---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 10/10/05: 32 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 07:06 AM - Re: New comic book on circuit breaker issues (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 2. 07:29 AM - Re: New comic book on circuit breaker issues (George Braly) 3. 08:02 AM - Re: Re: Firewall penetration (Mark Cochran) 4. 08:24 AM - Re: New comic book on circuit breaker issues (Richard Riley) 5. 08:32 AM - Re: Re: Firewall penetration (Dave Morris \) 6. 09:39 AM - Solid State contactors (Angier M. Ames) 7. 09:55 AM - Re: New comic book on circuit breaker issues (Matt Prather) 8. 10:37 AM - Re: IR alternator (Ken) 9. 10:46 AM - Slick Start (David Henderson) 10. 11:30 AM - Re: Slick Start (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)) 11. 11:44 AM - Wiring questions (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 12. 12:06 PM - Re: Solid State contactors (B Tomm) 13. 01:19 PM - Re: Wiring questions (Matt Prather) 14. 01:20 PM - magneto timing buzz box (Dan Checkoway) 15. 01:46 PM - Re: Slick Start (Wayne Sweet) 16. 02:57 PM - Re: Slick Start (David Henderson) 17. 03:14 PM - Audio Wire Shielded? (Tinne maha) 18. 03:20 PM - Re: Slick Start (Wayne Sweet) 19. 03:39 PM - Re: Re: aggressive engine leaning (John Schroeder) 20. 04:13 PM - Re: Slick Start (Matt Prather) 21. 04:48 PM - strobe problem (rd2@evenlink.com) 22. 05:35 PM - Re: strobe problem (Jon Goguen) 23. 06:47 PM - Re: strobe problem (Dan Checkoway) 24. 07:00 PM - Re: New comic book on circuit breaker issues (Richard Riley) 25. 08:39 PM - Re: strobe problem (Richard Riley) 26. 09:05 PM - Re: New comic book on circuit breaker issues <9853.208.187.29.230.1128963288.squirrel@webmail.spro.net> (Wayne Sweet) 27. 09:08 PM - Alternator blast tubes. (DEAN PSIROPOULOS) 28. 09:35 PM - Re: strobe problem (Stein Bruch) 29. 11:06 PM - Re: New comic book on circuit breaker issues <9853.208.187.29.230.1128963288.squirrel@webmail.spro.net> (Jim Baker) 30. 11:26 PM - Re: strobe problem (Werner Schneider) 31. 11:34 PM - Re: IR alternator (On before or after start?) () 32. 11:50 PM - Re: IR alternator (On before or after start?) () ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 07:06:41 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" So yur saying that detonation does not occure below 75%?...Not so sure about that. I do know Superior did a lot of testing on this but I'm not so sure they came to that conclusion. Would be worth you reading John Deakin's articles on leaning procedure if you haven't done so already. Frank thankyou again Bob BTW I've also read that it is not possible to damage an engine by overleaning -provided power was not more than about 75%! Ken L. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:29:22 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues From: "George Braly" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" It is essentially impossible to make a *conforming* normally aspirated TCM engine, operating on conforming 100LL fuels - - go into detonation. If one were to try to do so, one would want to run the CHTs up to redline at 460 d F, and even then it is doubtful you get it to detonate, even if you play foose-ball with the mixture control. Different story for the turbo-charged engines. That is not to say that some mixture settings are a LOT better for the engine than others. That is a different issue from detonation. Regards, George -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" So yur saying that detonation does not occure below 75%?...Not so sure about that. I do know Superior did a lot of testing on this but I'm not so sure they came to that conclusion. Would be worth you reading John Deakin's articles on leaning procedure if you haven't done so already. Frank thankyou again Bob BTW I've also read that it is not possible to damage an engine by overleaning -provided power was not more than about 75%! Ken L. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:02:46 AM PST US From: "Mark Cochran" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall penetration --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Cochran" Thanks for the great lead Eric... I've some friends in the car racing business; I'll have to find out what they're using. Do Not Archive Mark >Would be very interested to know more about firewall alternatives, can you >point us in the right direction? Mark Cochran There is no prescription like the stainless steel sheet mentioned by the FAA advisory circular AC20-135. The FAA says you can do it some other way but must prove it. The test is not hard, but you should probably get the buy-in of the person who will sign off your airworthiness certifcate, or you risk disappointment. Check http://www.3m.com/market/industrial/ceramics/ and go from there. Remember that you really want a number of layers. a) Cosmetic and perhaps reflective. Lots of stuff looks like heck after a few hours under the cowl, and it must be fuel proof, etc. b) FAA flame barrier 2000 F, 15 minute without burn-thru. c) Acoustic barrier (optional) The FAA requirement for flame barriers seems to be in flux right now. We'll see..... Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 (508) 764-2072 Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." -- Howard Aiken ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:24:56 AM PST US From: Richard Riley Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley A year ago a friend of mine destroyed a Cont IO-550 running it full rich, WOT, 8500 feet. Cyl head temps were in the 375 range, but oil temp was high (poor cooler installation) at 220-230. At 07:30 AM 10/10/05, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" > > >It is essentially impossible to make a *conforming* normally aspirated >TCM engine, operating on conforming 100LL fuels - - go into detonation. > >If one were to try to do so, one would want to run the CHTs up to >redline at 460 d F, and even then it is doubtful you get it to detonate, >even if you play foose-ball with the mixture control. > >Different story for the turbo-charged engines. > >That is not to say that some mixture settings are a LOT better for the >engine than others. That is a different issue from detonation. > >Regards, George > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George >(Corvallis)" > > So yur saying that detonation does not occure below 75%?...Not so sure >about that. I do know Superior did a lot of testing on this but I'm not >so sure they came to that conclusion. > >Would be worth you reading John Deakin's articles on leaning procedure >if you haven't done so already. > >Frank > >thankyou again Bob > >BTW I've also read that it is not possible to damage an engine by >overleaning -provided power was not more than about 75%! > >Ken L. > > >-- -- ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:32:27 AM PST US From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall penetration --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" Go to www.SummitRacing.com and type in "Firewall" in the keyword search box. Dave Morris At 10:01 AM 10/10/2005, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Cochran" > >Thanks for the great lead Eric... I've some friends in the car racing >business; I'll have to find out what they're using. >Do Not Archive > >Mark > > > >Would be very interested to know more about firewall alternatives, can you > >point us in the right direction? Mark Cochran > >There is no prescription like the stainless steel sheet mentioned by the FAA > >advisory circular AC20-135. The FAA says you can do it some other way but >must prove it. The test is not hard, but you should probably get the buy-in >of the person who will sign off your airworthiness certifcate, or you risk >disappointment. > >Check http://www.3m.com/market/industrial/ceramics/ and go from there. >Remember that you really want a number of layers. > >a) Cosmetic and perhaps reflective. Lots of stuff looks like heck after a >few hours under the cowl, and it must be fuel proof, etc. >b) FAA flame barrier 2000 F, 15 minute without burn-thru. >c) Acoustic barrier (optional) > >The FAA requirement for flame barriers seems to be in flux right now. We'll >see..... > >Regards, >Eric M. Jones >www.PerihelionDesign.com >113 Brentwood Drive >Southbridge MA 01550-2705 >(508) 764-2072 > >Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have >to ram it down their throats." >-- Howard Aiken > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:39:14 AM PST US From: "Angier M. Ames" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Solid State contactors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Angier M. Ames" Hello Bob, My Lancair 360 has the usual master and starter contactors as well as two more contactors for the gear system. Do you know of any solid state devices which could replace these contactors? Thanks, Angier Ames ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:55:33 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" Hi Richard, Please pardon me for saying so, but this kind of message seems provocative, and somewhat contentious. What constitutes "destroyed?" Are you trying to refute what Mr Braly said? Let's not start a "wives tale." From what very limited data you provided, I have to be suspicious of the instrumentation. Oil temp of 220-230 is actually at the top normal range, I think. What ignition system was being used on this engine, and how was it timed? What type of fuel was being used? What was the end resolution. Or were you saying that the rich mixture was the cause of the engine being "destroyed?" Regards, Matt- > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley > > > A year ago a friend of mine destroyed a Cont IO-550 running it full > rich, WOT, 8500 feet. Cyl head temps were in the 375 range, but oil > temp was high (poor cooler installation) at 220-230. > > > At 07:30 AM 10/10/05, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" >> >> >> >>It is essentially impossible to make a *conforming* normally aspirated >> TCM engine, operating on conforming 100LL fuels - - go into detonation. >> >>If one were to try to do so, one would want to run the CHTs up to >> redline at 460 d F, and even then it is doubtful you get it to >> detonate, even if you play foose-ball with the mixture control. >> >>Different story for the turbo-charged engines. >> >>That is not to say that some mixture settings are a LOT better for the >> engine than others. That is a different issue from detonation. >> >>Regards, George >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) >>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker >> issues >> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George >>(Corvallis)" >> >> So yur saying that detonation does not occure below 75%?...Not so >> sure >>about that. I do know Superior did a lot of testing on this but I'm not >> so sure they came to that conclusion. >> >>Would be worth you reading John Deakin's articles on leaning procedure >> if you haven't done so already. >> >>Frank >> >>thankyou again Bob >> >>BTW I've also read that it is not possible to damage an engine by >> overleaning -provided power was not more than about 75%! >> >>Ken L. >> >> >>-- > > > -- > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:37:08 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IR alternator --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken If there is only one alternator, another point of view is to run it like it would run in the original car or whatever. Turn it on before start. That is still orderly and a step at a time according to the pre-start checklist. You are going to check that the volts (and or amps) are normal after start or pre-takeoff anyway and it is logical to me to do that at the same time as checking oil pressure etc. I don't see any advantage to waiting until after startup but I don't really think it matters either. My preference would simply to be to run it like it normally would in the car and to let the load build as the engine comes up to idle speed. I've also heard the theory that it is gentler to wait a few seconds for the battery voltage to recover after cranking, before turning on the alternator, but I haven't bought into that concept either yet ;) Ken Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >At 08:02 AM 10/9/2005 -0700, you wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Franz Fux" >> >> >>Thanks Bob for your in depth answer, in your opinion, should the alternator >>be switched on before starting the engine or after, >>Franz >> >> > > I don't think it's electrically critical and from what we understand > about the startup dynamics under normal conditions, it doesn't > matter. From the systems OPERATOR perspective, it seems practical > and prudent to bring things up in steps so that the pilot can > observe the effects of each new action separately. When I write > POH supplements, I get high marks for orderly, one-step at a time > instructions. So, lacking information suggesting that it's unwise, > I'll say that the alternator be left OFF until the engine is > running smoothly whereupon the pilot's attention can be shifted > to cause an effects of bringing the electrical system up to full > operation. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:46:16 AM PST US From: "David Henderson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Henderson" Comments please; I am installing a Light Speed electrical ignition system with Hall effect on an IO-360 B1B, replacing my right magneto. Should I or should I not purchase the Slick Start ($385 from Aircraft Spruce) for the left magneto with the impulse coupler? Dave Henderson RV-7 N925LW (Lord Willing) ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:30:19 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" Naa, crank it on the EI and you will be happy. The LSE retards nicely for you for smooth fast starts. Just my experience on 2 lyco's with LSE's Mike Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Henderson Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Henderson" Comments please; I am installing a Light Speed electrical ignition system with Hall effect on an IO-360 B1B, replacing my right magneto. Should I or should I not purchase the Slick Start ($385 from Aircraft Spruce) for the left magneto with the impulse coupler? Dave Henderson RV-7 N925LW (Lord Willing) ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:44:22 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring questions From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Ok so my wiring of my IFR'd RV7 is looking more like brain surgery than wiring! 1) Where is one supposed to ground the shields for the coax to the antennas? My audio/data wiring is sheilded and grounded at the ground block on the firewall but do I ground all the coax to the same place or to the airframe at the antennas themselves? 2) Is it realistic to have the marker beacon antenna in the bottom of the fiberglass cowl or will the electronic ignitions cause me all sorts of problems?? Thanks Frank ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:06:29 PM PST US From: "B Tomm" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Solid State contactors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" Check out Eric'c powerlink @ http://www.periheliondesign.com/powerlinkjr.htm This is a smaller version of another which looks to be temporarily unavailable. I to am also interested in the larger one and would like to hear Eric comment on this, Eric? Bevan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Angier M. Ames Subject: AeroElectric-List: Solid State contactors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Angier M. Ames" --> Hello Bob, My Lancair 360 has the usual master and starter contactors as well as two more contactors for the gear system. Do you know of any solid state devices which could replace these contactors? Thanks, Angier Ames ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:19:24 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring questions From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" Hi Frank, Antennas that use coax with controlled impedance (50ohm - RG-8/58/400) should not have any additional electrical connections made - no 'grounding.' The coax feedline efficiently conveys the RF energy between the antenna and the radio. I don't think 'grounding' is really an appropriate concept for handling RF energy. If the antenna uses the metal of the aircraft structure as a 'ground plane,' it's really using the metal to provide an electrical 'counterpoise' to allow efficient use of a shorter radiator. The local connection of the coax shield to the metal aircraft structure makes this design work. It's only coincidentally 'grounded' to the rest of the airframe (though it wouldn't need to be to work properly). Consider that many plastic airplanes have transponder antennas designed to be mounted to metal airplanes. In the plastic airplane, all that's required to make these work is to provide a conductive disc that's relatively large compared to the wavelength of the signal - an 8" diameter sheet of .024 Al does the job in my plane. The only thing that it's electrically connected to is the shield of the feed line. It works great! It seems likely that an ignition system that is well engineered and installed should probably allow mounting the MB antenna nearby. The MB operates at 75MHz, and should not be an easy victim. Regards, Matt- > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George > (Corvallis)" > > Ok so my wiring of my IFR'd RV7 is looking more like brain surgery than > wiring! > > 1) Where is one supposed to ground the shields for the coax to the > antennas? My audio/data wiring is sheilded and grounded at the ground > block on the firewall but do I ground all the coax to the same place or > to the airframe at the antennas themselves? > > 2) Is it realistic to have the marker beacon antenna in the bottom of > the fiberglass cowl or will the electronic ignitions cause me all sorts > of problems?? > > Thanks > > Frank > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:20:56 PM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: AeroElectric-List: magneto timing buzz box --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Campbell" > > > Take a look at the $25 kit from www.MagnetoTimer.com > and see if that meets your needs. Thanks much Greg. I bought this kit and soldered it up last night. It works great!!! Photos here: http://images.rvproject.com/images/magtimer/ The kit is 100% complete, and the instructions are excellent. The components come taped to a diagram with arrows pointing where they go. There is zero guesswork. Anybody could build this. Sure beats paying double for an off-the-shelf buzz box. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (643 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 01:46:55 PM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" I had EXACTLY that setup on my newly overhauled IO-360A1A (converted at overhaul from O-360A1A). Breaking in the engine (in other words, seating the rings) I ran up and down the Salinas and Central Valleys in August two summers ago , with numerous hot starts. NEVER, not once did I have a problem starting. My friend's Bonanza powered with an IO-550 (mags of course) had to leave his plane one hot afternoon at Chico because of a hot start problem. He installed a Slick Start and has flown more than a 200 hours since, including AirVenture each of the years since installation, no problems. When installing the Slick Start, part of the checkout is to observe a spark plug (all other plugs removed) when the starter is engaged to see the super spark. When anyone sees this, there is left no doubt about igniting a mixture either too rich or too lean. Also with the LSE, it produces one heck of a spark. I now have dual LSE's with a battery backup. I start ONLY on one LSE CDI on the backup battery whose ONLY function is to fire the #1 CDI. I have not had a hot start problem either. So this says that you probably don't need the Slick Start. In case you haven't heard, if in starting the battery voltage drops below 8 v (mine drops to about 9 v), the CDI should drop off line. However there has been reports of kick back causing damage to the starter. SOOOO........this says in your case, get a Slick Start, start on only the mag and when the engine is running, turn on the CDI. However, I had no problems when I was starting on both the CDI and Slick Start, but had only about 100 hours prior to replacing the mag with the second LSE CDI and backup battery. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Henderson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Henderson" > > > Comments please; I am installing a Light Speed electrical ignition system > with Hall effect on an IO-360 B1B, replacing my right magneto. Should I or > should I not purchase the Slick Start ($385 from Aircraft Spruce) for the > left magneto with the impulse coupler? > > > Dave Henderson > > RV-7 N925LW (Lord Willing) > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:57:22 PM PST US From: "David Henderson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Henderson" I already have dual alternator (one belt, one gear) and dual battery (2 Odyssey). I get the impression I should skip the Slick Start and buy another LSE Hall effect. Sure wish I could sell these new mags that came with the engine. Anybody game, real cheap, wires included! Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Sweet Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" I had EXACTLY that setup on my newly overhauled IO-360A1A (converted at overhaul from O-360A1A). Breaking in the engine (in other words, seating the rings) I ran up and down the Salinas and Central Valleys in August two summers ago , with numerous hot starts. NEVER, not once did I have a problem starting. My friend's Bonanza powered with an IO-550 (mags of course) had to leave his plane one hot afternoon at Chico because of a hot start problem. He installed a Slick Start and has flown more than a 200 hours since, including AirVenture each of the years since installation, no problems. When installing the Slick Start, part of the checkout is to observe a spark plug (all other plugs removed) when the starter is engaged to see the super spark. When anyone sees this, there is left no doubt about igniting a mixture either too rich or too lean. Also with the LSE, it produces one heck of a spark. I now have dual LSE's with a battery backup. I start ONLY on one LSE CDI on the backup battery whose ONLY function is to fire the #1 CDI. I have not had a hot start problem either. So this says that you probably don't need the Slick Start. In case you haven't heard, if in starting the battery voltage drops below 8 v (mine drops to about 9 v), the CDI should drop off line. However there has been reports of kick back causing damage to the starter. SOOOO........this says in your case, get a Slick Start, start on only the mag and when the engine is running, turn on the CDI. However, I had no problems when I was starting on both the CDI and Slick Start, but had only about 100 hours prior to replacing the mag with the second LSE CDI and backup battery. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Henderson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Henderson" > > > Comments please; I am installing a Light Speed electrical ignition system > with Hall effect on an IO-360 B1B, replacing my right magneto. Should I or > should I not purchase the Slick Start ($385 from Aircraft Spruce) for the > left magneto with the impulse coupler? > > > Dave Henderson > > RV-7 N925LW (Lord Willing) > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 03:14:47 PM PST US From: "Tinne maha" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Audio Wire Shielded? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" Hello Bob & List, I'm installing a Flightcom 403 Intercom with a King KT-76A & Garmin GNC 250 XL GPS/Comm in a basic VFR Panel. A few questions: 1 - The wires from the PTT switches will be perpendicular to 'fat' wires with about 3 inches of separation. Will the use of shielded wire here produce a noticeable difference? I strongly suspect unshielded is the best choice, but would rather get an experienced opinion. 2 - The wires from the mic & phone jacks must run in a bundle of fat wires for 6ft or run parallel to but about 6 inches away from the transponder antenna line for about a couple feet of length. Which is the lesser evil? Would it be idiotic to install an unshielded wire in either case? Please forgive me if I missed this in the archives, Grant ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 03:20:38 PM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" I sold mine on eBay. Forgot what I got for them; sold so much other stuff, it all get fuzzed together. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Henderson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Henderson" > > > I already have dual alternator (one belt, one gear) and dual battery (2 > Odyssey). I get the impression I should skip the Slick Start and buy > another > LSE Hall effect. Sure wish I could sell these new mags that came with the > engine. Anybody game, real cheap, wires included! > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne > Sweet > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" > > > I had EXACTLY that setup on my newly overhauled IO-360A1A (converted at > overhaul from O-360A1A). Breaking in the engine (in other words, seating > the > > rings) I ran up and down the Salinas and Central Valleys in August two > summers ago , with numerous hot starts. NEVER, not once did I have a > problem > > starting. My friend's Bonanza powered with an IO-550 (mags of course) had > to > > leave his plane one hot afternoon at Chico because of a hot start problem. > He installed a Slick Start and has flown more than a 200 hours since, > including AirVenture each of the years since installation, no problems. > When installing the Slick Start, part of the checkout is to observe a > spark > plug (all other plugs removed) when the starter is engaged to see the > super > spark. When anyone sees this, there is left no doubt about igniting a > mixture either too rich or too lean. > Also with the LSE, it produces one heck of a spark. > I now have dual LSE's with a battery backup. I start ONLY on one LSE CDI > on > the backup battery whose ONLY function is to fire the #1 CDI. I have not > had > > a hot start problem either. So this says that you probably don't need the > Slick Start. > In case you haven't heard, if in starting the battery voltage drops below > 8 > v (mine drops to about 9 v), the CDI should drop off line. However there > has > > been reports of kick back causing damage to the starter. > SOOOO........this says in your case, get a Slick Start, start on only the > mag and when the engine is running, turn on the CDI. > However, I had no problems when I was starting on both the CDI and Slick > Start, but had only about 100 hours prior to replacing the mag with the > second LSE CDI and backup battery. > Wayne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Henderson" > To: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Henderson" >> >> >> Comments please; I am installing a Light Speed electrical ignition system >> with Hall effect on an IO-360 B1B, replacing my right magneto. Should I >> or >> should I not purchase the Slick Start ($385 from Aircraft Spruce) for the >> left magneto with the impulse coupler? >> >> >> Dave Henderson >> >> RV-7 N925LW (Lord Willing) >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 03:39:10 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: aggressive engine leaning From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:53:01 -0500, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > We may find someone who want's to contest George's assertions. All in > good fun and enlightenment as long as the gladiators > bring data. I recently took the Advance Pilot Seminar and I believe it is going to take a herculean effort in both data and theory to best George. I highly recommend the course to anyone who wants to know what goes on in their engine. John Schroeder -- ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 04:13:32 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slick Start From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" This is not an original plan, but, I think it's a good one: Get your LSE setup so that it get's adequate voltage while starting, and install an impulse coupling driven Slick. Run the Slick until it wears out (500hours?). Put the other Slick in next and run it until it wears out too (another 500hours). Now your probably 5-10 years down the road and haven't had to develop the electricals to keep the LSE's going. At that point, buy whatever the niftiest spark-maker there is. It probably won't need a 2nd battery (or whatever). Install that, and live happily ever after... ;) I think there are even adapters to run automotive plugs from the magnetos - even cheaper. Regards, Matt- > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Henderson" > > > I already have dual alternator (one belt, one gear) and dual battery (2 > Odyssey). I get the impression I should skip the Slick Start and buy > another LSE Hall effect. Sure wish I could sell these new mags that came > with the engine. Anybody game, real cheap, wires included! > > Dave > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 04:48:13 PM PST US From: rd2@evenlink.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: strobe problem --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com Hi all, What is the most likely failing part of a wingtip strobe (aeroflash in a cessna, over 20 yrs.) and what is the best way of checking? The bulb works ok when connected to another power supply; the original power supply gives a humming noise. Capacitor/s? Rumen ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 05:35:25 PM PST US From: Jon Goguen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: strobe problem --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jon Goguen I don't have any direct experience with repair of aircraft strobes, but work with other equipment has put capacitors and connectors at the top of the list when I start troubleshooting. Sounds like the capacitors are a good bet. Jon Jon Goguen jon.goguen@umassmed.edu Central Massachusetts Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved) Complete except for electrics and avionics "Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind" --Woody Allen On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:36 PM, rd2@evenlink.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com > > Hi all, > > What is the most likely failing part of a wingtip strobe (aeroflash in > a > cessna, over 20 yrs.) and what is the best way of checking? The bulb > works > ok when connected to another power supply; the original power supply > gives > a humming noise. Capacitor/s? > > Rumen > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 06:47:20 PM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: strobe problem --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" Sounds like you're in the market for a power supply, if you can't get it repaired. I recently had a Whelen power supply go on the fritz after less than 2 years of operation. Whelen repaired it for free. Here's what came back on the work report: http://images.rvproject.com/images/whelen/5.jpg "REPLACED HYBRID, FET, TRANSFORMER, RESISTOR" I don't even know what a "hybrid" is let alone know how to fix it. ;-) Hope this is relevant... )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (643 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: strobe problem > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com > > Hi all, > > What is the most likely failing part of a wingtip strobe (aeroflash in a > cessna, over 20 yrs.) and what is the best way of checking? The bulb works > ok when connected to another power supply; the original power supply gives > a humming noise. Capacitor/s? > > Rumen > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 07:00:02 PM PST US From: Richard Riley Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues <9853.208.187.29.230.1128963288.squirrel@webmail.spro.net> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley It was a nearly new Velocity with 120 or so on the factory new I0-550 engine. "Destroyed" in the is case means 2 pistons burned through and 2 more heavily damaged by what "appeared" to be "detonation." Engine instrumentation is a JPI system - I don't know the model but it's a data recording engine analyzer. Ignition was 2 mags, installed by the factory. I don't happen to know the timing, I assume that it was per factory spec since it hadn't been changed since it left the factory. Fuel was 100 low lead from the last airport he was at. Resolution was a major overhaul, due to the amount of metal the pistons dumped into the case. He was running it full rich to try to keep the oil temps down. If he had leaned it the oil temp would have been much higher. I do not "know" the reason the engine was "destroyed." I have "reported" the basic "facts" as I "know" them. Feel free to reach your own conclusions. At 09:54 AM 10/10/05, Matt Prather wrote: >Hi Richard, > >Please pardon me for saying so, but this kind of message seems >provocative, and somewhat contentious. What constitutes "destroyed?" Are >you trying to refute what Mr Braly said? Let's not start a "wives tale." > >From what very limited data you provided, I have to be suspicious of the >instrumentation. Oil temp of 220-230 is actually at the top normal range, >I think. What ignition system was being used on this engine, and how was >it timed? What type of fuel was being used? What was the end resolution. > Or were you saying that the rich mixture was the cause of the engine >being "destroyed?" > > >Regards, > >Matt- > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley > > > > > > A year ago a friend of mine destroyed a Cont IO-550 running it full > > rich, WOT, 8500 feet. Cyl head temps were in the 375 range, but oil > > temp was high (poor cooler installation) at 220-230. > > > > > > At 07:30 AM 10/10/05, you wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" > >> > >> > >> > >>It is essentially impossible to make a *conforming* normally aspirated > >> TCM engine, operating on conforming 100LL fuels - - go into detonation. > >> > >>If one were to try to do so, one would want to run the CHTs up to > >> redline at 460 d F, and even then it is doubtful you get it to > >> detonate, even if you play foose-ball with the mixture control. > >> > >>Different story for the turbo-charged engines. > >> > >>That is not to say that some mixture settings are a LOT better for the > >> engine than others. That is a different issue from detonation. > >> > >>Regards, George > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > >>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > >> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) > >>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > >>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker > >> issues > >> > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George > >>(Corvallis)" > >> > >> So yur saying that detonation does not occure below 75%?...Not so > >> sure > >>about that. I do know Superior did a lot of testing on this but I'm not > >> so sure they came to that conclusion. > >> > >>Would be worth you reading John Deakin's articles on leaning procedure > >> if you haven't done so already. > >> > >>Frank > >> > >>thankyou again Bob > >> > >>BTW I've also read that it is not possible to damage an engine by > >> overleaning -provided power was not more than about 75%! > >> > >>Ken L. > >> > >> > >>-- > > > > > > -- > > > > > > >-- -- ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:18 PM PST US From: Richard Riley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: strobe problem --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley I thought Aeroflash strobes were only for the experimental category? At 04:36 PM 10/10/05, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com > >Hi all, > >What is the most likely failing part of a wingtip strobe (aeroflash in a >cessna, over 20 yrs.) and what is the best way of checking? The bulb works >ok when connected to another power supply; the original power supply gives >a humming noise. Capacitor/s? > >Rumen > > >-- -- ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 09:05:46 PM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues <9853.208.187.29.230.1128963288.squirrel@webmail.spro.net> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" FWIW, JetA or any form of kerosene could cause what happened to this engine. A Turbo Charged Aerocommander was fueled with JetA at MRY and ditched in the Monterey Bay when both engine apparently went into detonation and presumably pre-ignition and then quit. Was the fuel of the Velocity checked for contamination? Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Riley" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues <9853.208.187.29.230.1128963288.squirrel@webmail.spro.net> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley > > It was a nearly new Velocity with 120 or so on the factory new I0-550 > engine. "Destroyed" in the is case means 2 pistons burned through > and 2 more heavily damaged by what "appeared" to be > "detonation." Engine instrumentation is a JPI system - I don't know > the model but it's a data recording engine analyzer. Ignition was 2 > mags, installed by the factory. I don't happen to know the timing, I > assume that it was per factory spec since it hadn't been changed > since it left the factory. Fuel was 100 low lead from the last > airport he was at. > > Resolution was a major overhaul, due to the amount of metal the > pistons dumped into the case. > > He was running it full rich to try to keep the oil temps down. If he > had leaned it the oil temp would have been much higher. > > I do not "know" the reason the engine was "destroyed." I have > "reported" the basic "facts" as I "know" them. Feel free to reach > your own conclusions. > > > At 09:54 AM 10/10/05, Matt Prather wrote: > >>Hi Richard, >> >>Please pardon me for saying so, but this kind of message seems >>provocative, and somewhat contentious. What constitutes "destroyed?" Are >>you trying to refute what Mr Braly said? Let's not start a "wives tale." >> >From what very limited data you provided, I have to be suspicious of the >>instrumentation. Oil temp of 220-230 is actually at the top normal range, >>I think. What ignition system was being used on this engine, and how was >>it timed? What type of fuel was being used? What was the end resolution. >> Or were you saying that the rich mixture was the cause of the engine >>being "destroyed?" >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Matt- >> >> >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley >> > >> > >> > A year ago a friend of mine destroyed a Cont IO-550 running it full >> > rich, WOT, 8500 feet. Cyl head temps were in the 375 range, but oil >> > temp was high (poor cooler installation) at 220-230. >> > >> > >> > At 07:30 AM 10/10/05, you wrote: >> > >> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>It is essentially impossible to make a *conforming* normally aspirated >> >> TCM engine, operating on conforming 100LL fuels - - go into >> >> detonation. >> >> >> >>If one were to try to do so, one would want to run the CHTs up to >> >> redline at 460 d F, and even then it is doubtful you get it to >> >> detonate, even if you play foose-ball with the mixture control. >> >> >> >>Different story for the turbo-charged engines. >> >> >> >>That is not to say that some mixture settings are a LOT better for the >> >> engine than others. That is a different issue from detonation. >> >> >> >>Regards, George >> >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> >>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> >> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) >> >>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> >>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker >> >> issues >> >> >> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George >> >>(Corvallis)" >> >> >> >> So yur saying that detonation does not occure below 75%?...Not so >> >> sure >> >>about that. I do know Superior did a lot of testing on this but I'm not >> >> so sure they came to that conclusion. >> >> >> >>Would be worth you reading John Deakin's articles on leaning procedure >> >> if you haven't done so already. >> >> >> >>Frank >> >> >> >>thankyou again Bob >> >> >> >>BTW I've also read that it is not possible to damage an engine by >> >> overleaning -provided power was not more than about 75%! >> >> >> >>Ken L. >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > >> >> >>-- > > > -- > > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 09:08:49 PM PST US From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator blast tubes. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" Bob: Given your comments below, does that mean I don't NEED to install a blast tube to my alternator? I'm currently finishing my engine baffling installation and have to locate some blast tube flanges to rivet on to the baffling if required. If not then I won't have to find a flange and go to the trouble(and won't have a large air leak out of the baffles either). I'm planning on installing the B&C 60 amp alternator. Please advise. Dean Psiropoulos RV-6A N197DM South Florida --------------Original message---------------------------------------------- --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Experiment". I'm continually amazed at the numbers of threads over the years where builders are advised to take fans off 'cause they "run the wrong way". Or, "add blast tubes to avoid overheating", or any number of other remedies to mitigate an alternator failure . . . Yet not a single discussion talked about studies to measure operating temperatures or any suggestion that they be done. Alternator failures on OBAM aircraft are probably more rare... Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 09:35:53 PM PST US From: "Stein Bruch" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: strobe problem --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" They have both experimental and certified systems, although it's interesting to note they share literally the same components. There are / were a number of certificated aircraft that did / do come with Aeroflash strobes..... Cheers, Stein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Riley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: strobe problem --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley I thought Aeroflash strobes were only for the experimental categor-- ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:02 PM PST US From: "Jim Baker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New comic book on circuit breaker issues <9853.208.187.29.230.1128963288.squirrel@webmail.spro.net> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" > Feel free to reach your own conclusions. OK...... > It was a nearly new Velocity with 120 or so on the factory new I0- 550 engine. Now we have a pusher, probably the XL version, that clearly is designed for the IO-550, and, further, has several examples flying without incident. What's different about this one? >"Destroyed" in the is case means 2 pistons burned through and > 2 more heavily damaged by what "appeared" to be "detonation." That may be conjecture. Parts flying around in the case often cause ancilliary damage. What we're interested in is the root cause. Fuel contamination with Jet A? Has the factory, or any other qualified engineering firm, looked at these parts? > Engine >instrumentation is a JPI system - I don't know the model but it's a > data recording engine analyzer. This is a key piece of info....have the data been saved? Mr. Braley might be interested in seeing these.......???? > He was running it full rich to try to keep the oil temps down. If he > had leaned it the oil temp would have been much higher. And I'll bet he didn't even try to lean it. Intuition says lean is hotter, and that may be true up to a certain fuel/air ratio, but then things get a lot cooler...fast!...when leaned. Figure 8-9 in Taylor's The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory And Practice, Vol 1, Thermodynamics, says a lot about gas temperatures..... Your friend has a problem that is not standard. Obviously a problem encountered before but not resolved. Installation? Ducting? Was the Velocity IO-550 install kit used? I think the bottom line is that running an engine full rich to keep oil temps down borders on lunacy. There has to be another factor involved. On any other installation this engine is capable and willing to keep oil temps in check given a correctly engineered installation, including the Velocity. Why not in this case? This has all the earmarks of an operator/systems problem, not an engine problem (clearly conjecture on my part, as well....). > I do not "know" the reason the engine was "destroyed." I have > "reported" the basic "facts" as I "know" them. Nor do I know the reason. For what it's worth (and 50 cents for a cup of coffee)....... Jim Baker 580.788.2779 '71 SV, 492TC Elmore City, OK ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 11:26:07 PM PST US From: Werner Schneider Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: strobe problem --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider Hello Rumen, what kind of Aeroflash setup do you have, PS at the wingtips or central? However on my aeroflash units one of the capacitors gave up (what a mess) as they are special made you have to get a reconditoned or a new PS. As I'm running an experimental I did change the whole setup, to LED and car strobe PS. br Werner rd2@evenlink.com wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com > >Hi all, > >What is the most likely failing part of a wingtip strobe (aeroflash in a >cessna, over 20 yrs.) and what is the best way of checking? The bulb works >ok when connected to another power supply; the original power supply gives >a humming noise. Capacitor/s? > >Rumen > > > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 11:34:19 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IR alternator (On before or after start?) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >Bob N wrote: *lacking information suggesting that it's unwise, I'll say that the alternator be left OFF until the engine is running smoothly*, Bob likes to say he deals in facts only. The above comment is unbelievable. We dont have any info so why the hell not? lol. Quote, Sir Robert L. Nuckolls (the 3rd): *I focus on nothing but facts George . . . my career success absolutely depends on an artful exploitation of facts.* Artful exploitation of facts (more lol). Bob you are a character. No offense to Bob's opinion, but it is an opinion based on ZERO facts. To quote or paraphrase Bob he does not recommend IR alternators and does not know anything about them except he removed them and threw them out, when he converted B&C alternators to external regulation. Manually turning IR alternators ON and OFF under load is not needed and is abrupt at best. The fact is IR alternators are designed for applications where this is never done should be enough clue. I am not sure where Bob is coming from but I am still laughing at his super scientific * we don't know any better so why not*. There is absolutely NO value added by turning the alternator ON after engine start in anyway shape or form. It is just one more steps and that is not good. Once the engine starts look at the load-meter / amp meter (shunt or hall-effect should be on alternator B-lead). Is it showing a draw or output? Good enough. More pilot work load distracts from more important tasks. How many Cessnas or Pipers require a separate action to turn the alternator on or off? NONE. Alternator on GA planes are turned ON and OFF with the BAT/MASTER switch when the engine is not turning. It is the first and last thing the pilot does. With an IR alternator, you should wire it and operate it as it was intended in the original application (Toyota Corolla, Suzuki Samurai, Toyota folk lift). When you turn your master ON, energize the alternator at the same time. When you turn your BAT/MASTER OFF, the ALTERNATOR is turned OFF. End of story. One switch, a DPST switch will accomplish this in a single switch throw. Dont make it more complicated than necessary. Those darn engineers always make it complicated. Keep it simple. If you need to remove power to the alternator IGN while the BAT/ALT switch is ON, pull the Alt CB in the panel. Not only operate the alternator as it was designed, wire the alternator as designed. You should have pull type CB protection (not fuses) on the panel for the B-lead and IGN wire. Manually pulling the CB's can isolate the alternator if needed. THAT IS THE WAY THE DUMB ENGINEERS DESIGNED IT. May be the engineers who design it, who tested it for 10's of thousands hours in very demanding lab and field tests (realistic and valid) and made millions of them with excellent service reliability might be right? May be we should not GUESS and copy the installation and operation exactly. DO YOU THINK? DeeeDaaaDeeeee. As far as check list I can tell you on the B737, you start the engines first, than bring the AC gen on line after checking the AC freq and volts are correct. I now fly the B757. The 757 GENs are brought on line automatically when available. Before flying the Boeing 737/757 I was an engineer and instructor for the Boeing company and made technical input to checklist changes. Checklist are not written by one person in a casual manner. Engineering system experts, test pilots, airline pilots, instructors, customers, human factor engineers and the FAA, all are consulted. The less steps the better. You have to kill to add one step. Dont make your experimental a B707 where you need a flight engineer. The less steps the better. Be cool and get the job done with less throws of switches not more. None of these JET procedures apply to our little sky scooters. Keep your systems simple. Bob will tell you there are no GA planes which require you to manually bring the alternator(s) on line as a separate step, so I have know idea WHY he would suggest otherwise? Why be different from the standard method and technique used on all GA planes? Just because DONT MAKE YOUR EXPERIMENTAL PLANE ODD with odd operating procedures. Have you flown a Cessna C172 or Piper Cherokee? Do you turn the alternator manually after start? NO. I have flow 30 different models of GA planes and none required a separate step. A builder who posted on this list, operated his ND IR alternator routinely by turning it ON and OFF manually under load, after engine start and before engine shut down. He started having some issues. The regulated voltage was not as stable as it had been, peaking at about 16 volts and than dropping under load. Also the alternator no longer responded as it had before. He was advised by several people he talked to, including myself that his normal procedure was not good practice. There is a cause and affect. You can call people ignorant but that does not change the facts. Some think if it did not happen on their bench with a regulated power supply it is not useful. Trust me the real world is a more valid test than the bench most of the time. It is like nuisance trips of the crow-bar OV modules causing damage to IR alternators. The crow bar works on the bench but in the aircraft, well not so much, sometimes, why? The repeatable test is useless if it is not valid. Is it VALID? Th is is the critical part of the scientific method. Not the SWAG method: Scientific Wild Ass Guess method. Pilots who DON'T manually turn their alternator on/off or use an OV module, have little or no problems. Pilots who add on OV modules and/or turn their alternator on and off under load have problems. Hmmmmmm. Sorry I did not bench tested it. Operate the alternator as designed. It was designed to be ON when spun-up and ON when spun down. Even when abused by the pilot the ND alternators DID NOT have dangerous or damaging over voltage conditions, even in a failed mode. If the CHARGE light was connected it would have illuminated to show the fault. So if you choose to do this you may damage the regulator out in 100-300 hours. However myself and other pilots have over 8 years and thousand of hours of respective trouble free service experience with the ND alternator. I also have two Acura autos, both with ND alternators. One ND alternator went 12 years and equivalent of 4000 hours with no problems. The second Acura has about 13 years and 120K miles and is still going strong. My Acuras' ND alternator's are always ON when the engine is started or stopped. Bob has said he does not recommend IR alternators (at all, period), end of story. Later Bob says it is OK if you can understand it and the chance of failure is rare. I dont know what Bob believes. He says he knows nothing of them but has all kinds of ideas on how to use them. He says he only deals in facts? What ever. I wish Bob would be consistent here. Trust me I have researched this subject with an open mind and have determined that you have two choices: -Follow Bobs advice on using an external VR with some kind of OV protection. It is all good stuff. I think Bob's way is simple and easy to understand and there is no mystery about the IR alternators IC chip. However there is no 100% guarantee. Bob's crow-bar should work because of *artful exploitation of facts*, as Bob says. The fact is there are only a few transistors and is dirt simple. As long as you test the crow bar frequently, it does not trip when is should not, it should work if ever needed, emphasis on SHOULD. If you have been in design and analysis long enough you know nothing is 100%. They Key is Bob can control this simple design, he can not control the ND alternator design. Fair enough. -Use an IR alternator and install and operate according to its design, DO NOT mix and match with the external VR architecture or philosophy, they are two different concepts and animals. DONT MIX AND MATCH. In the case of Van's 60amp alternator that is a 90's Toyota Corolla application. Also per Van's recommendations leave the add on OV off. Bob calls Van ignorant but there is a known history of faults and nuisance trips of the crow bar and damaged IR alternators. Even though this is empirical data, if a wise man saw several failures from cutting the b-lead open, while making power, one would be lead to this hypothesis, it is a BAD COMBO. Of course Bob even though he has none of the facts that Van is working on or bother to ask him for the data, Van is ignorant. If you are willing to damage your IR alternator put on the OV module, by all means. If you are lucky you will not get a nuisance trip or maybe the added on load dump device will save alternator damage. Now you have all this crap, RELAY, CROW BAR, LOAD DUMP DEVICE. All this expense, weight and risk of alternator damage for something unlikely. All this is on top of the OV protection the IR alternator already provides. This is because of some theory the transistor in the IR will fail in a very specific way with out warning and instantaneously. There is no history of failure but WHAT THE HELL? WHERE ARE THE FACTS BOB LOVES. Sounds like theory and worry for little benefit. FLAME SUIT ON. Stick and stones will Golden RULES of IR alternator use: -Wire per manufacture or per original application of the alternator. -Operate per design, which means dont manually turn it ON and OFF while spinning. Use a B-lead CB in the panel that can be pulled, forget the non-standard auto Busman fuse concept**. **(To quote Bob; THIS COULD NEVER BE CERTIFIED, when he talks about why IR alternators are inferior or not aircraft worthy some how. We can conclude fuses that can not be accessed in-flight must also be inferior and bad, since they are not certified. Using the same argument Bob uses against IR alternators, remote fuses cant be (or have been) certified, therefore they are BAD. No factory GA plane has the hidden fuse set up Bob promotes. Please dont quote Biz jets or Large Jets have CBs in remote locations in the cargo holds you cant access. This is not a good reason since you don't need the cargo door or cargo light in flight. The FAA told Bob his fuse concept is not acceptable. What does Bob say? The FAA is stupid and they cant grasp his brilliance. Hey I agree with Bob, but I still have a panel full of beautiful mini Texas Instrument Klixon CB's. I bought them cheap, new surplus. My point is certification is not the gold standard of the universe.) -If there is a light or remote voltage sense on the IR alternators wiring plug, connect them as designed. You can use a fusible link for the remote voltage sense. The remote voltage sense is off the hot battery and should be protected. -Dont add on OV modules per Vans aircraft. There is a reason. Bob says Van is and I quote, IGNORANT. Again there is ignorance going on but it is not Van. -If your ND alternator shows any unusual voltage variation, remove it, test it and replace the VR as required. ND alternators tend to fail in a safe and passive mode. There are no documented case to show otherwise or case of a massive OV condition, despite the rumors and urban legend. Not even Bob has came up with a documented case with FACTS. I have asked and nothing. Anyone from the peanut gallery have facts please come forward. Please no: *My Buddies, Friends, Uncle had an OV in a Cessna 172 with a ND alternator.* Also Nissan uses almost all Hitachi not ND and there are no recalls for any ND alternator I have researched most commonly used by builders. Cheers George :-) >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" nuckollsr@cox.net >Subject: IR alternator > > > >Thanks Bob for your in depth answer, in your opinion, should the alternator be switched on >before starting the engine or after, Franz > >I don't think it's electrically critical and from what we understand about the startup dynamics >under normal conditions, it doesn't matter. From the systems OPERATOR perspective, it >seems practical and prudent to bring things up in steps so that the pilot can observe the >effects of each new action separately. When I write POH supplements, I get high marks for >orderly, one-step at a time instructions. So, lacking information suggesting that it's unwise, I'll >say that the alternator be left OFF until the engine is running smoothly whereupon the pilot's >attention can be shifted to cause an effects of bringing the electrical system up to full >operation. Bob --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 11:50:38 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IR alternator (On before or after start?) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >Bob N wrote: *lacking information suggesting that it's unwise, I'll say that the alternator be left OFF until the engine is running smoothly*, Bob likes to say he deals in facts only. The above comment is unbelievable. We dont have any info so why the hell not? lol. Quote, Sir Robert L. Nuckolls (the 3rd): *I focus on nothing but facts George . . . my career success absolutely depends on an artful exploitation of facts.* Artful exploitation of facts (more lol). Bob you are a character, you make me laugh :-) No offense to Bob's opinion, but it is an opinion based on ZERO facts. To quote or paraphrase Bob he does not recommend IR alternators and does not know anything about them except that he removed them and threw them out, when he converted B&C alternators to external regulation. Manually turning IR alternators ON and OFF under load is not needed and is abrupt at best. The fact is IR alternators are designed for applications where this is never done should be enough clue. I am not sure where Bob is coming from but I am still laughing at his super scientific * we don't know any better so why not*. There is absolutely NO value added by turning the alternator ON after engine start in anyway shape or form. It is just one more steps and that is not good. Once the engine starts look at the load-meter / amp meter (shunt or hall-effect should be on alternator B-lead). Is it showing a draw or output? Good enough. More pilot work load distracts from more important tasks. How many Cessnas or Pipers require a separate action to turn the alternator on or off? NONE. Alternator on GA planes are turned ON and OFF with the BAT/MASTER switch when the engine is not turning. It is the first and last thing the pilot does. With an IR alternator, you should wire it and operate it as it was intended in the original application (Toyota Corolla, Suzuki Samurai, Toyota folk lift). When you turn your master ON, energize the alternator at the same time. When you turn your BAT/MASTER OFF, the ALTERNATOR is turned OFF. End of story. One switch, a DPST switch will accomplish this in a single switch throw. Dont make it more complicated than necessary. Those darn engineers always make it complicated. Keep it simple. If you need to remove power to the alternator IGN while the BAT/ALT switch is ON, pull the Alt CB in the panel. Not only operate the alternator as it was designed, wire the alternator as designed. You should have pull type CB protection (not fuses) on the panel for the B-lead and IGN wire. Manually pulling the CB's can isolate the alternator if needed. THAT IS THE WAY THE DUMB ENGINEERS DESIGNED IT. May be the engineers who design it, tested it for 10's of thousands hours in very demanding lab and field tests (realistic and valid) and made millions of them with excellent service reliability might be right? May be we should not GUESS and copy the installation and operation exactly. DO YOU THINK? DeeeDaaaDeeeee. As far as check list I can tell you on the B737, you start the engines first, than bring the AC gen on line after checking the AC freq and volts are correct. I now fly the B757. The 757 GENs are brought on line automatically when available. Before flying the Boeing 737/757 I was an engineer and instructor for the Boeing company and made technical input to checklist changes. Checklist are not written by one person in a casual manner. Engineering system experts, test pilots, airline pilots, instructors, customers, human factor engineers and the FAA, all are consulted. The less steps the better. You have to kill to add one step. Dont make your experimental a B707 where you need a flight engineer. The less steps the better. Be cool and get the job done with less throws of switches not more. None of these JET procedures apply to our little sky scooters. Bob will tell you there are no GA planes which require you to manually bring the alternator(s) on line as a separate step, so I have know idea WHY he would suggest otherwise? Why be different from the standard method and technique used on all GA planes? Just because DONT MAKE YOUR EXPERIMENTAL PLANE ODD with odd operating procedures. Have you flown a Cessna C172 or Piper Cherokee? Do you turn the alternator manually after start? NO. I have flow 30 different models of GA planes and none required a separate step. A builder who posted on this list, operated his ND IR alternator routinely by turning it ON and OFF manually under load, after engine start and before engine shut down. He started having some issues. The regulated voltage was not as stable as it had been, peaking at about 16 volts and than dropping under load. Also the alternator no longer responded as it had before. He was advised by several people he talked to, including myself that his normal procedure was not good practice. There is a cause and affect. His procedure killed the VR. You can call people ignorant but that does not change the facts. Some think if it did not happen on their bench with a regulated power supply it is not useful. Trust me the real world is a more valid test than the bench most of the time. It is like nuisance trips of the crow-bar OV modules causing damage to IR alternators. The crow bar works on the bench, but in the aircraft, well it works not so well, sometimes. Why? The repeatable test is usel ess if it is not valid. Is it VALID? This is the critical part of the scientific method. Not the SWAG method: Scientific Wild Ass Guess method. Pilots who DON'T manually turn their alternator on/off or use an OV module, have little or no problems. Pilots who add on OV modules and/or turn their alternator on and off under load have problems. Hmmmmmm. Sorry I did not bench tested it. Operate the alternator as designed. It was designed to be ON when spun-up and ON when spun down. Even when abused by the pilot the ND alternators DID NOT have dangerous or damaging over voltage conditions, even in a failed mode. If the CHARGE light was connected it would have illuminated to show the fault. So if you choose to do this you may damage the regulator out in 100-300 hours. However myself and other pilots have over 8 years and thousand of hours of respective trouble free service experience with the ND alternator. I also have two Acura autos, both with ND alternators. One ND alternator went 12 years and equivalent of 4000 hours with no problems. The second Acura has about 13 years and 120K miles and is still going strong. My Acuras' ND alternator's are always ON when the engine is started or stopped. Bob has said he does not recommend IR alternators (at all). Period, end of story. Later Bob says it is OK if you can understand it and the chance of failure is rare. I dont know what Bob believes. He says he knows nothing of them but has all kinds of ideas on how to use them. He says he only deals in facts? What ever. I wish Bob would be consistent here. Trust me I have researched this subject with an open mind and have determined that you have two choices: -Follow Bobs advice on using an external VR with some kind of OV protection. It is all good stuff. I think Bob's way is simple and easy to understand and there is no mystery about the IR alternators IC chip. However there is no 100% guarantee. Bob's crow-bar should work because of *artful exploitation of facts*, as Bob says. The fact is there are only a few transistors is dirt simple. As long as you test the crow bar frequently it should work, emphasis on SHOULD. If you have been in design and analysis long enough you know nothing is 100%. They Key is Bob can control the design, he can not control the ND alternator design. Fair enough. -Use an IR alternator and install and operate according to its design, DO NOT mix and match with the external VR architecture or philosophy, they are two different concepts and animals. DONT MIX AND MATCH. In the case of Van's 60amp alternator that is a 90's Toyota Corolla application. Also per Van's recommendations leave the add on OV off. Bob calls Van ignorant but there is a known history of faults and nuisance trips of the crow bar and damaged IR alternators. Even though this is empirical data, if a wise man saw several failures from cutting the b-lead open, while making power, one would be lead to this hypothesis, it is a BAD COMBO. Of course Bob even though he has none of the facts that Van is working on or bothered to ask him for the data, Van is ignorant. If you are willing to damage your IR alternator put on the OV module, by all means. If you are lucky you will not get a nuisance trip or maybe the added on load dump device will save alternator from damage. Now you have all this crap, RELAY, CROW BAR, LOAD DUMP DEVICE. All this expense, weight and risk of alternator damage for something unlikely. All this is on top of the OV protection the IR alternator already provide s. This is because of some theory the transistor in the IR will fail in a very specific way with out warning and instantaneously. There is no history of failure but WHAT THE HELL? WHERE ARE THE FACTS BOB LOVES. Sounds like theory and worry for little benefit. FLAME SUIT ON. Stick and stones will Golden RULES of IR alternator use: -Wire per manufacture or per original application of the alternator. -Operate per design, which means dont manually turn it ON and OFF while spinning. Use a B-lead CB in the panel that can be pulled, forget the non-standard auto Busman fuse concept**. **(To quote Bob THIS COULD NEVER BE CERTIFIED, when he talks about why IR alternators being inferior some how. We can conclude fuses that can not be accessed in-flight must also be inferior and bad, since they are not certified. Using the same argument Bob uses against IR alternators, remote fuses cant be certified, therefore BAD. No factory GA plane has the hidden fuse set up Bob promotes. Please dont quote Biz jets or Large Jets have CBs in remote locations in the cargo holds you cant access. This is not a good reason since you don't need the cargo door in flight. The FAA told Bob his fuse concept is not acceptable. What does Bob say? The FAA is stupid and they cant grasp his brilliance. Hey I agree with Bob, but I still have a panel full of beautiful mini Texas Instrument Klixon CB's. I bought them cheap, new surplus. My point is certification is not the gold standard of the universe.) -If there is a light or remote voltage sense on the IR alternators wiring plug, connect them as designed. You can use a fusible link for the remote voltage sense. The remote voltage sense is off the hot battery and should be protected. -Dont add on OV modules per Vans aircraft. There is a reason. Bob says Van is and I quote, IGNORANT. Again there is ignorance going on but it is not Van. -If your ND alternator shows any unusual voltage variation, remove it, test it and replace the VR as required. ND alternators tend to fail in a safe and passive mode. There are no documented case to show otherwise or case of a massive OV condition, despite the rumors and urban legend. Not even Bob has came up with a documented case with FACTS. I have asked and nothing. Anyone from the peanut gallery have facts please come forward. Please no *My Buddies, Friends, Uncle had an OV in a Cessna 172 with a ND alternator.* Also Nissan uses Hitachi not ND and there are no recalls for any ND alternator I have researched used on Toyota or Suzuki. Cheers George :-) >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" nuckollsr@cox.net >Subject: IR alternator > > > >Thanks Bob for your in depth answer, in your opinion, should the alternator be switched on >before starting the engine or after, Franz > >I don't think it's electrically critical and from what we understand about the startup dynamics >under normal conditions, it doesn't matter. From the systems OPERATOR perspective, it >seems practical and prudent to bring things up in steps so that the pilot can observe the >effects of each new action separately. When I write POH supplements, I get high marks for >orderly, one-step at a time instructions. So, lacking information suggesting that it's unwise, I'll >say that the alternator be left OFF until the engine is running smoothly whereupon the pilot's >attention can be shifted to cause an effects of bringing the electrical system up to full >operation. Bob ---------------------------------