Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:25 AM - Re: Battery Bus Architecture (John Schroeder)
2. 05:30 AM - Re: Twisted wire pairs? (John Schroeder)
3. 06:10 AM - Single Lead To Two Tachs? (Bill Denton)
4. 06:11 AM - Re: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup (Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi)
5. 06:26 AM - Re: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:43 AM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (Jim Baker)
7. 07:59 AM - Re: Battery Bus Architecture (LarryRobertHelming)
8. 08:16 AM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
9. 08:16 AM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (Dan Beadle)
10. 08:37 AM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (Dan Beadle)
12. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 09:45 AM - Lighted Toggle Switches (Bret Smith)
14. 10:21 AM - Re: Amateur Built Requirements ()
15. 10:57 AM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (Jim Baker)
16. 12:00 PM - Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size (Will N. Stevenson)
17. 01:02 PM - Question about Strobe Wire Disconnects (EuropaXSA276@aol.com)
18. 01:50 PM - Re: Question about Strobe Wire Disconnects (James H Nelson)
19. 02:13 PM - Re: Lighted Toggle Switches (N5SL)
20. 02:20 PM - Re: Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size (Bruce Gray)
21. 02:50 PM - Re: Lighted Toggle Switches (John Schroeder)
22. 03:33 PM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 06:22 PM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (Jim Baker)
24. 09:43 PM - welding cable (peter goudinoff)
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: Battery Bus Architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Dick -
We have both batteries behind the baggage compartment of our Lancair ES.
The battery busses are about 8-10" from the batteries and the contactors
are about 12"-14". We use #2 welding cable to get the juice back and forth
to the firewall.
> With a battery located behind the baggage compartment (RV 10) should the
> battery bus/fuses be located close to the battery with individual circuit
> wiring as necessary to the powered components/switches or, should a
> single feeder lead from the battery to a more centrally located bus i.e.
> behind
> panel?
John Schroeder
--
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: Twisted wire pairs? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Jerry -
Twisting can reduce noise out of or into the wires. I would twist them
when the installation info says to do it. They probably have reason to
prescribe it. After that, common sens seems to be the norm. If a set of
wires feed a similar piece of equipment, I would twist them. I'd also
twist wires such as press-to-talk wiring on a stick.
Hope this helps.
John Schroeder
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:17:14 -0500 autolearn=unavailable
version=3.0.2, Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi <jlintx@gvtc.com> wrote:
> The installation manual for some of the equipment I am installing calls
> for twisting the leads. What is the purpose of twisting > wires and
> when do I do it? When should I not twist wires?
--
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: | Single Lead To Two Tachs? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Can the Tach output on a Rotax 2-Stroke engine be used to feed two separate
Tach instruments?
If so, how would you wire it?
I'm looking at some "combo" instruments where some displays are duplicated.
Thanks...
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: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup |
autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.2
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi" <jlintx@gvtc.com>
Bob and others,
It may be a moot point on whether RG-58 is suitable to task of LSE's electronic
ignition. LSE now ships them with RG-400. The Plasma III I received early
this year came with RG-400. Bob, is this wire up to the task?
Jerry
Firewall fwd wiring
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: Lightspeed Ignition Coil hookup |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:11 AM 10/21/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi"
><jlintx@gvtc.com>
>
>Bob and others,
> It may be a moot point on whether RG-58 is suitable to task of LSE's
> electronic ignition. LSE now ships them with RG-400. The Plasma III I
> received early this year came with RG-400. Bob, is this wire up to the task?
Most certainly. The biggest problem with RG-58 was it's
very low melting points for the inner insulation and
it's vulnerability to hydrocarbon vapors and other
uglies that live under the cowl. RG-400 is much more
suitable.
Bob . . .
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> The failure mode cited is NOT a short but an open that causes
> the load path to shift. In the picture at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
>
> you can see the two copper wire jumpers across moving
> joints made up of little ropes of exceedingly fine strands
> of wire. These are RATED at many thousands of cycles on the
> data sheet . . . but it seems that the sum total of environmental
> stresses as-installed are such that these critters fail in a few
> thousand cycles.
Well, it's time for me to display my ignorance again. In so many of
the aircraft I've flown or owned, I can't tell you the number of times a
circuit breaker has actually been cycled (aside from the fact that
many can't unless tripped by load). I suspect it may be a procedural
thing to pull breakers on larger aircraft for some specific purpose.
Any examples? I'll slink back into my hole now......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Battery Bus Architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Usually there are not many devices powered from the battery bus/buss. I
would mount it close to the battery to minimize exposure of the unprotected
run and then run wires as needed to the components/accessories powered by it
through fuses appropriate for the devices. You just need to pick a location
for it close to the battery that could be somewhat easily accessible while
on the ground if a fuse blows. Maybe a special access door could be built
for this purpose of checking the fuses.
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Bus Architecture
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp"
> <rsipp@earthlink.net>
>
> With a battery located behind the baggage compartment (RV 10) should the
> battery bus/fuses be located close to the battery with individual circuit
> wiring as necessary to the powered components/switches or, should a single
> feeder lead from the battery to a more centrally located bus i.e. behind
> panel?
>
> Thanks for the advice.
>
> Dick Sipp
>
>
>
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: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Jim you big dope.
EVERYBODY knows you should cycle those breakers every once in a while.
Don't they?:)
Mike
Have seen this discussed on the list before.
Was recommended by Bob to do that.
I remember first doing it and it felt like I did when I was a new pilot
playing with the RED knob. I was afraid if I pulled it, it would never
go back to the way it was. Know what I mean?
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Baker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Breakers
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker"
<jlbaker@telepath.com>
> The failure mode cited is NOT a short but an open that causes
> the load path to shift. In the picture at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
>
> you can see the two copper wire jumpers across moving
> joints made up of little ropes of exceedingly fine strands
> of wire. These are RATED at many thousands of cycles on the
> data sheet . . . but it seems that the sum total of environmental
> stresses as-installed are such that these critters fail in a few
> thousand cycles.
Well, it's time for me to display my ignorance again. In so many of
the aircraft I've flown or owned, I can't tell you the number of times a
circuit breaker has actually been cycled (aside from the fact that
many can't unless tripped by load). I suspect it may be a procedural
thing to pull breakers on larger aircraft for some specific purpose.
Any examples? I'll slink back into my hole now......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
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: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
The fact that you have not had a breaker pop is great - you have not had
system failures. Obviously, if the "weak link" (breaker) were not there
and you had a short circuit, something else would eventually become the
weak link. This is normally the wire to the device. If the wire burns,
it may be behind some panel or insulation (where it is more difficult to
get the heat away from the wire) So you have a potential fire - or at
least noxious fumes - possibly in the cockpit.
As for pulling breakers, the hat-style CBs are a switch of last resort.
You will find them in Cessnas and Pipers for circuits where a stuck
controls switch is a problem. Some examples:
- Stall Warning system - there is no other "off switch" if the stall
vane fails and the horn is on continuously
- Gear motors. My C414 gear is electric/hydraulic. If a critical
microswitch fails (or the wires to it short) the gear motor runs
continuously. Problem is, it will fail after about 60 seconds of
continuous operation.
- Autopilot Disconnect. The FAA seems frightened of autopilot "run
away", so there are multiple ways to turn off the AP. In my plane there
are 4: the AP on/off switch, the yoke disconnect, the AP mounted
emergency switch and finally the AP CB. The checklist calls for testing
these before each flight...
So the CB with the hat (finger pulls) really do offer two levels of
safety: over current (the CB feature) and one last disconnect (a
switch). The flat style CBs don't offer the pilot controlled switch
feature.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Baker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Breakers
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker"
--> <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> The failure mode cited is NOT a short but an open that causes
> the load path to shift. In the picture at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
>
> you can see the two copper wire jumpers across moving
> joints made up of little ropes of exceedingly fine strands
> of wire. These are RATED at many thousands of cycles on the
> data sheet . . . but it seems that the sum total of environmental
> stresses as-installed are such that these critters fail in a few
> thousand cycles.
Well, it's time for me to display my ignorance again. In so many of the
aircraft I've flown or owned, I can't tell you the number of times a
circuit breaker has actually been cycled (aside from the fact that many
can't unless tripped by load). I suspect it may be a procedural thing to
pull breakers on larger aircraft for some specific purpose.
Any examples? I'll slink back into my hole now......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/21/2005 10:18:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com writes:
As for pulling breakers, the hat-style CBs are a switch of last resort.
You will find them in Cessnas and Pipers for circuits where a stuck
controls switch is a problem.
Good Morning Dan,
You might also add that Beech often uses a switch type of combination
switch/circuit breaker.
Later models of the Bonanza have them for most of the control switches on
the lower left electrical control panel. If you look closely, the amperage
rating of the CB function is generally printed on the tip of the switch handle.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
Right. That is the same on my C414 for the avionics. And they have an
AD against that Breaker/Switch right now. I have not looked at the
details, but if there were a failure of the "on/off" switch part of the
combo where it stuck on, there is no separate CB to "pull" off. The
combo saves space, but I would prefer a separate switch and pull
breaker.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Breakers
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/21/2005 10:18:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com writes:
As for pulling breakers, the hat-style CBs are a switch of last resort.
You will find them in Cessnas and Pipers for circuits where a stuck
controls switch is a problem.
Good Morning Dan,
You might also add that Beech often uses a switch type of combination
switch/circuit breaker.
Later models of the Bonanza have them for most of the control switches
on the lower left electrical control panel. If you look closely, the
amperage rating of the CB function is generally printed on the tip of
the switch handle.
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: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/21/2005 11:11:15 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com writes:
Right. That is the same on my C414 for the avionics. And they have an
AD against that Breaker/Switch right now. I have not looked at the
details, but if there were a failure of the "on/off" switch part of the
combo where it stuck on, there is no separate CB to "pull" off. The
combo saves space, but I would prefer a separate switch and pull
breaker.
Dan
Good Morning Dan,
I do not have that AD available to me at this time, but I do not believe it
applies to the ones used by Beechcraft in the Bonanza.
However, I can certainly see your reasoning for preferring to have the
switches and the circuit breakers separate from each other.
I can also see the point for using the combination unit in order to save
space!
So far, the combos have worked well for me.
No doubt, though, that any component we use is subject to failure.
Thank goodness we have choices.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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: | Lighted Toggle Switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bret Smith" <smithhb@tds.net>
I was looking for a lighted toggle switch that would help with switch
location during nighttime flights and ran across these puppies.
http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/NKKSwitches/Lighted_Toggle
_switch_with_superbright_LEDs/4462/0
These appear to be bright enough to offer a panel lighting option as well.
Does anyone have any experience with these switches or NKK switches in
general?
Bret
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Amateur Built Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
10/21/2005
Hello Wayne, Thanks for your prompt response copied below and the
opportunity to confirm the correctness of my table and to clear up a common
misunderstanding.
Here is the situation: The FAA, with help from the EAA, permits the flying,
in day VFR only, of some very rudimentary (no offense intended) aircraft.
Some examples are Breezy, Cri-Cri, Curtis Pusher Replicas, and Quicksilver
MX. These are true amateur built experimental aircraft that are registered
with the FAA, have N numbers assigned, and have been issued Special Category
airworthiness certificates for operating amateur built aircraft.
But it is obviously impractical or impossible for these rudimentary
aircraft to be instrumented and equipped as required by FAR Sec 91.205 (b).
At the same time the FAA wants to ensure that more sophisticated and higher
powered amateur built experimental aircraft that will be flown IFR or at
night are properly equipped for such flight.
The FAA accomplishes this dual goal through wording in the Operating
Limitations that are the part of the airworthiness certificate of each
amateur built experimental aircraft. Those words are: "After completion of
Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or
instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated
under VFR, day only."
Maybe there is a better way for the way for the FAA to accomplish their
intended dual goals (I find the above wording awkward and back handed
myself, even in conflict with some other words in the Operating
Limitations), but that is the way they are doing it now. If you want
confirmation of what I have written above I can put you in touch with the
authorities.
The table that I have created is accurate for equipping (and to some extent
operating) amateur built experimental aircraft because it takes into account
current FAA policy, FAA Orders, FAR content, and each aircraft's
airworthiness certificate which includes the Operating Limitations with the
wording provided above.
<< 91.205 is so very clear that powered civil aircraft with ANY US category
airworthiness certificate must have the instruments and equipment in
91.205(b).>>
Not quite. The heading of FAR Sec 91.205 reads "Powered civil aircraft with
STANDARD category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment
requirements." (emphasis provided). Since amateur built experimental
aircraft have SPECIAL category, not Standard, category, airworthiness
certificates FAR Sec 91.205, as written, does not apply to amateur built
experimental aircraft at all. It takes the Operating Limitations wording
quoted above to make FAR Sec 91.205 applicable to amateur built aircraft as
reflected in my table.
<<The reason I say this is your table differs drastically from the table
that appeared recently in Sport Aviation magazine.>>
You are right. The table on page 68 of the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation
magazine is different from mine. Dick Koehler created that table as an
accurate reflection of FAR Sec 91.205 AS WRITTEN for aircraft with Standard
category airworthiness certificates. Note the title of that table. In order
to find out how that table relates to amateur built experimental aircraft
the reader must go into the text of Dick's article and interpret the
applicability of the table.
Dick very kindly provided me an electronic copy of his table. What I did was
modify it, and retitle it, so that the reader could directly see the
requirements for amateur built experimental aircraft without having to go
hunting through other sources.
I would like to emphasize that no table, plus a few accompanying words, can
tell the entire exact picture of this somewhat complex subject. There are
some subtle "gotchas" that require some further reading and understanding.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
OC
---- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks@zeltech.com>
Subject: RE: Amateur Built Requirements
>
> Hello Wayne, I am presuming that I am the "this guy"
>
> ----> I'm sorry, I thought I was replying to someone who forwarded the
> links
> from another person. Had I known that you were indeed "that guy", I would
> have addressed you more formally and more completely.
>
> And that "off his rocker" implies that you are taking exception to
> some information that you find in my Amateur Built Requirements Table
> which
> has been sent to you and other builders.
>
> --> I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion of "not required" for
> most
> all of the day VFR? 91.205 is so very clear that powered civil aircraft
> with ANY US category airworthiness certificate must have the instruments
> and
> equipment in 91.205(b). The reason I say this is your table differs
> drastically from the table that appeared recently in Sport Aviation
> magazine.
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: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> As for pulling breakers, the hat-style CBs are a switch of last
> resort.
...snip......
>Autopilot
> Disconnect.
Good point.
My current ride, Bellanca Viking, has the ETA breakers and the little
red buttons staring at me, even, wisdom-of-wisdoms, in the autopilot
CB position...couldn't pull any of them even if I wanted to. Duh. May
have to see if I have a P&B W23 sitting around... problem with that is
all my ETAs are spade, not ring terminal....sigh!
As for the RED KNOB....no fear. I'm a cheap SOB and the first thing
I do is look for ways to keep an excess of anything from burning
up.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
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: | Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Will N. Stevenson" <will@wavecable.com>
To perhaps beat on a dead horse here, I looked at AC20-27E, and AC20-27F, and nowhere
in either one is the 3/8" high font mentioned for the Passenger Warning
Placard. What am I missing here? Where has this 3/8" font information/rumour
come from? Don't the FSDO personnel have to go by the ACs issued by the FAA?
AC20-27E writes of this under 'Certification Process', Section 12 (e)(2), --no
mention of font size.
AC20-27F writes of this under 'Identifying and Marking your Amateur-Built Aircraft',
Section 9 (c), --no mention of font size. Probably I'm just missing some
info here, but where is it?
Frustrated and Confused,
Will
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: | Question about Strobe Wire Disconnects |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: EuropaXSA276@aol.com
Greetings.
I'm currently building a Europa. For those of your that are not familiar
with that bird, the wings are removable.
I plan on installing the Whelen 3 in one tip lights with a single comet flash
unit located in the fuselage baggage area.
In doing this set up, there will be a need to disconnect the high voltage
wires at the wing root with some sort of plug arrangement.
My question is about how to go about making a a safe, reliable and noise free
connection at the wing root that will enable wing removal. Plug suggestions?
Shielding necessary?
Thanks in advance for your opinions and ideas.
Brian Skelly
Texas
Europa # A276 TriGear
See My build photos at:
http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Question about Strobe Wire Disconnects |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
I used the supplied molex disconnects at the wing root for disconnecting.
Works fine as I flew it for two years with no noise or problems. The
Molex disconnects are fine for the high voltage. I had the power supply
in the fuselage and ran the supplied shielded wires to the wing tips.
Jim Nelson
(Monowheel)
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: Lighted Toggle Switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Bret:
I just installed these with the little lights on the end of the toggle:
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/10_20_05_Switches.JPG
They are not as intense as lighting the entire toggle. They come in red and green.
The price was around $5 each. I can try to take a photo of them lit up
if you want. I also used some rocker switches with little round lights on them.
I'll try to get a close-up, but you can see them on my panel photos on my website.
Scott Laughlin
www.cooknwithgas.com
CH601XL/Corvair
Bret Smith <smithhb@tds.net> wrote:
These appear to be bright enough to offer a panel lighting option as well.
Does anyone have any experience with these switches or NKK switches in
general?
Bret
---------------------------------
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: | Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Several years ago the FAA issued a new AC20-27?, in preliminary electronic
format. In it was the 3/8 inch font size requirement. The EAA and all us
guys started raising a fuss and the FAA recanted, saying it was a mistake.
The final published revision did not have any font size requirement. Seems
like some of our brethren are a bit behind the curve.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Will N.
Stevenson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Will N. Stevenson"
<will@wavecable.com>
To perhaps beat on a dead horse here, I looked at AC20-27E, and AC20-27F,
and nowhere in either one is the 3/8" high font mentioned for the Passenger
Warning Placard. What am I missing here? Where has this 3/8" font
information/rumour come from? Don't the FSDO personnel have to go by the
ACs issued by the FAA?
AC20-27E writes of this under 'Certification Process', Section 12 (e)(2),
--no mention of font size.
AC20-27F writes of this under 'Identifying and Marking your Amateur-Built
Aircraft', Section 9 (c), --no mention of font size. Probably I'm just
missing some info here, but where is it?
Frustrated and Confused,
Will
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: Lighted Toggle Switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Bret -
We used 12 NKK indicator lamps (LED's as the light source in each lamp)
for our annunciator panel. They are the lamp-only version of a line of
push button lighted switches. We got them through Carlton Bates. They
have offices around the country. The quality is excellent and the data in
their catalog is also excellent. Sure thanked them when we had the
annunciator panel cut to their dimensions and the lamps fit perfectly.
We also bought a couple of mini lock switches from them and they are
excellent. I'd buy any of their product line.
Hope this helps,
John
--
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: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:42 AM 10/21/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
>
> > The failure mode cited is NOT a short but an open that causes
> > the load path to shift. In the picture at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg
> >
> > you can see the two copper wire jumpers across moving
> > joints made up of little ropes of exceedingly fine strands
> > of wire. These are RATED at many thousands of cycles on the
> > data sheet . . . but it seems that the sum total of environmental
> > stresses as-installed are such that these critters fail in a few
> > thousand cycles.
>
>Well, it's time for me to display my ignorance again. In so many of
>the aircraft I've flown or owned, I can't tell you the number of times a
>circuit breaker has actually been cycled (aside from the fact that
>many can't unless tripped by load). I suspect it may be a procedural
>thing to pull breakers on larger aircraft for some specific purpose.
>Any examples? I'll slink back into my hole now......
A breaker is a specialized kind of switch with contacts held together
by springs to maintain a minimum pressure for good conductivity across
the contacts. Like switches, lightly loaded breakers (5A or less) are
subject to environmental stresses that corrode the contacts (molecules
thick) that will drive up the close contact resistance . . . sometimes
to the point of system malfunction. I've seen this happen several times
and the problem is always fixable by cycling the switch a dozen times or
so with some artificially high load (5A is enough) to "burn" the corrosion
clear. Alternatively, if the breakers are manually cycled under load
a half dozen times each annual, perhaps one will avoid having the thing
go open while in flight (very rare).
All this stuff is pretty academic . . . the failure mode is very low
rate although very under-reported because the technicians don't recognize
it. They simply replace the "failed" switch. I've recommended periodic
cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I hesitate to even mention it lest
it get fertilized and take off in the world of hangar legend funguses.
Bob . . .
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
>I've recommended periodic cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I
>hesitate to even mention it lest it get fertilized and take off in the
>world of hangar legend funguses.
>
> Bob . . .
............98,99,100. Next preflight item...........
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: peter goudinoff <peterg@dakotacom.net>
as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
peter goudinoff
Legacy #200
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! --
|