & thereby
>depressing my system voltage by up to 1.5 volts.
>
>Many thanks to Kevin & Ken for sending me in the right direction & to B&C
>as well who were great. I must say my little brain was still confused as I
>assumed that the regulator sensing a lower than optimal voltage would
>adjust the alternator field voltage upwards enough to compensate. At
>Oshkosh, Bill Bainbridge immediately handed me his cell phone after dialing
>up Tim Johnson & Tim explained that in theory this was correct but the
>regulator may not have enough output ability to boost the system voltage
>back to the proper range as the reg. was starting with a lower voltage.
>
>So, the moral of the story, do not use certificated parts on your amateur
>built aircraft, (kidding). Seriously forget the master switch & use toggle
>switches. I am stuck with this rectangular hole cut into my panel &
>wondering if I really want to pull it out & fill the area neatly somehow
>with 2 toggle switches. Come to think of it, why did I buy a key switch in
>the first place? I should have used toggles there as well.
>
>Sorry to post such a long email. I do really hope this helps people in
>designing a simple, inexpensive, easy to maintain & trouble free
>panel. With the above changes, by Simple Z diagram is faultless.
>
>Again many thanks to the above mentioned gentlemen & of course Bob Nuckolls
>for a great system.
>
>Now, back to building my RV-8.
>
>Cheers
>
>Brian Cross # 81844
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- 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 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: | recharge/jump start recepticle |
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>
One post in this thread indicated that flying an
aircraft that needed to be jump-started wasn't a good
idea. Seems like sound logic to me. Which then begs
the question: what would a good configuration be for an
easily accessible battery maintenance receptacle be ??
Just to sanity check, is there another compelling reason
to have a receptacle capable of handling jump-start
currents ?? If not, is there any standard connector
configuration for battery maintenance ?? Or what would
a good choice be ??
cheers,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket II
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: | Battery In Tail Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Wouldn't suggest it. The -10 is very nose heavy because of the big Lyc 540 on
the nose. Need the battery weight in the back or something else to make up for
the missing weight of the battery + the new weight of the battery on the firewall.
Only other option is a lighter engine but no one has a tested/firewall
forward package yet for the -10 in the 210hp - 260hp range.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Wing skins
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery In Tail Questions
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
--> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> I'm struggling with minimizing large wire runs. I guess I just can't
> picture it. Maybe if I saw something in front of me it would just
> click I guess. "The light would go on". :)
I have not run a W&B on the RV10, but it might be possible to take the amount of
weight you are adding in wiring and add it to the very end of the fuselage,
and put the batteries on the firewall.
I've got my batteries behind my baggage area on my RV8, but since I'm using a Subaru
engine, which has a starter that does not draw as much current as a Lycoming,
I only need
AWG#6 welding cable from the batteries to the starter.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder "air switch" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
The complete line of Airbus airliners has this "air switch" feature on
the transponder and other systems. I plan to incorporate this idea in
my latest airplane build. I will include a guarded override switch in
the event of failure or the need to use the system on the ground. Other
items that I plan to use with this "airswitch" are the strobe lights and
speed brake systems. I'm just offering a different way of looking at
things! I find this system reduces workload during hi periods of work,
i.e. Entering the runway and exiting the runway. In my years, I have
seen many a close midair or runway incursions at local and large
airports. It is my opinion that if you had three less things to do
entering and exiting the runway you would be more alert as to what is
going on around instead of knob and switch doodling while moving the
airplane on the ground. Just an idea...
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder "air switch"
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:06 AM 8/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
<bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>Thanks, guys, for your help. Unfortunately, I still haven't gotten an
answer
>to my question. I originally asked:
>
>"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?"
>
>Allow me to add some additional information:
>
>The Transponder that I have narrowed my focus to is the Microair T2000.
The
>"Air Switch" is used to either ground a pin or lift the pin from ground
>(configurable). It will not accept GPS information.
>
>Don't laugh, but I will be using the transponder on a US Part 103
>Ultralight. I will be operating just outside of the Chicago Class "B",
so
>I'd like to make sure that I stick out a bit. I checked with the FSDO
and
>they said I could do it, but the XPDR will have to undergo the same
>inspections and checks that it would if it were installed in a GA
plane.
>
>And since I will be operating out of an untowered airport, there would
be no
>advantage to having the XPDR "on" while on the ground.
>
>So, any help with the switch would be greatly appreciated....
The "air switch" was suggested as a means for keeping the
transponder from being accidently left ON during ground ops.
Some airport radar systems were vulnerable to strong signal
overload when bunches aircraft taxiing on the ground were replying
to radar interrogations.
This is unlikely to be an issue for the way you'll use a Part 103
aircraft. Even if it were an "issue" . . . it's one that is easily
addressed with attention to checklists that turn transponder ON on
takeoff roll and turn it back off as you leave the active runway.
I recommend you not install this feature. The vast majority
of certified ships flying do not have such a switch.
Bob . . .
--
8/18/2005
--
8/18/2005
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: Battery In Tail Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Mickey Coggins wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>
>> I'm struggling with minimizing large wire runs. I guess I just can't
>> picture it. Maybe if I saw something in front of me it would just click
>> I guess. "The light would go on". :)
>>
>
> I have not run a W&B on the RV10, but it might be possible to take
> the amount of weight you are adding in wiring and add it to the
> very end of the fuselage, and put the batteries on the firewall.
>
> I've got my batteries behind my baggage area on my RV8, but
> since I'm using a Subaru engine, which has a starter that
> does not draw as much current as a Lycoming, I only need
> AWG#6 welding cable from the batteries to the starter.
>
>
I'm ok with the bat contactor in the rear to the starter contactor in
the front part of things. It's just when you start running stuff from
the bat bus (in rear) to the front and Aux alt to bat contactor in the
rear and e-bus alt feed to bat bus in rear. Then things start to be a
lot of wire runs from front to back and vice versa.
I think there are going to be quite a few RV-10 builder who have to make
the same choices I am trying to make. Having the bats in the back is
*almost* a necessity in the -10. Wiring up a good ole fashion Z-11
without an e-bus would be no big deal, but start adding bat bus, aux bat
bus, e-bus, aux alt, and I start to worry about all those front to back
runs.
It sounds like I need to just quit worry about all those wire runs front
to back and back to front. I think I'm just stuck on trying to remove
that requirement when in all reality it's fine?
Thanks...
-Sean
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery In Tail Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Don't forget the other end of W&B with the RV-10: With four adults and low fuel,
you can actually get into a situation of c.g. too far AFT! So I'd be carefully
about shoving everything into the tail. It's easier to throw a toolbox in
the baggage area then to try and add weight up front . . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sean
Stephens
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery In Tail Questions
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Mickey Coggins wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>
>> I'm struggling with minimizing large wire runs. I guess I just can't
>> picture it. Maybe if I saw something in front of me it would just click
>> I guess. "The light would go on". :)
>>
>
> I have not run a W&B on the RV10, but it might be possible to take
> the amount of weight you are adding in wiring and add it to the
> very end of the fuselage, and put the batteries on the firewall.
>
> I've got my batteries behind my baggage area on my RV8, but
> since I'm using a Subaru engine, which has a starter that
> does not draw as much current as a Lycoming, I only need
> AWG#6 welding cable from the batteries to the starter.
>
>
I'm ok with the bat contactor in the rear to the starter contactor in
the front part of things. It's just when you start running stuff from
the bat bus (in rear) to the front and Aux alt to bat contactor in the
rear and e-bus alt feed to bat bus in rear. Then things start to be a
lot of wire runs from front to back and vice versa.
I think there are going to be quite a few RV-10 builder who have to make
the same choices I am trying to make. Having the bats in the back is
*almost* a necessity in the -10. Wiring up a good ole fashion Z-11
without an e-bus would be no big deal, but start adding bat bus, aux bat
bus, e-bus, aux alt, and I start to worry about all those front to back
runs.
It sounds like I need to just quit worry about all those wire runs front
to back and back to front. I think I'm just stuck on trying to remove
that requirement when in all reality it's fine?
Thanks...
-Sean
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OVP thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:54 PM 8/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> >
> >
> > My first impression is that you've stirred a lot of separate
> > worries into a really big bucket full of "solutions". If you
> > have a vacuum system, why Z-14? How is your engine electrically
> > dependent? What loads must be powered to keep the engine running?
> > What advantage for eliminating battery contactors outweighs the
> > value of maximizing control over the electrical system. It's
> > not clear what your design goals were for the changes you've cited.
> > Can be back up to a stock Z-14 and discuss how it falls short?
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
>For an experimental one off system with many homemade components and
>wiring, I have chosen to provide complete electronic redundancy. Sure
>this is probably overkill but I will not be uncomfortabe taking this
>automotive powered airplane on long trips or over hostile territory as
>far as fuel and ignition concerns. Many auto conversions never seem to
>go very far from home base and I don't want to stay close to home for
>hundreds of hours while establishing system reliability. This electrical
>architecture is far more flexible than adding extra small batteries for
>ignition or injection backup.
>
>Anyway when I realized that the vast majority of my wiring was ignition
>and fuel injection that would go on a battery bus anyway and that
>nothing else was what I considered essential, then classic battery
>contactors don't seem to offer me an advantage. They would add another
>contactor or two and not really let me de-energise any extra wiring
>since the contactors and batteries are all very close together.
>
>I guess one design goal was that there is no way that the battery can be
>disconnected from an alternator while leaving that alternator connected
>to any loads. That is in some ways an extension of the philosophy of
>running the engine off a battery bus and I think it is perhaps
>appropriate for an IR alternator, which is the only type that I can
>personally envision purchasing anymore for a new installation. I can
>still de-energise everything that battery contactors would de-energise.
Hmmmmmm. Sounds like you've arrived at some decisions
and new paradigms . . . if you're happy with it . . .
truck on.
Bob . . .
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: recharge/jump start recepticle |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:55 AM 8/22/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
>
>One post in this thread indicated that flying an
>aircraft that needed to be jump-started wasn't a good
>idea. Seems like sound logic to me. Which then begs
>the question: what would a good configuration be for an
>easily accessible battery maintenance receptacle be ??
>
>Just to sanity check, is there another compelling reason
>to have a receptacle capable of handling jump-start
>currents ??
Sure. Ground maintenance and cold weather cranking
assists. I've never had to use a ground power receptacle
to assist with a dead battery (the airplanes so afflicted
were not fitted with ground power jacks). I've used
the ground power jack numerous times for the reasons
cited.
>If not, is there any standard connector
>configuration for battery maintenance ?? Or what would
>a good choice be ??
Battery maintainers are typically accurately controlled
chargers of 2A or less output. Any connector you might like
to use will be fine. Protect the wiring from maintainer
jack to battery bus with a 3A fuse.
Here's a good connector you can find at Radio Shack.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/274-010.jpg
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/274-013.jpg
There's nothing inherently evil about jump starting
an airplane if you (1) know how and why the battery
became depleted and (2) understand your dependency
on any part of the electrical system for the proposed
flight.
I almost never depend on an electrical system to
be functional for the purpose of getting to airport
of intended destination. However, it would be foolish
to dive into IMC without a good feel for the energy
reserves on board in the form of battery charge.
The few cases I've had to jump start or prop the
airplane, the proposed flight was in VFR-
friendly weather.
Bob . . .
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IR Alternator OVP |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:39 AM 8/22/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis"
><leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I came across this article while looking for something else. "Is Your
>Aircraft Alternator Really Airworthy ?" in the 1990 April issue of Sport
>Aviation page90. It is designed to detect open or shorted diodes and arcing
>brushes. Could this be useful for spotting impending failures? The output is
>to 3 LEDs so it should be easy to add to a crowded panel. I have a Rotax 912
>so it's not very useful to me.
>
>Leo Corbalis
Can you scan this piece and send it to me?
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: | Battery In Tail Questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Michael, this might be a great post to start someone at your stage
looking at the change of weight with the new Barrett/Lycoming IO-390X
producing a true 210 hp before adulteration. Then this wiring issue
would be reduced to a weight reduction forward of the firewall.
John - KUAO
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
Builder (Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery In Tail Questions
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Wouldn't suggest it. The -10 is very nose heavy because of the big Lyc
540 on the nose. Need the battery weight in the back or something else
to make up for the missing weight of the battery + the new weight of the
battery on the firewall. Only other option is a lighter engine but no
one has a tested/firewall forward package yet for the -10 in the 210hp -
260hp range.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Wing skins
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: Question on Z-14 dual alt system! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:06 AM 8/22/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>Why did you use a 4AWG line from the large alternator on the Z-14
>drawing? I was thinking you could use a 10AWG line for runs of less
>then 10 feet or so without any problems.
Wire size has to do with the amount of current flowing in
the wire combined with considerations for limits on
voltage drop. 10AWG is too light for a 60A alternator b-lead
irrespective of length.
Bob . . .
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I like strobes flashing on the ground.. Maybe (especially?) before engine
start.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> The complete line of Airbus airliners has this "air switch" feature on
> the transponder and other systems. I plan to incorporate this idea in
> my latest airplane build. I will include a guarded override switch in
> the event of failure or the need to use the system on the ground. Other
> items that I plan to use with this "airswitch" are the strobe lights and
> speed brake systems. I'm just offering a different way of looking at
> things! I find this system reduces workload during hi periods of work,
> i.e. Entering the runway and exiting the runway. In my years, I have
> seen many a close midair or runway incursions at local and large
> airports. It is my opinion that if you had three less things to do
> entering and exiting the runway you would be more alert as to what is
> going on around instead of knob and switch doodling while moving the
> airplane on the ground. Just an idea...
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> -----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: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder "air switch"
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 09:06 AM 8/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>Thanks, guys, for your help. Unfortunately, I still haven't gotten an
> answer
>>to my question. I originally asked:
>>
>>"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?"
>>
>>Allow me to add some additional information:
>>
>>The Transponder that I have narrowed my focus to is the Microair T2000.
> The
>>"Air Switch" is used to either ground a pin or lift the pin from ground
>> (configurable). It will not accept GPS information.
>>
>>Don't laugh, but I will be using the transponder on a US Part 103
>> Ultralight. I will be operating just outside of the Chicago Class "B",
> so
>>I'd like to make sure that I stick out a bit. I checked with the FSDO
> and
>>they said I could do it, but the XPDR will have to undergo the same
>> inspections and checks that it would if it were installed in a GA
> plane.
>>
>>And since I will be operating out of an untowered airport, there would
> be no
>>advantage to having the XPDR "on" while on the ground.
>>
>>So, any help with the switch would be greatly appreciated....
>
> The "air switch" was suggested as a means for keeping the
> transponder from being accidently left ON during ground ops.
> Some airport radar systems were vulnerable to strong signal
> overload when bunches aircraft taxiing on the ground were replying
> to radar interrogations.
>
> This is unlikely to be an issue for the way you'll use a Part 103
> aircraft. Even if it were an "issue" . . . it's one that is easily
> addressed with attention to checklists that turn transponder ON on
> takeoff roll and turn it back off as you leave the active runway.
>
> I recommend you not install this feature. The vast majority
> of certified ships flying do not have such a switch.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> 8/18/2005
>
>
> --
> 8/18/2005
>
>
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 |
|
-2.60)
| Subject: | Re: recharge/jump start recepticle SpamAssassin |
(score=-2.58, required 3.7, autolearn=not spam, AWL 0.02, BAYES_00
-2.60)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Larry,
If the jump start was the last thing you took from the battery and you
had magnetos to fly on
one would expect not to worry. There are those without mags and a
battery that needs just
one more jump-start to run. That's a condition some might not have sense
enough to worry
about. If it weren't such a calamity for aviation news, the Darwin
award would satisfy the rest
of us.
Better to stay ahead of your battery(s).
Larry McFarland
do not archive
Larry E. James wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
>
>One post in this thread indicated that flying an
>aircraft that needed to be jump-started wasn't a good
>idea. Seems like sound logic to me. Which then begs
>the question: what would a good configuration be for an
>easily accessible battery maintenance receptacle be ??
>
>Just to sanity check, is there another compelling reason
>to have a receptacle capable of handling jump-start
>currents ?? If not, is there any standard connector
>configuration for battery maintenance ?? Or what would
>a good choice be ??
>cheers,
>
>
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: recharge/jump start recepticle SpamAssassin |
(score=-2.58, required 3.7, autolearn=not spam, AWL 0.02, BAYES_00
-2.60)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
Yes ! If you forget the master switch and let it sit over the weekend you
will need a jump start. With any luck and a fairly new battery it will
survive one episode of deep discharge as on "0" volts. I'll never tell !
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: recharge/jump start recepticle 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>
>
> One post in this thread indicated that flying an
> aircraft that needed to be jump-started wasn't a good
> idea. Seems like sound logic to me. Which then begs
> the question: what would a good configuration be for an
> easily accessible battery maintenance receptacle be ??
>
> Just to sanity check, is there another compelling reason
> to have a receptacle capable of handling jump-start
> currents ?? If not, is there any standard connector
> configuration for battery maintenance ?? Or what would
> a good choice be ??
> cheers,
> --
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket II
>
>
>
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: recharge/jump start recepticle SpamAssassin |
(sc...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Larry,
One of the reasons I no longer use jump starts has to do with charging rates
on the battery.
Back in years past, I have flown an airplane home with a dead battery by
getting a jump start. As long as there was no electrically dependent system, such
as a retractable landing gear, that needed to be operated, it seemed to me
that if I could stay in day VFR conditions, an electrical failure would be no
problem at all.
However, a few years ago I was operating a certified airplane that used a
fairly small twenty-four volt battery as a power source.
After encountering an early battery failure, I checked with several local
service facilities as to their experience with various suppliers of batteries for
that model aircraft.
I was astounded to hear that they found about a fifty percent early failure
rate for all twenty-four volt batteries of that size. Further investigation
elicited information from the manufacturer that if the battery in question was
not charged in complete accordance with their recommendations, a very short
life could be expected.
They were especially insistent that no effort be made to charge a dead
battery using the aircraft charging system. It was their opinion that a charge
that
strong was beyond the capability of the battery to absorb without causing
damage.
All current production certified batteries have a set of Instructions For
Continued Airworthiness included with the new battery. If those instructions are
not followed, the aircraft is NOT being maintained in accordance with FAA
requirements, I realize the experimental airplanes do not have to be maintained
in that manner, however, I do think it is pertinent that such recommendations
be considered when deciding what maintenance procedures are to be followed.
Suffice it to say, since I have been following the manufacturers
recommendation completely for such batteries, Including purchasing a constant current
charger as they recommended, I have experienced excellent battery life.
Every set of Instructions For Continued Airworthiness that I have read has
contained a prohibition against charging a flat battery by flying the airplane.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/22/2005 5:05:55 PM Central Standard Time,
larrymc@qconline.com writes:
Larry,
If the jump start was the last thing you took from the battery and you
had magnetos to fly on
one would expect not to worry. There are those without mags and a
battery that needs just
one more jump-start to run. That's a condition some might not have sense
enough to worry
about. If it weren't such a calamity for aviation news, the Darwin
award would satisfy the rest
of us.
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: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
It's a great idea unless you in the other airplane.... White strobe
lights will kill your night vision for about 20 minutes... We(the
airline pilot world) never run our white strobes on the ground. Other
wise the abuse from others will follow....
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
I like strobes flashing on the ground.. Maybe (especially?) before
engine
start.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> The complete line of Airbus airliners has this "air switch" feature on
> the transponder and other systems. I plan to incorporate this idea in
> my latest airplane build. I will include a guarded override switch in
> the event of failure or the need to use the system on the ground.
Other
> items that I plan to use with this "airswitch" are the strobe lights
and
> speed brake systems. I'm just offering a different way of looking at
> things! I find this system reduces workload during hi periods of
work,
> i.e. Entering the runway and exiting the runway. In my years, I have
> seen many a close midair or runway incursions at local and large
> airports. It is my opinion that if you had three less things to do
> entering and exiting the runway you would be more alert as to what is
> going on around instead of knob and switch doodling while moving the
> airplane on the ground. Just an idea...
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> -----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: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder "air switch"
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 09:06 AM 8/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>Thanks, guys, for your help. Unfortunately, I still haven't gotten an
> answer
>>to my question. I originally asked:
>>
>>"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?"
>>
>>Allow me to add some additional information:
>>
>>The Transponder that I have narrowed my focus to is the Microair
T2000.
> The
>>"Air Switch" is used to either ground a pin or lift the pin from
ground
>> (configurable). It will not accept GPS information.
>>
>>Don't laugh, but I will be using the transponder on a US Part 103
>> Ultralight. I will be operating just outside of the Chicago Class
"B",
> so
>>I'd like to make sure that I stick out a bit. I checked with the FSDO
> and
>>they said I could do it, but the XPDR will have to undergo the same
>> inspections and checks that it would if it were installed in a GA
> plane.
>>
>>And since I will be operating out of an untowered airport, there would
> be no
>>advantage to having the XPDR "on" while on the ground.
>>
>>So, any help with the switch would be greatly appreciated....
>
> The "air switch" was suggested as a means for keeping the
> transponder from being accidently left ON during ground ops.
> Some airport radar systems were vulnerable to strong signal
> overload when bunches aircraft taxiing on the ground were replying
> to radar interrogations.
>
> This is unlikely to be an issue for the way you'll use a Part 103
> aircraft. Even if it were an "issue" . . . it's one that is easily
> addressed with attention to checklists that turn transponder ON on
> takeoff roll and turn it back off as you leave the active runway.
>
> I recommend you not install this feature. The vast majority
> of certified ships flying do not have such a switch.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> 8/18/2005
>
>
> --
> 8/18/2005
>
>
--
8/22/2005
--
8/22/2005
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: Low System Voltage Troubleshooting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
Bob,
Your response to Brian Cross' findings concerning cause of low voltage has
me wondering if a low voltage situation that I have is for the same reason.
I am using the OVA protection circuit for a built-in regulator per your
diagram (page 10) with the 4-terminal contactor (p/n S701-1). Since it is
the same connection from the main bus that supplies power to the contactor
and is the sense line to the Alt. terminal C via the bat/alt switch could
this be causing low voltage at the sense feed line? Because of resistance in
the switch and/or power requirement of the contactor?
My RMI uMonitor says I am getting 13.6 volts. If I read the ND alternator
data sheet correctly it should be putting out between 14.2 and 14.8 volts.
Dale Ensing
do not archive
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: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard McCraw" <rmccraw@s4t.net>
I recently flew into the Washington, DC ADIZ for the first time. Believe
me, I researched the procedure _very_ carefully, not wanting to fly
formation with Blackhawks and the like. There was some source (the ATIS at
GAI, I think) that instructed me to leave my transponder on until shutdown.
Don't remember seeing it in the NOTAMs, though.
Rick
A-36/RV7A
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
FWIW, I have talked to at least two controllers who have said essentially
the same thing. One controller said they have more problems with IFR
departures that forget to turn on the transponders than on-the-ground
squawkers.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard McCraw" <rmccraw@s4t.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard McCraw"
> <rmccraw@s4t.net>
>
> I recently flew into the Washington, DC ADIZ for the first time. Believe
> me, I researched the procedure _very_ carefully, not wanting to fly
> formation with Blackhawks and the like. There was some source (the ATIS
> at
> GAI, I think) that instructed me to leave my transponder on until
> shutdown.
> Don't remember seeing it in the NOTAMs, though.
>
> Rick
> A-36/RV7A
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick titsworth <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
One thought on speed brakes came to mind while reading your msg...
Be careful that you don't/can't' somehow leave them on (but suppressed by the air
switch) during takeoff. Last thing you want is them automatically re-deploying
just as/after you rotate.
Why you can always check (and double check) the manual switch as part of your takeoff
check - this re-introduces pilot workload. Seems I'd rather have the workload
on the ground after landing than as another final takeoff check.
The failure mode of them being left on, on the ground (no real harm?) seems a lot
less critical than having them deploy on departure.
While taxiing on the ground I'm periodically glancing at the wings/tips for clearence
(low wing) so am more apt to spot them as an issue (if missed). An automatic
deployment at departure, may have me looking around in several unusual
places for potential causes of reduced performance. On an IFR departure these
head movements during a time known to be sucesspatble to spacial disorientation
is asking for trouble.
I assume you could design/build it as a "one way" air switch supression circuit
- such that the air swicth would only supress them (not the converse even if
the manual switch was left on). Thus, the manual switch would need to be re-cycled
(--> off --> on) to redeploy them (in case the manual switch was left on).
In this scenario, this introduced more workload during subsequent deploments
(if previously left on) even if only an additional toggle. And it adds yet
more complexity of the design and thus the likelihood of failure.
Perhaps a light on/near the manual switch or annunciator indicating the manual
switch is still set to "deploy" is a complexity compromise. This might be helpful
as a failsafe indication during a go-around - even with an manual-only approach.
Given the seemingly equall overall workload (at best) and/or ignoring the unfavorable
relative failure effects, I'd opt for the simpler system (no air switch
on brakes) - less to go wrong, trouble shoot, inspect, fix, etc.
Perhaps I mis-understood, or am missing something. Please feel free to comment/educate.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Larkin <mlas@cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
It's a great idea unless you in the other airplane.... White strobe
lights will kill your night vision for about 20 minutes... We(the
airline pilot world) never run our white strobes on the ground. Other
wise the abuse from others will follow....
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
I like strobes flashing on the ground.. Maybe (especially?) before
engine
start.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> The complete line of Airbus airliners has this "air switch" feature on
> the transponder and other systems. I plan to incorporate this idea in
> my latest airplane build. I will include a guarded override switch in
> the event of failure or the need to use the system on the ground.
Other
> items that I plan to use with this "airswitch" are the strobe lights
and
> speed brake systems. I'm just offering a different way of looking at
> things! I find this system reduces workload during hi periods of
work,
> i.e. Entering the runway and exiting the runway. In my years, I have
> seen many a close midair or runway incursions at local and large
> airports. It is my opinion that if you had three less things to do
> entering and exiting the runway you would be more alert as to what is
> going on around instead of knob and switch doodling while moving the
> airplane on the ground. Just an idea...
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> -----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: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder "air switch"
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 09:06 AM 8/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>Thanks, guys, for your help. Unfortunately, I still haven't gotten an
> answer
>>to my question. I originally asked:
>>
>>"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?"
>>
>>Allow me to add some additional information:
>>
>>The Transponder that I have narrowed my focus to is the Microair
T2000.
> The
>>"Air Switch" is used to either ground a pin or lift the pin from
ground
>> (configurable). It will not accept GPS information.
>>
>>Don't laugh, but I will be using the transponder on a US Part 103
>> Ultralight. I will be operating just outside of the Chicago Class
"B",
> so
>>I'd like to make sure that I stick out a bit. I checked with the FSDO
> and
>>they said I could do it, but the XPDR will have to undergo the same
>> inspections and checks that it would if it were installed in a GA
> plane.
>>
>>And since I will be operating out of an untowered airport, there would
> be no
>>advantage to having the XPDR "on" while on the ground.
>>
>>So, any help with the switch would be greatly appreciated....
>
> The "air switch" was suggested as a means for keeping the
> transponder from being accidently left ON during ground ops.
> Some airport radar systems were vulnerable to strong signal
> overload when bunches aircraft taxiing on the ground were replying
> to radar interrogations.
>
> This is unlikely to be an issue for the way you'll use a Part 103
> aircraft. Even if it were an "issue" . . . it's one that is easily
> addressed with attention to checklists that turn transponder ON on
> takeoff roll and turn it back off as you leave the active runway.
>
> I recommend you not install this feature. The vast majority
> of certified ships flying do not have such a switch.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> 8/18/2005
>
>
> --
> 8/18/2005
>
>
--
8/22/2005
--
8/22/2005
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: risks to battery for in situ recharging |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:35 PM 8/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
This condition was fairly common with 24 volt light aircraft
(small, FLOODED batteries) and 60 to 125A alternators. However,
the RG battery, especially in 12v sizes is very tollerant of
high recharge rates. When we certified the Genesis RG batteries
into certified ships about 12 years ago, we showed that a completely
discharged, RG battery was not at-risk for damage when used in
the typical 60A, constant voltage aircraft electrical system. This
notion is supported by words we find on page 7 of
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US-GPL-AM-002_0605.pdf
. . . where tolerance to high recharge rates is described.
Even Concord describes a procedure on page 8 of
http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/IFCA1.pdf
describes an in situ recharge of a depleted battery where
a C1 (recharge rate equal to rating on battery) is allowed.
If one jump-starts an airplane with an 17 a.h. RG battery,
you could turn on all exterior lighting for a few minutes
after the engine is started. This will soak up some of the
alternator's output current an limit the initial recharge
rate. All the lights can be turned off after 5 minutes because
the battery's ability to accept charge at normal bus voltage
will have fallen to reasonable values.
It's a given that heavily discharging a battery and allowing
it to set for a long time will have serious impact on service
life of the battery . . . probably more damage than any degradation
due to a few minutes at a high recharge rate.
Every manufacturer would like for you to discharge at the 20
hour rate and recharge at the 10 hour rate in order to maximize
probability of meeting their published service life values. If one
subscribes to the new-cheap-battery-every-year philosophy,
risk to battery by subjecting it to a operating alternator
recharge event will have no practical effect on service life
of the battery.
In 24 years and 900 hours of flying, I've had to jump-start
or prop an airplane perhaps a half dozen times. Assuming that's
an exemplar rate for the fleet, that's a jump start once every
150 hours (every three years for average GA aircraft utilization).
At that rate, I would put one deep-discharge, heavy-recharge cycle
on a battery once every three years and on every third installed
battery. 17 a.h. or larger RG batteries charged by 40-60 amp
alternators are going to be just fine.
Of course, if you've installed a premium battery and expect to
invest in periodic cap-checking to determine continued airworthiness,
and assuming you kept very good records on a once-every-150hrs event,
you might see some benefits to very gentle recharging but they're
benefits only if you have all that time and test equipment to
assign to the task.
Bob . . .
>Good Afternoon Larry,
>
>One of the reasons I no longer use jump starts has to do with charging rates
>on the battery.
>
>Back in years past, I have flown an airplane home with a dead battery by
>getting a jump start. As long as there was no electrically dependent
>system, such
>as a retractable landing gear, that needed to be operated, it seemed to me
>that if I could stay in day VFR conditions, an electrical failure would be no
>problem at all.
>
>However, a few years ago I was operating a certified airplane that used a
>fairly small twenty-four volt battery as a power source.
>
>After encountering an early battery failure, I checked with several local
>service facilities as to their experience with various suppliers of
>batteries for
>that model aircraft.
>
>I was astounded to hear that they found about a fifty percent early failure
>rate for all twenty-four volt batteries of that size. Further investigation
>elicited information from the manufacturer that if the battery in question
>was
>not charged in complete accordance with their recommendations, a very short
>life could be expected.
>
>They were especially insistent that no effort be made to charge a dead
>battery using the aircraft charging system. It was their opinion that a
>charge that
>strong was beyond the capability of the battery to absorb without causing
>damage.
>
>All current production certified batteries have a set of Instructions For
>Continued Airworthiness included with the new battery. If those
>instructions are
>not followed, the aircraft is NOT being maintained in accordance with FAA
>requirements, I realize the experimental airplanes do not have to be
>maintained
>in that manner, however, I do think it is pertinent that such recommendations
>be considered when deciding what maintenance procedures are to be followed.
>
>Suffice it to say, since I have been following the manufacturers
>recommendation completely for such batteries, Including purchasing a
>constant current
>charger as they recommended, I have experienced excellent battery life.
>
>Every set of Instructions For Continued Airworthiness that I have read has
>contained a prohibition against charging a flat battery by flying the
>airplane.
>
>Happy Skies,
In a message dated 8/22/2005 5:05:55 PM Central Standard Time,
larrymc@qconline.com writes:
Larry,
If the jump start was the last thing you took from the battery and you
had magnetos to fly on one would expect not to worry. There are
those without mags and a battery that needs just one more jump-start
to run. That's a condition some might not have sense enough to worry
about. If it weren't such a calamity for aviation news, the Darwin
award would satisfy the rest of us.
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Low System Voltage Troubleshooting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:20 PM 8/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing"
><densing@carolina.rr.com>
>
>Bob,
>Your response to Brian Cross' findings concerning cause of low voltage has
>me wondering if a low voltage situation that I have is for the same reason.
> I am using the OVA protection circuit for a built-in regulator per your
>diagram (page 10) with the 4-terminal contactor (p/n S701-1). Since it is
>the same connection from the main bus that supplies power to the contactor
>and is the sense line to the Alt. terminal C via the bat/alt switch could
>this be causing low voltage at the sense feed line? Because of resistance in
>the switch and/or power requirement of the contactor?
>My RMI uMonitor says I am getting 13.6 volts. If I read the ND alternator
>data sheet correctly it should be putting out between 14.2 and 14.8 volts.
The condition I described applies only to externally regulated
alternators. Internally regulated alternators sense bus voltage
right at the b-lead terminal unless you've also connected the
alernator's "S" (sense lead) to some lead at the bus.
As an experiment, try measuring voltage right at the b-lead
terminal. If it's 14.2 to 14.8, then you have excessive voltage
drop in wiring. If it's low there too, then I suspect the regulator
in the alternator is bad. Just for grins, if your alternator has
an "S" lead, try hooking this to the bus through some temporary
wire and see what the bus voltage does with the external sense
option. Does the data sheet for your alternator talk about an
"S" lead and perhaps how to use it?
Bob . . .
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IR Alternator OVP |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Wow. No flames. Very refreshing. I was suited in a fireman's rig as I sat
down at the computer.
Paul and Charlie, thanks for your helpful and educational responses. As you
can tell, my learning curve is still vertical.
Stan Sutterfield
Do not archive
In a message dated 8/22/2005 2:58:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> Suppose one installed an internally regulated alternator and wanted
overvoltage
protection.
>Suppose the alternator has a B lead to power the bus, a S lead to sense
voltage
on the bus and adjust the alternator output, and a "G" lead for grounding.
>Question 1 - would breaking the ground wire cause the alternator to quit?
>Question 2 - If so, then could one have a sensor on the B lead that, during
an
overvoltage, would command a contactor in the ground wire to open and thus
shut
down the alternator?
>Question 3 - Could said contactor be a solid state relay instead?
>Ready for the flames.
>Stan Sutterfield
>RV-8A
>
It's likely that the case is common with the G terminal. You can check
with an ohm meter. Even if it isn't, there would be no advantage to
breaking the ground because the same current flows in the return path as
the B+ path. As long as the solid state relay can handle the voltage &
current, sure, it will work.
(There are all kinds of subtle reasons why you can and/or can't do any
of the above, but the experts would have to kill you if they explained
it.) < obligatory :-) >
Charlie
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
Yes, we have run into that at Houston Intercontinental. On the Airbus,
we tell the controllers that our transponder it is not available on the
ground and they have to live with it. A transponder is for airborne
operations and is not required for ground operations. It is my
experience that controllers often want many things they can't have. Just
remember controllers work for you and if the folks in Washington have
there way you will be paying them directly for everything in the near
future. I suspect most pilots will be come more vocal about what they
will and won't do as the customer.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard McCraw
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard McCraw"
<rmccraw@s4t.net>
I recently flew into the Washington, DC ADIZ for the first time.
Believe
me, I researched the procedure _very_ carefully, not wanting to fly
formation with Blackhawks and the like. There was some source (the ATIS
at
GAI, I think) that instructed me to leave my transponder on until
shutdown.
Don't remember seeing it in the NOTAMs, though.
Rick
A-36/RV7A
--
8/22/2005
--
8/22/2005
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
I should have been a little more clear on the speed brakes. The air
switch will be on the speed brake audio warning system not on the speed
brakes brakes.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
titsworth
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick titsworth
<rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
One thought on speed brakes came to mind while reading your msg...
Be careful that you don't/can't' somehow leave them on (but suppressed
by the air switch) during takeoff. Last thing you want is them
automatically re-deploying just as/after you rotate.
Why you can always check (and double check) the manual switch as part of
your takeoff check - this re-introduces pilot workload. Seems I'd
rather have the workload on the ground after landing than as another
final takeoff check.
The failure mode of them being left on, on the ground (no real harm?)
seems a lot less critical than having them deploy on departure.
While taxiing on the ground I'm periodically glancing at the wings/tips
for clearence (low wing) so am more apt to spot them as an issue (if
missed). An automatic deployment at departure, may have me looking
around in several unusual places for potential causes of reduced
performance. On an IFR departure these head movements during a time
known to be sucesspatble to spacial disorientation is asking for
trouble.
I assume you could design/build it as a "one way" air switch supression
circuit - such that the air swicth would only supress them (not the
converse even if the manual switch was left on). Thus, the manual
switch would need to be re-cycled (--> off --> on) to redeploy them (in
case the manual switch was left on). In this scenario, this introduced
more workload during subsequent deploments (if previously left on) even
if only an additional toggle. And it adds yet more complexity of the
design and thus the likelihood of failure.
Perhaps a light on/near the manual switch or annunciator indicating the
manual switch is still set to "deploy" is a complexity compromise. This
might be helpful as a failsafe indication during a go-around - even with
an manual-only approach.
Given the seemingly equall overall workload (at best) and/or ignoring
the unfavorable relative failure effects, I'd opt for the simpler system
(no air switch on brakes) - less to go wrong, trouble shoot, inspect,
fix, etc.
Perhaps I mis-understood, or am missing something. Please feel free to
comment/educate.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Larkin <mlas@cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
It's a great idea unless you in the other airplane.... White strobe
lights will kill your night vision for about 20 minutes... We(the
airline pilot world) never run our white strobes on the ground. Other
wise the abuse from others will follow....
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
I like strobes flashing on the ground.. Maybe (especially?) before
engine
start.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> The complete line of Airbus airliners has this "air switch" feature on
> the transponder and other systems. I plan to incorporate this idea in
> my latest airplane build. I will include a guarded override switch in
> the event of failure or the need to use the system on the ground.
Other
> items that I plan to use with this "airswitch" are the strobe lights
and
> speed brake systems. I'm just offering a different way of looking at
> things! I find this system reduces workload during hi periods of
work,
> i.e. Entering the runway and exiting the runway. In my years, I have
> seen many a close midair or runway incursions at local and large
> airports. It is my opinion that if you had three less things to do
> entering and exiting the runway you would be more alert as to what is
> going on around instead of knob and switch doodling while moving the
> airplane on the ground. Just an idea...
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> -----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: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder "air switch"
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 09:06 AM 8/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>Thanks, guys, for your help. Unfortunately, I still haven't gotten an
> answer
>>to my question. I originally asked:
>>
>>"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?"
>>
>>Allow me to add some additional information:
>>
>>The Transponder that I have narrowed my focus to is the Microair
T2000.
> The
>>"Air Switch" is used to either ground a pin or lift the pin from
ground
>> (configurable). It will not accept GPS information.
>>
>>Don't laugh, but I will be using the transponder on a US Part 103
>> Ultralight. I will be operating just outside of the Chicago Class
"B",
> so
>>I'd like to make sure that I stick out a bit. I checked with the FSDO
> and
>>they said I could do it, but the XPDR will have to undergo the same
>> inspections and checks that it would if it were installed in a GA
> plane.
>>
>>And since I will be operating out of an untowered airport, there would
> be no
>>advantage to having the XPDR "on" while on the ground.
>>
>>So, any help with the switch would be greatly appreciated....
>
> The "air switch" was suggested as a means for keeping the
> transponder from being accidently left ON during ground ops.
> Some airport radar systems were vulnerable to strong signal
> overload when bunches aircraft taxiing on the ground were replying
> to radar interrogations.
>
> This is unlikely to be an issue for the way you'll use a Part 103
> aircraft. Even if it were an "issue" . . . it's one that is easily
> addressed with attention to checklists that turn transponder ON on
> takeoff roll and turn it back off as you leave the active runway.
>
> I recommend you not install this feature. The vast majority
> of certified ships flying do not have such a switch.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> 8/18/2005
>
>
> --
> 8/18/2005
>
>
--
8/22/2005
--
8/22/2005
--
8/22/2005
--
8/22/2005
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! --
|