Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:27 AM - Re: (Mitsubishi) Controlling IR Alternators (N5SL)
2. 07:05 AM - Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Jim Oke)
3. 08:07 AM - Re: Circuit Breakers (Eric M. Jones)
4. 08:34 AM - Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Ken)
5. 09:04 AM - Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 09:11 AM - One antenna or two? (bob rundle)
7. 10:08 AM - Controlling IR ND Alternators (Glen Matejcek)
8. 10:08 AM - Re: One antenna or two? (rv-9a-online)
9. 10:21 AM - Re: One antenna or two? (rv6n6r@comcast.net)
10. 10:56 AM - Re: One antenna or two? (Bill Denton)
11. 11:49 AM - Re: One antenna or two? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
12. 12:57 PM - Re: First Operational GQM - OFF TOPIC (Dave Morris \)
13. 01:34 PM - Re: One antenna or two? (Wayne Sweet)
14. 01:40 PM - Re: First Operational GQM - OFF TOPIC (Alan K. Adamson)
15. 01:59 PM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (Dave Morris \)
16. 02:07 PM - Re: One antenna or two? (Dawson, Bill)
17. 03:19 PM - Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Ken)
18. 03:34 PM - Re: One antenna or two? (Dave Morris \)
19. 03:54 PM - Re: One antenna or two? (rv-9a-online)
20. 04:27 PM - Re: One antenna or two? (Ralph E. Capen)
21. 05:18 PM - Re: Starter problems (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
22. 06:55 PM - Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (BobsV35B@aol.com)
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: (Mitsubishi) Controlling IR Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Mickey and others:
Before discovering the Aeroelectric list, I purchased a Mitsubishi 40-amp 1-wire
alternator that seems well suited for my aircraft and has the same connections
as the ND. Here are two photos:
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/10_14_05_Alt1.JPG
and
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/10_14_05_Alt2.JPG
Since I'm new at this, do you guys have any comments on this particular unit?
Thanks,
Scott Laughlin
CH601XL / Corvair
Working on Firewall Forward & Wiring
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/
Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
I asked the Denso people this question, and here is what
they sent me:
http://rv8.ch/files/DensoConnections.pdf
Just for completeness, here is the contact info on the
guy that sent me the file:
David Yarus
Assistant Manager
Heavy Duty Aftermarket Department
DENSO Sales California, Inc.
(770) 565-6193 office
(770) 565-7028 fax
(678) 984-8353 cell
CHECK US OUT ON THE WEB AT:
Denso Heavy Duty Website
(www.densoheavyduty.com)
DAVID_YARUS "at" REMOVE-THIS-STUFFdenso-diam.com
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
---------------------------------
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
See another schematic for hooking up a DENSO alternator at
http://www.canadianaeromanufacturing.com/alt-instr.pdf.
It is probably more useful for aircraft applications and discusses the
"idiot light" arrangement. If the wiring for the light can simply be
deleted, it clearly doesn't matter is the bulb filament fails or whatever.
I have two of these alternators flying, BTW, they work well, I am happy
with them.
Jim Oke
Wpg, MB
RV-3, RV-6A
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>
>
>> > A) If the incandescent idiot light is in series on the wire leading from
>>the
>> > switch to the alternator L terminal and the filament in the bulb breaks
>>or
>> > burns out then no current can get to the L terminal and the alternator
>>shuts
>> > down and stops providing electricity. Right? Is this the desired
>> > arrangement? If so, why?
>>
>> That is how I understand the arrangement. It does seem peculiar that they
>>would design a system where the failure of the light bulb would cause both
>>the loss of power generation AND the loss of the associated warning. This
>>has made me think of 2 things. First, it could be why there are relatively
>>few alternators configured this way. Second, if one were to use LED for
>>the idiot light, the odds of it failing would become remote in the extreme.
>>Perhaps the automobiles equipped with this alternator do in fact have
>>LED's. I don't know.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I asked the Denso people this question, and here is what
>they sent me:
>
> http://rv8.ch/files/DensoConnections.pdf
>
>Just for completeness, here is the contact info on the
>guy that sent me the file:
>
>
>David Yarus
>Assistant Manager
>Heavy Duty Aftermarket Department
>DENSO Sales California, Inc.
>(770) 565-6193 office
>(770) 565-7028 fax
>(678) 984-8353 cell
>CHECK US OUT ON THE WEB AT:
>Denso Heavy Duty Website
>(www.densoheavyduty.com)
>DAVID_YARUS "at" REMOVE-THIS-STUFFdenso-diam.com
>
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Paul Messinger sent me this.
Interesting AD on Circuit Breakers.
http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2005/20052025ad.pdf
I am sure Bob will have more to say on this subject when he returns.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Never be afraid to tell the world who you are."
- Anonymous
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: Controlling IR ND Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Makes me wonder exactly why he included the following statement:
"Conditions in which a very high draw is being made of the alternator at
low RPM will cause extra
strain on the alternator and drive belt. Consider reducing the total
load in these situations, or
switching the alternator off and drawing from the battery only, if the
high load will be brief."
At low rpm I'd expect the output to be self limiting and most Lycoming
alternators are out front and well cooled aren't they??
Ken
Jim Oke wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
>
>See another schematic for hooking up a DENSO alternator at
>http://www.canadianaeromanufacturing.com/alt-instr.pdf.
>
>It is probably more useful for aircraft applications and discusses the
>"idiot light" arrangement. If the wiring for the light can simply be
>deleted, it clearly doesn't matter is the bulb filament fails or whatever.
>
>I have two of these alternators flying, BTW, they work well, I am happy
>with them.
>
>
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: Controlling IR ND Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/14/2005 10:35:35 A.M. Central Standard Time,
klehman@albedo.net writes:
Makes me wonder exactly why he included the following statement:
"Conditions in which a very high draw is being made of the alternator at
low RPM will cause extra
strain on the alternator and drive belt. Consider reducing the total
load in these situations, or
switching the alternator off and drawing from the battery only, if the
high load will be brief."
At low rpm I'd expect the output to be self limiting and most Lycoming
alternators are out front and well cooled aren't they??
Ken
Good Morning Ken,
May I make a stab at the question!
Let's say it is a 40 amp alternator and it is operating at the very minimum
RPM at which it can develop the 40 amps. You add a load of forty amps to the
circuit. The torque required to turn the alternator will be substantially
higher than it would be if the RPM was high enough for the alternator to easily
produce that forty amps. Therefore, at the higher RPM, there would be less
torque required and less chance of slippage. Low RPM, greater chance of
slippage.
At least, so it seems to me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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: | One antenna or two? |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle" <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or a
splitter (and single antenna).
Opinions?
Bob R
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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: | Controlling IR ND Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hey fellas (and gals)-
There's a whole lot of anecdotal info flying about, and precious little
research. Mickey is to be commended and thanked for not only having the
interest and motivation to research his alternator, but also for posting
that info for others to benefit from. This is good stuff. He is also to
be commended for basically saying "this is how mine is.", as opposed to
"this is how all alternators work".
This thread started out as a discussion of the rebuilt 60A alternator that
Van sells, Van's wiring directions, how this particular alternator is
configured, and other wiring options available to users of the Van's
supplied alternator. Mickey's is different. Or, perhaps I should say that
the alternator Van supplies is different from the vast majority of
alternators rolling down the road today. One of the big issues with using
IR alternators is the perceived inability to shut them down once running.
Well, the unit Van's sells is specifically configured to do just that.
Coincidence? I doubt it. C'mon folks, apples to apples, please.
I have spoken with the folks at Denso (Mickey's contact et al) to no avail,
as Van markets an O/Hauled unit. I have spoken with great success with a
mass overhauler of these units. Due to my own personal research, I am
satisfied that I now have the data I need to wire my aircraft safely, while
taking full advantage of the relatively unique attributes of my alternator.
I would respectfully suggest that people KNOW what they are dealing with
before turning the key.
Pax-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: One antenna or two? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Bob:
If you plan on transmitting from either comm, you should not use a
splitter. A splitter will drastically reduce your transmitted power,
may overload the other comm's receiver (possible damage), and may even
overheat the splitter.
The proper way to do this is with a switch... select one comm or the
other but not both. The downside of this is that you can't use the
second comm to monitor a second frequency.
Even with two antennas, you should use a switch (on the ptt line this
time) to allow only one comm to transmit at a time. Audio panels do
this for you, but are expensive for what you get otherwise.
What I did was put one wingtip VOR antenna in place, plus the comm
antenna on the bottom of the fuse. The wingtip VOR goes to a panel jack
where I can connect my handheld NAV/COM, but I could run it to a second
panel Comm. The VOR antenna is not the best for receiving or
transmitting VHF comm signals, but it will work fine as a second comm
for short range (formation flight, ATIS etc.)
I think you are stuck with two antennas and a PTT switch if you want
full functionality out of your two comms. If you don't want the drag
penalty, then stick one in the wingtip or elsewhere if you can-- not
perfect but maybe suitable. If you haven't bought your VHF comms yet,
the Garmin SL-40 provides the 'dual watch' capability in one radio, with
one antenna. I use an SL-40, plus a handheld connected to the VOR as
described above for backup.
Bok N. Has a comic book on his website somewhere about how to wire a
jack for VHF. The same concept could be used to add a switch and two
feedlines switched to one antenna:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html
Vern Little
RV-9A
bob rundle wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle" <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
>
>I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or a
>splitter (and single antenna).
>
>Opinions?
>
>Bob R
>
>Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>
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: One antenna or two? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv6n6r@comcast.net
> I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or
a
> splitter (and single antenna).
>
> Opinions?
How do you intend to use the plane and why dual coms?
Is it for redundancy? Then you probably want two antennas.
Is it just so you can listen on one while talking on the other? Then one
ant. is probably okay. (However in that case I'd consider a single SL40 or
other radio that lets you monitor one freq. while listening/talking on the
other.)
Is it IFR? Then it seems prudent to have one antenna per radio.
You may have other considerations but anyway that's how I'd approach it.
Personally I think a single SL40 is almost as good as two radios, and better
in some ways -- less weight, less cost, fewer wires, only one antenna.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
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: | One antenna or two? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
While you definitely would not want to use something like a Nav radio
splitter, there is a device specifically designed for this purpose:
http://www.comant.com/pdfs/[ci%20601]5-05.pdf
Take a look...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
rv-9a-online
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: One antenna or two?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
<rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Bob:
If you plan on transmitting from either comm, you should not use a
splitter. A splitter will drastically reduce your transmitted power,
may overload the other comm's receiver (possible damage), and may even
overheat the splitter.
The proper way to do this is with a switch... select one comm or the
other but not both. The downside of this is that you can't use the
second comm to monitor a second frequency.
Even with two antennas, you should use a switch (on the ptt line this
time) to allow only one comm to transmit at a time. Audio panels do
this for you, but are expensive for what you get otherwise.
What I did was put one wingtip VOR antenna in place, plus the comm
antenna on the bottom of the fuse. The wingtip VOR goes to a panel jack
where I can connect my handheld NAV/COM, but I could run it to a second
panel Comm. The VOR antenna is not the best for receiving or
transmitting VHF comm signals, but it will work fine as a second comm
for short range (formation flight, ATIS etc.)
I think you are stuck with two antennas and a PTT switch if you want
full functionality out of your two comms. If you don't want the drag
penalty, then stick one in the wingtip or elsewhere if you can-- not
perfect but maybe suitable. If you haven't bought your VHF comms yet,
the Garmin SL-40 provides the 'dual watch' capability in one radio, with
one antenna. I use an SL-40, plus a handheld connected to the VOR as
described above for backup.
Bok N. Has a comic book on his website somewhere about how to wire a
jack for VHF. The same concept could be used to add a switch and two
feedlines switched to one antenna:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html
Vern Little
RV-9A
bob rundle wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle"
<bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
>
>I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or a
>splitter (and single antenna).
>
>Opinions?
>
>Bob R
>
>Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: One antenna or two? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/14/2005 11:13:32 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bobrundle2@hotmail.com writes:
I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or a
splitter (and single antenna).
Opinions?
Bob R
Good Afternoon, Bob R,
I would strongly suggest using two separate antennas. A switching relay can
be used, but separate antennas work better. I have never tried a splitter,
but I do not think the transmitter would match well if that were attempted.
Splitters work fine for receivers though.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: First Operational GQM - OFF TOPIC |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
On the other side of that equation, in 1976 I was working on this:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od19.htm
We were firing gigawatt laser pulses at drones from a converted KC-135. We
had some extremely cutting edge technology onboard for keeping the turret
pointed at the target at any altitude, and we had some amazing lasers in
our underground, lead-lined labs. This was several years before anybody
had heard of Star Wars, and during the time that the so-called experts were
saying Reagan was crazy, and a missile defense system couldn't be done.
Dave Morris
At 07:28 PM 10/13/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>I'm still in contact with a number of the old missiles wiennies
>who went to CEI when our targets business was sold (the last of
>the skunk works left in Wichita aviation). Got some pictures in
>the mail today. The first non-experimental GQM-163 target was
>launched recently.
>
>This was my last really neat design task wherein I replaced a
>6#, 200 cu-in, $6,000 relay based power distribution box with
>a 0.7#, 36 cu-in, $1,000 all solid state replacement. Here's a
>picture of the launch.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/1st_Operational_GQM.jpg
>
>The white thing on the back is a solid rocket booster that kicks
>the target up to better than M1.5 in about 5 seconds. The engines
>on the target are ram jets that need supersonic air coming in before
>they'll even run. After the booster falls away, the engines light
>off and the critter accelerates on up to M2.5. This sea-skimming (5M)
>hard maneuvering (10-12g's in any direction) target. It has a
>service life on the order of 3 minutes and covers about 100 miles
>of range. GPS and laser altimeter guided to hit an amazingly small
>box out in the target range where it gets shot at.
>
>Pretty rich stuff compared to chasing 30 year old rats out of
>Hawkers and Beechjets!
>
>Bob . . .
>
>
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: One antenna or two? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
It is my understanding that for comm radios, each one must have it's own
antenna. For NAV's, splitters are very common.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "bob rundle" <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: One antenna or two?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle"
> <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
>
> I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or
> a
> splitter (and single antenna).
>
> Opinions?
>
> Bob R
>
> Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
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: | First Operational GQM - OFF TOPIC |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
http://www.nepra.com/Coyote_Article/Coyote.htm
Afterall as long as we are off topic :)
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Morris "BigD"
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: First Operational GQM - OFF TOPIC
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
--> <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
On the other side of that equation, in 1976 I was working on this:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od19.htm
We were firing gigawatt laser pulses at drones from a converted KC-135. We
had some extremely cutting edge technology onboard for keeping the turret
pointed at the target at any altitude, and we had some amazing lasers in our
underground, lead-lined labs. This was several years before anybody had
heard of Star Wars, and during the time that the so-called experts were
saying Reagan was crazy, and a missile defense system couldn't be done.
Dave Morris
At 07:28 PM 10/13/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>I'm still in contact with a number of the old missiles wiennies who
>went to CEI when our targets business was sold (the last of the skunk
>works left in Wichita aviation). Got some pictures in the mail today.
>The first non-experimental GQM-163 target was launched recently.
>
>This was my last really neat design task wherein I replaced a 6#, 200
>cu-in, $6,000 relay based power distribution box with a 0.7#, 36 cu-in,
>$1,000 all solid state replacement. Here's a picture of the launch.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/1st_Operational_GQM.jpg
>
>The white thing on the back is a solid rocket booster that kicks the
>target up to better than M1.5 in about 5 seconds. The engines on the
>target are ram jets that need supersonic air coming in before they'll
>even run. After the booster falls away, the engines light off and the
>critter accelerates on up to M2.5. This sea-skimming (5M) hard
>maneuvering (10-12g's in any direction) target. It has a service life
>on the order of 3 minutes and covers about 100 miles of range. GPS and
>laser altimeter guided to hit an amazingly small box out in the target
>range where it gets shot at.
>
>Pretty rich stuff compared to chasing 30 year old rats out of Hawkers
>and Beechjets!
>
>Bob . . .
>
>
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
I think it's funny that they cite the possible repercussions of a
shorted-out avionics master circuit breaker as being
"smoke and a burning smell"
How about:
"Fire, and a failure of all your avionics behind the breaker"
LOL!
Aren't you glad you're building an airplane where the entire avionics bus
probably costs less than the $500 repair cost they cite for this one
circuit breaker?
Dave Morris
No-avionics-master
At 10:05 AM 10/14/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>Paul Messinger sent me this.
>
>Interesting AD on Circuit Breakers.
>
>http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2005/20052025ad.pdf
>
>I am sure Bob will have more to say on this subject when he returns.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>(508) 764-2072
>
>"Never be afraid to tell the world who you are."
> - Anonymous
>
>
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: | One antenna or two? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dawson, Bill" <Bill.Dawson@pepperdine.edu>
Having only one antenna creates a single point of failure.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle"
> <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
>
> I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or
> a
> splitter (and single antenna).
>
> Opinions?
>
> Bob R
>
> Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
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: Controlling IR ND Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hi Bob
That is certainly a plausible explanation but I don't understand why one
would tolerate such a situation. If that is really the issue I'd want to
upgrade the belt or mount, fit a larger pulley, or whatever it took to
eliminate the concern...
Ken
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 10/14/2005 10:35:35 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>klehman@albedo.net writes:
>
>Makes me wonder exactly why he included the following statement:
>
>"Conditions in which a very high draw is being made of the alternator at
>low RPM will cause extra
>strain on the alternator and drive belt. Consider reducing the total
>load in these situations, or
>switching the alternator off and drawing from the battery only, if the
>high load will be brief."
>
>At low rpm I'd expect the output to be self limiting and most Lycoming
>alternators are out front and well cooled aren't they??
>
>Ken
>
>
>Good Morning Ken,
>
>May I make a stab at the question!
>
>Let's say it is a 40 amp alternator and it is operating at the very minimum
>RPM at which it can develop the 40 amps. You add a load of forty amps to the
>circuit. The torque required to turn the alternator will be substantially
>higher than it would be if the RPM was high enough for the alternator to easily
>produce that forty amps. Therefore, at the higher RPM, there would be less
>torque required and less chance of slippage. Low RPM, greater chance of
>slippage.
>
>At least, so it seems to me!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8503
>
>
>
>
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: | One antenna or two? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
The antenna itself is an unlikely source of failure. The connector on the
other hand, is more fragile. Protect the connector and it's pretty
bulletproof. Putting a coax switch between an antenna and a comm radio
introduces way more possible failures than the antenna or the
connector. But you can't put 2 radios on the same antenna without a
switch, or you'll overload or even blow out the receiver in one, when the
other transmits.
Dave Morris
N5UP
At 04:07 PM 10/14/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dawson, Bill"
><Bill.Dawson@pepperdine.edu>
>
>Having only one antenna creates a single point of failure.
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle"
> > <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
> >
> > I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or
> > a
> > splitter (and single antenna).
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > Bob R
> >
> > Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: One antenna or two? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
At $680 each, I'd think a second antenna would be cheaper than the
Comant diplexer.
Do not archive
Bill Denton wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>While you definitely would not want to use something like a Nav radio
>splitter, there is a device specifically designed for this purpose:
>
>http://www.comant.com/pdfs/[ci%20601]5-05.pdf
>
>Take a look...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>rv-9a-online
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: One antenna or two?
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
><rv-9a-online@telus.net>
>
>Bob:
>
>If you plan on transmitting from either comm, you should not use a
>splitter. A splitter will drastically reduce your transmitted power,
>may overload the other comm's receiver (possible damage), and may even
>overheat the splitter.
>
>The proper way to do this is with a switch... select one comm or the
>other but not both. The downside of this is that you can't use the
>second comm to monitor a second frequency.
>
>Even with two antennas, you should use a switch (on the ptt line this
>time) to allow only one comm to transmit at a time. Audio panels do
>this for you, but are expensive for what you get otherwise.
>
>What I did was put one wingtip VOR antenna in place, plus the comm
>antenna on the bottom of the fuse. The wingtip VOR goes to a panel jack
>where I can connect my handheld NAV/COM, but I could run it to a second
>panel Comm. The VOR antenna is not the best for receiving or
>transmitting VHF comm signals, but it will work fine as a second comm
>for short range (formation flight, ATIS etc.)
>
>I think you are stuck with two antennas and a PTT switch if you want
>full functionality out of your two comms. If you don't want the drag
>penalty, then stick one in the wingtip or elsewhere if you can-- not
>perfect but maybe suitable. If you haven't bought your VHF comms yet,
>the Garmin SL-40 provides the 'dual watch' capability in one radio, with
>one antenna. I use an SL-40, plus a handheld connected to the VOR as
>described above for backup.
>
>Bok N. Has a comic book on his website somewhere about how to wire a
>jack for VHF. The same concept could be used to add a switch and two
>feedlines switched to one antenna:
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html
>
>Vern Little
>RV-9A
>
>
>bob rundle wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle"
>>
>>
><bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
>
>
>>I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or a
>>splitter (and single antenna).
>>
>>Opinions?
>>
>>Bob R
>>
>>Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: One antenna or two? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
I have a much less expensive one - IIRC I got it from Bob Archer......
----- Original Message -----
From: "rv-9a-online" <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: One antenna or two?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
> <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
>
> At $680 each, I'd think a second antenna would be cheaper than the
> Comant diplexer.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
>><bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>While you definitely would not want to use something like a Nav radio
>>splitter, there is a device specifically designed for this purpose:
>>
>>http://www.comant.com/pdfs/[ci%20601]5-05.pdf
>>
>>Take a look...
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>>rv-9a-online
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: One antenna or two?
>>
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
>><rv-9a-online@telus.net>
>>
>>Bob:
>>
>>If you plan on transmitting from either comm, you should not use a
>>splitter. A splitter will drastically reduce your transmitted power,
>>may overload the other comm's receiver (possible damage), and may even
>>overheat the splitter.
>>
>>The proper way to do this is with a switch... select one comm or the
>>other but not both. The downside of this is that you can't use the
>>second comm to monitor a second frequency.
>>
>>Even with two antennas, you should use a switch (on the ptt line this
>>time) to allow only one comm to transmit at a time. Audio panels do
>>this for you, but are expensive for what you get otherwise.
>>
>>What I did was put one wingtip VOR antenna in place, plus the comm
>>antenna on the bottom of the fuse. The wingtip VOR goes to a panel jack
>>where I can connect my handheld NAV/COM, but I could run it to a second
>>panel Comm. The VOR antenna is not the best for receiving or
>>transmitting VHF comm signals, but it will work fine as a second comm
>>for short range (formation flight, ATIS etc.)
>>
>>I think you are stuck with two antennas and a PTT switch if you want
>>full functionality out of your two comms. If you don't want the drag
>>penalty, then stick one in the wingtip or elsewhere if you can-- not
>>perfect but maybe suitable. If you haven't bought your VHF comms yet,
>>the Garmin SL-40 provides the 'dual watch' capability in one radio, with
>>one antenna. I use an SL-40, plus a handheld connected to the VOR as
>>described above for backup.
>>
>>Bok N. Has a comic book on his website somewhere about how to wire a
>>jack for VHF. The same concept could be used to add a switch and two
>>feedlines switched to one antenna:
>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html
>>
>>Vern Little
>>RV-9A
>>
>>
>>bob rundle wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle"
>>>
>>>
>><bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
>>
>>
>>>I have a dual comm set-up. Trying to decide whether to have 2 antennas or
>>>a
>>>splitter (and single antenna).
>>>
>>>Opinions?
>>>
>>>Bob R
>>>
>>>Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>>>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Starter problems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Guys...
Thanks for the help with my starter. I'd been gone flying for a few days,
but in meantime, I "happened" to have a new Skytech sitting on my "Garage Queen"
RV6a..., so borrowed same for the interim. I will call Skytech ASAP and see
what they say and pass it on.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
<denis.walsh@comcast.net>
AHA
I do have some experience with sky-tec starters.
I whole heartedly recommend you call or visit their website. Sky
tec is the only recommended repair station for their starters. They
take great pride in reasonable repair and quick turn around. They
definitely know how to fix your starter.
Denis Walsh
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: Controlling IR ND Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/14/2005 5:21:35 P.M. Central Standard Time,
klehman@albedo.net writes:
Hi Bob
That is certainly a plausible explanation but I don't understand why one
would tolerate such a situation. If that is really the issue I'd want to
upgrade the belt or mount, fit a larger pulley, or whatever it took to
eliminate the concern...
Ken
Good Evening Ken,
No argument here, but I could perceive a situation where the airplane is
taxiing or otherwise in a situation where a higher power is not reasonable. At
that time, it may be reasonable to avoid trying to carry a high amperage
load. It could be that if the alternator was geared so as to be at a high enough
speed to put out the maximum power when at idle it would be spinning way too
fast at cruise. Most airplanes that I flew fifty years ago had electrical
systems where we had to use electrical power judiciously during almost all
ground operations.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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! --
|