Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:45 AM - No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments) ()
2. 07:14 AM - Re: P-Mag Which Bus? (Darwin N. Barrie)
3. 07:18 AM - Re: P-Mag Which Bus? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 08:28 AM - Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments) (Dan Beadle)
5. 08:31 AM - Re: P-Mag Which Bus? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:36 AM - Garmin 300xl/KI-202 ()
7. 08:36 AM - Re: Dual Alternator single battery question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:27 AM - Re: P-Mag Which Bus? (sportav8r@aol.com)
9. 09:37 AM - Re: Radio Panel Ground Buss (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:44 AM - Re: Garmin 300xl/KI-202 (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 10:42 AM - E/Pmag reliability thoughts (Alex Peterson)
12. 11:01 AM - Re: Aero Electric-List: Radio Panel Ground Buss (Bill Schlatterer)
13. 11:17 AM - Re: Bellanca starter debugging (David Lloyd)
14. 11:47 AM - Re: Bellanca starter debugging (Russell Williams)
15. 01:43 PM - Just A Few More Days Left; Lagging Behind Last Year... (Matt Dralle)
16. 02:11 PM - Re: Bellanca starter debugging (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 02:40 PM - Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments) (Jerry Grimmonpre)
18. 03:48 PM - Re: Radio Panel Ground Buss (Jerry Grimmonpre)
19. 04:22 PM - Re: Garmin 300xl/KI-202 (jtortho@aol.com)
20. 04:52 PM - Re: Latching power relays? (Bob how about NO relays?) ()
21. 05:01 PM - No Solenoid Wiring Scheme / ND alternator wiring ()
22. 05:26 PM - Con(fusing) fusible link questions? Z11 and Z13 (Bill Schlatterer)
23. 06:21 PM - Re: Radio Panel Ground Buss (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 06:53 PM - Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme / ND alternator wiring (Pebvjs@aol.com)
25. 08:57 PM - Re: Alternator terminals (Mark R. Supinski)
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: | No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
It seemed over kill to have three solenoids under the cowl:
FW Master: Has to be large to handle up to 300 amps flow thru to
the starter
FW Starter: Most modern aircraft starters (SkyTec) all have there
own solenoid
Starter: Has a big heavy duty solenoid already
If you wire the battery to the starter direct you will by pass the
firewall starter relay, which is not longer needed. Also since you
no longer have to feed the starter current thru the master you can
use a small relay to supply the "switch" master buss in the
cockpit. The mess on the fire wall has always looked terrible and
has many large connections. This alternate way will save almost
2 lbs and 1 amp of wasted current (12 watts) in wasted power to
the master contactor. Picture below:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7674/norelays21re.jpg
I think this will work with no loss in function or safety. I suppose
you could argue that the starter engages and back-drives as a
generator. What is the chance of that? Slim or nil. Well if it is a
concern add the firewall starter relay back. I see no reason to
have a big old firewall master relay.
George
---------------------------------
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: P-Mag Which Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
Do them per the instructions. You want them hot at all times when in operation.
Personally, I think two Pmags is overkill. I went with an EMag/PMag set up as
recommended. They are wired off the battery buss with a 5 amp breaker for the
Emag and a 5 amp switched breaker for the Pmag.
The Pmag on my set up cuts out at about 680 RPM, meaning you have to have at least
that much RPM for it to develop power. I'm not sure if the PMags can have
a matched cut off point or not, but I'm not sure I would want two Pmags with
different cut out points.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
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: P-Mag Which Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 11/27/2005 9:16:32 A.M. Central Standard Time,
ktlkrn@cox.net writes:
but I'm not sure I would want two Pmags with different cut out points
Why not?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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: | No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
The risk in this system is a shorted starter or wire to the starter. It
will attempt to blow the ANL fuse. It might. Or it might fry some wire
(resistance of 3 feet of #2 wire - about the run from the battery to the
starter - is only .0005 ohms. At 350 amps, only .175 volts are dropped
through the wire)
It seems that during service, the starter lead is an issue - drop a
wrench against it and ground and you probably fry something.
If the starter circuit fails in flight, you take out all battery power.
It seems that contactors make a lot of sense. At the least, I would put
a separate fuse between the battery and starter and a smaller one
between the battery and the hot buss as drawn in your picture. That
should be nice and light, but still safe.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your
comments)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
It seemed over kill to have three solenoids under the cowl:
FW Master: Has to be large to handle up to 300 amps flow thru to
the starter
FW Starter: Most modern aircraft starters (SkyTec) all have there
own solenoid
Starter: Has a big heavy duty solenoid already
If you wire the battery to the starter direct you will by pass the
firewall starter relay, which is not longer needed. Also since you
no longer have to feed the starter current thru the master you can
use a small relay to supply the "switch" master buss in the
cockpit. The mess on the fire wall has always looked terrible and
has many large connections. This alternate way will save almost
2 lbs and 1 amp of wasted current (12 watts) in wasted power to
the master contactor. Picture below:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7674/norelays21re.jpg
I think this will work with no loss in function or safety. I suppose
you could argue that the starter engages and back-drives as a
generator. What is the chance of that? Slim or nil. Well if it is a
concern add the firewall starter relay back. I see no reason to
have a big old firewall master relay.
George
---------------------------------
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: P-Mag Which Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:12 AM 11/27/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
>
>Do them per the instructions. You want them hot at all times when in
>operation. Personally, I think two Pmags is overkill. I went with an
>EMag/PMag set up as recommended. They are wired off the battery buss with
>a 5 amp breaker for the Emag and a 5 amp switched breaker for the Pmag.
If you have a switch-breaker off the battery bus, where is your battery
bus located? Are there any unprotected, long wires between the
battery and the hot side of the switch-breaker?
>The Pmag on my set up cuts out at about 680 RPM, meaning you have to have
>at least that much RPM for it to develop power. I'm not sure if the PMags
>can have a matched cut off point or not, but I'm not sure I would want two
>Pmags with different cut out points.
Why is this a concern?
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: | Garmin 300xl/KI-202 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by:
CardinalNSB@aol.com
<<.....skip......One issue regarding the Garmins, some say that a current
"database card" is required to be legal, and that verification that the
approaches to be used are current is not enough, based on a reading of the
installation manual. Since I'm not up and running and not IFR rated yet,
that issue has been on theback burner. Any thoughts? Thanks for all
your help, Skip>>
11/27/2005
Hello Skip, Your authority on current database requirements for IFR
operations is found in the AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual). Readily
available on the FAA web site.
Here is one place where this subject is covered.
"Paragraph 1-1-19 b. 3. (b) Database Currency (1) In many receivers, an
up-datable database is used for navigation fixes, airports, and instrument
procedures. These databases must be maintained to the current update for IFR
operation, but no such requirement exists for VFR use."
You can probably find other places as well.
OC
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: Dual Alternator single battery question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:30 PM 11/26/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tammy Goff" <tngoff@houston.rr.com>
>
>Bob, Thank you for your reply. I engaged in a little consultation
>(meeting on the minds) with my helper. We have come to an understanding
>and will be proceeding with things wired IAW Z-12. Thank you for the
>answers. George
If your helper has nagging concerns, I'd rather assuage them
than have him proceed by overriding directive. It's much
better to move forward with confidence and understanding
than with unfounded worries. Any chance he would join us
here or at least give me a call?
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: P-Mag Which Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably below
990 rpm.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Darwin N. Barrie <ktlkrn@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-Mag Which Bus?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
Do them per the instructions. You want them hot at all times when in operation.
Personally, I think two Pmags is overkill. I went with an EMag/PMag set up as
recommended. They are wired off the battery buss with a 5 amp breaker for the
Emag and a 5 amp switched breaker for the Pmag.
The Pmag on my set up cuts out at about 680 RPM, meaning you have to have at
least that much RPM for it to develop power. I'm not sure if the PMags can have
a matched cut off point or not, but I'm not sure I would want two Pmags with
different cut out points.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
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: Radio Panel Ground Buss |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:35 PM 11/26/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Bob, at the Wicks seminar earlier this year, you mentioned that you would
>have a radio/panel ground buss available on your site or from you shortly.
>Do you have them available yet?
I'm not ready to put them into the catalog yet. Which one
are you interested in? Vertical . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AGB_V.jpg
Right_Angle . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AVG_RA.jpg
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 300xl/KI-202 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:37:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb@cox.net writes:
Here is one place where this subject is covered.
"Paragraph 1-1-19 b. 3. (b) Database Currency (1) In many receivers, an
up-datable database is used for navigation fixes, airports, and instrument
procedures. These databases must be maintained to the current update for IFR
operation, but no such requirement exists for VFR use."
You can probably find other places as well.
OC
Good Morning OC,
We might also mention that there are variables in the way the individual FAA
Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplements are written. Whatever is written
in the individual supplement written for an individual installation is what
is controlling.
In the fall of 1997, Apollo managed to get FAA approval for a procedure
whereby an out of date datacard could be used if the pilot was able to verify
the
currency of the data contained therein by comparing that data to another
approved and current data source.
To my knowledge, no other manufacturer was able (maybe they didn't even
try!) to get the FAA to buy such a procedure.
Therefore, if the suggested language provided by Apollo was used, an out of
date datacard, could, under certain conditions be used for an approach. Some
local FAA inspectors balked at using that language and would not issue the
required local approvals unless the suggested wording was changed.
Every FAA approved supplement I have ever seen has had a provision that
would allow an out dated card to be used for enroute purposes via the data
comparison method, but the only ones I have seen that could use it for approaches
were the Apollo ones. That does not mean that others may have gotten such an
approval for sets other than Apollo ones.
I have no idea whether or not Garmin has elected too use the UPSAT /Apollo
checking procedure for the 480 or use what they have traditionally recommended.
One fly in that ointment has to do with using the GPS In lieu of DME and
ADF. For that use, the datacard must be current regardless of what it says in
the supplement!
Carrying all this a bit further, it would seem to me that a builder of an
experimental airplane could write his/her operating supplement so as to use the
data if it were to be checked against a current set of approved data.
How does one check to see if data is current? For the enroute phase, you
can use the NACO enroute charts and check the Latitude and Longitude on the
chart against the latitude and longitude of the waypoint.
For approach purposes, one way is to check the publication date of the
datacard against the publication date of the Jeppesen chart or the Julian date
of
the NACO charts. If the datacard currency date is newer than the Jeppesen
publication date or the NACO Julian date, the data is OK to use.
Clear as mud?
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: | E/Pmag reliability thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
I know many are planning or have put in two of the internally alternated
Pmags.
Assuming that the question is deciding between two Pmags vs one P and one E,
here are some thoughts:
There is an assumption that having two Pmags is more reliable than having
one P and one E, but that should not be assumed. Reliability must be
considered in two parts: 1) will the engine ever stop running, and to a much
lesser concern 2) will I be stuck somewhere because one ignition fails.
Minimizing #1 above dictates that one of the mags be of the self alternating
Pmag sort, to cover a total electrical system failure in flight (assuming
only one aircraft electrical system). So, the rest of this discussion can
center on whether or not the second one is a P or an Emag. If the second
one is a Pmag, the only real advantage is that one could perhaps continue
towards home on a flight which has suffered a total electrical system
failure, and feel comfortable about running on two independent ignitions.
However, what about the additional failure modes that a Pmag must have over
an Emag? There must be some, as yet unquantifiable, additional risk of
failure with a Pmag vs an Emag, given the additional complexity. So, will
having additional complexity reduce or increase your chances of being stuck
"on the road"? What is more likely, a total electrical system failure or a
crapped out Pmag?
No one yet knows what the general reliability of these promising designs
will be, of course, so thoughts like the foregoing should be considered.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 694 hours, likely to convert from Lasar to P/Emags in the
future...
Maple Grove, MN
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: Aero Electric-List: Radio Panel Ground Buss |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
I think the Right Angle fits my application best.
Thanks Bill S
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Panel Ground Buss
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:35 PM 11/26/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Bob, at the Wicks seminar earlier this year, you mentioned that you would
>have a radio/panel ground buss available on your site or from you shortly.
>Do you have them available yet?
I'm not ready to put them into the catalog yet. Which one
are you interested in? Vertical . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AGB_V.jpg
Right_Angle . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AVG_RA.jpg
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: Bellanca starter debugging |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
WOW.... looks like you covered about everything.
I would have guessed bad terminals and, or bad starter contactor.
I have known several cases (Cessna) that had the same troubles with not
getting enough current into the starter for proper operation. Theirs turned
out to be the contactor, even though it "seemed" to test good. I would
certainly entertain the idea of swapping it out for a test. Maybe a hanger
buddy has a spare or will loan you his known good one just to try.
Another thought... how old is the battery and how is the charge maintained?
An apparently good battery, it powers most things on the buss, etc. ok,
could have a bad cell that will not keep pace with the other cells when
trying to produce and pass 300+ amps. If I recall, a well maintained
battery should hold about 10.5+ volts when under such a heavy current load
request. If the battery has a failing cell, then, it will not be able to
contribute to the working voltage.
One simple way to check this, remove all the battery caps, have a way to
look into all the cells, wear protective face gear and look at all the cells
while someone cranks on the engine for 15 secs. The bad cell will
bubble(gas) pretty vigorously. The remainder cells should be relatively
quiet.
If you have access to electric power, I suggest you install a small battery
"maintainer". I have used one for years. After I park the plane, I clip on
the maintainer ( I have a battery jumper port). On a 12 v system, the
little maintainer should bring the battery up to about 14.1 v and then,
shuts down the "charger" section and goes into a "float" mode and or pulse
mode of operation that holds that battery at about 13.1 to 13.3 volts. Both
settings are a bit critical. My last Gill 35, I used for 7 years via this
system. I finally installed a new battery and moved the Gill to a fueler
tank set-up. I was concerned about the Gill only in that I spend a lot of
time in the back country and did not want to face a possible non-start in
the bush just because I was a penny pincher.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Williams" <rw_flyer@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bellanca starter debugging
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Russell Williams"
> <rw_flyer@hotmail.com>
>
> I=92m working on debugging weak starting on my Bellanca 14-19-2
> Cruisemaster,
> and am looking for some input & validation of ideas. Here=92s the setup:
>
>
> Continental O-470 engine
>
> Lamar 12V permanent magnet starter =96 bench checked by the factory as ok.
>
> Concorde RG-35AXC battery =96 1 year old.
>
> Cables forward of the firewall that jump to the starter are 2 ga copper,
> about 1 foot in total length.
>
> The battery and master relay are located just forward of the horizontal
> stabilizer due to W&B. There is a 14=92 run of conductor to get from the
> master relay to the firewall.
>
>
> The starting behavior has been that when cold, I have to =93bump=94 the
> starter
> to get it to go over, usually it takes 3-5 tries before it will finally
> kick
> over and rotate freely. When warm, I=92m lucky to get it to turn over at
> all,
> usually I get =BD rotation before it hangs up. It is not slippage in the
> starter adapter, it is the starter motor. Fortunately my engine starts
> very
> easy once it is actually turned.
>
>
> Problem #1: The Bellanca designers were =93clever=94 and used a 3/8=94
> aluminum
> rod (covered in a vinyl sleeve for insulation) as the battery conductor up
> to the firewall. The ends of the rod were smashed flat and a hole drilled
> in them to make a terminal end. The firewall through-bolt was made of
> steel.
>
>
> Starting behavior has been progressively getting worse over the years, and
> a
> few weeks ago started to cook the rubber booties on the terminal ends of
> the
> battery conductor rod, with smell and a wisp of smoke in the cockpit.
> This
> prompted a replacement.
>
>
> Solution A: Rip and replace the aluminum rod with 0 ga aircraft wire.
> Replace the steel firewall through-bolt with a copper threaded-rod
> conductor
> and copper nuts. Cold starter turnover showed an improvement, but still
> not
> reliable full turnover rotation. Required 1 maybe 2 bumps to get full
> rotation (cold) going.
>
>
> Problem #2: The jumper from the starter relay to the starter was getting
> quite warm.
>
> Solution B: Replace this cable with 2 ga wire and new terminal ends. The
> jumper is no longer heating up, and is now measuring 0.06V drop while
> cranking.
>
>
> Problem #3: Measuring voltage drops on the system with the new cable,
> I=92m
> seeing 9.2V at the battery while cranking (13V static) and 7.5V at the
> starter. The positive side current path that I can measure with short
> voltmeter leads (battery to master relay, master relay, jumpers from
> firewall through bolt to starter relay, relay, starter relay to starter)
> were measuring under 0.2V cumulative drop, and I=92m estimating another
> 0.35V
> drop in the 14=92 cable based on a resistance calculation and estimated
> 250A
> starter current, for a total of ~0.55V drop.
>
>
> The remaining ~1.2V is in the ground return path. The engine to mount
> ground is good with negligible voltage drop, but the airframe is
> apparently
> high resistance and the airframe tubes (not the jumper cable) closest to
> the
> battery gnd connection point are warm to medium-hot. I have tried two
> different grounding points on the airframe, including jumpering the ground
> point about 6=92 forward on the airframe, and in all cases the behavior
> remains the same and the tubes are still getting hot.
>
>
> For diagnosis I=92ve temporarily jumpered the battery ground directly to
> the
> starter mounting stud on the engine with about 18=92 of 0 ga copper wire.
> The
> starter now reliably turns over when cold, and no wire or terminal heating
> is present. With the jumper in place I=92m getting 9.2V at the battery
> and
> about 8.5V at the starter while cranking. I=92m attributing the
> discrepancy
> in system voltage drop vs. the previous measurements and estimate as
> having
> over-estimated the current draw of the starter. Assuming about a 200A
> draw
> then the math works out given the known resistance of 0 ga wire.
>
>
> I see three solution options: first is the battery =96 low cranking
> voltage.
> Second is to put in a second copper wire for the ground side of the
> circuit,
> running the battery ground right to the starter to bypass the high
> resistance steel frame tubes. The third option is to look for a starter
> with a lower current draw. I don=92t see that there=92s anything I can do
> about
> high frame resistance in the tubing.
>
>
> Questions:
>
>
> 9.2V at the battery while cranking seems low, indicating high internal
> resistance. I don=92t have another RG-35AXC battery for comparison. My
> battery is relatively new but has had a hard life of very hard starts and
> deep discharges. Any ideas or measurements on what the battery should be
> putting out?
>
>
> Does anybody have experience with a geared starter for big bore
> continentals
> such as the Sky-Tec C12ST3, which are claimed to have lower current draw
> and
> higher torque? The lighter weight would also help offset the weight gain
> from copper cable vs. the old aluminum conductor.
>
>
> Any ideas and demonstrated experience for dealing with high tubing-frame
> resistance? Short of trying multiple ground spots searching for the
> lowest
> resistance, I can=92t think of any other techniques to fix this especially
> in-situ.
>
>
>
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: | Bellanca starter debugging |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Russell Williams" <rw_flyer@hotmail.com>
Thanks David, good suggestions. My battery is a sealed Concorde recombinant
gas RG-35, so can't look for a bad cell as you suggest. Yes I do put it
onto a battery maintainer when left unflown for more than a week. The
voltage drop on the contactors in my system test out ok, but that's worth
looking at again to be sure.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bellanca starter debugging
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd"
<skywagon@charter.net>
WOW.... looks like you covered about everything.
I would have guessed bad terminals and, or bad starter contactor.
I have known several cases (Cessna) that had the same troubles with not
getting enough current into the starter for proper operation. Theirs turned
out to be the contactor, even though it "seemed" to test good. I would
certainly entertain the idea of swapping it out for a test. Maybe a hanger
buddy has a spare or will loan you his known good one just to try.
Another thought... how old is the battery and how is the charge maintained?
An apparently good battery, it powers most things on the buss, etc. ok,
could have a bad cell that will not keep pace with the other cells when
trying to produce and pass 300+ amps. If I recall, a well maintained
battery should hold about 10.5+ volts when under such a heavy current load
request. If the battery has a failing cell, then, it will not be able to
contribute to the working voltage.
One simple way to check this, remove all the battery caps, have a way to
look into all the cells, wear protective face gear and look at all the cells
while someone cranks on the engine for 15 secs. The bad cell will
bubble(gas) pretty vigorously. The remainder cells should be relatively
quiet.
If you have access to electric power, I suggest you install a small battery
"maintainer". I have used one for years. After I park the plane, I clip on
the maintainer ( I have a battery jumper port). On a 12 v system, the
little maintainer should bring the battery up to about 14.1 v and then,
shuts down the "charger" section and goes into a "float" mode and or pulse
mode of operation that holds that battery at about 13.1 to 13.3 volts. Both
settings are a bit critical. My last Gill 35, I used for 7 years via this
system. I finally installed a new battery and moved the Gill to a fueler
tank set-up. I was concerned about the Gill only in that I spend a lot of
time in the back country and did not want to face a possible non-start in
the bush just because I was a penny pincher.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Williams" <rw_flyer@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bellanca starter debugging
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Russell Williams"
> <rw_flyer@hotmail.com>
>
> I=92m working on debugging weak starting on my Bellanca 14-19-2
> Cruisemaster,
> and am looking for some input & validation of ideas. Here=92s the setup:
>
>
> Continental O-470 engine
>
> Lamar 12V permanent magnet starter =96 bench checked by the factory as ok.
>
> Concorde RG-35AXC battery =96 1 year old.
>
> Cables forward of the firewall that jump to the starter are 2 ga copper,
> about 1 foot in total length.
>
> The battery and master relay are located just forward of the horizontal
> stabilizer due to W&B. There is a 14=92 run of conductor to get from the
> master relay to the firewall.
>
>
> The starting behavior has been that when cold, I have to =93bump=94 the
> starter
> to get it to go over, usually it takes 3-5 tries before it will finally
> kick
> over and rotate freely. When warm, I=92m lucky to get it to turn over at
> all,
> usually I get =BD rotation before it hangs up. It is not slippage in the
> starter adapter, it is the starter motor. Fortunately my engine starts
> very
> easy once it is actually turned.
>
>
> Problem #1: The Bellanca designers were =93clever=94 and used a 3/8=94
> aluminum
> rod (covered in a vinyl sleeve for insulation) as the battery conductor up
> to the firewall. The ends of the rod were smashed flat and a hole drilled
> in them to make a terminal end. The firewall through-bolt was made of
> steel.
>
>
> Starting behavior has been progressively getting worse over the years, and
> a
> few weeks ago started to cook the rubber booties on the terminal ends of
> the
> battery conductor rod, with smell and a wisp of smoke in the cockpit.
> This
> prompted a replacement.
>
>
> Solution A: Rip and replace the aluminum rod with 0 ga aircraft wire.
> Replace the steel firewall through-bolt with a copper threaded-rod
> conductor
> and copper nuts. Cold starter turnover showed an improvement, but still
> not
> reliable full turnover rotation. Required 1 maybe 2 bumps to get full
> rotation (cold) going.
>
>
> Problem #2: The jumper from the starter relay to the starter was getting
> quite warm.
>
> Solution B: Replace this cable with 2 ga wire and new terminal ends. The
> jumper is no longer heating up, and is now measuring 0.06V drop while
> cranking.
>
>
> Problem #3: Measuring voltage drops on the system with the new cable,
> I=92m
> seeing 9.2V at the battery while cranking (13V static) and 7.5V at the
> starter. The positive side current path that I can measure with short
> voltmeter leads (battery to master relay, master relay, jumpers from
> firewall through bolt to starter relay, relay, starter relay to starter)
> were measuring under 0.2V cumulative drop, and I=92m estimating another
> 0.35V
> drop in the 14=92 cable based on a resistance calculation and estimated
> 250A
> starter current, for a total of ~0.55V drop.
>
>
> The remaining ~1.2V is in the ground return path. The engine to mount
> ground is good with negligible voltage drop, but the airframe is
> apparently
> high resistance and the airframe tubes (not the jumper cable) closest to
> the
> battery gnd connection point are warm to medium-hot. I have tried two
> different grounding points on the airframe, including jumpering the ground
> point about 6=92 forward on the airframe, and in all cases the behavior
> remains the same and the tubes are still getting hot.
>
>
> For diagnosis I=92ve temporarily jumpered the battery ground directly to
> the
> starter mounting stud on the engine with about 18=92 of 0 ga copper wire.
> The
> starter now reliably turns over when cold, and no wire or terminal heating
> is present. With the jumper in place I=92m getting 9.2V at the battery
> and
> about 8.5V at the starter while cranking. I=92m attributing the
> discrepancy
> in system voltage drop vs. the previous measurements and estimate as
> having
> over-estimated the current draw of the starter. Assuming about a 200A
> draw
> then the math works out given the known resistance of 0 ga wire.
>
>
> I see three solution options: first is the battery =96 low cranking
> voltage.
> Second is to put in a second copper wire for the ground side of the
> circuit,
> running the battery ground right to the starter to bypass the high
> resistance steel frame tubes. The third option is to look for a starter
> with a lower current draw. I don=92t see that there=92s anything I can do
> about
> high frame resistance in the tubing.
>
>
> Questions:
>
>
> 9.2V at the battery while cranking seems low, indicating high internal
> resistance. I don=92t have another RG-35AXC battery for comparison. My
> battery is relatively new but has had a hard life of very hard starts and
> deep discharges. Any ideas or measurements on what the battery should be
> putting out?
>
>
> Does anybody have experience with a geared starter for big bore
> continentals
> such as the Sky-Tec C12ST3, which are claimed to have lower current draw
> and
> higher torque? The lighter weight would also help offset the weight gain
> from copper cable vs. the old aluminum conductor.
>
>
> Any ideas and demonstrated experience for dealing with high tubing-frame
> resistance? Short of trying multiple ground spots searching for the
> lowest
> resistance, I can=92t think of any other techniques to fix this especially
> in-situ.
>
>
>
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: | Just A Few More Days Left; Lagging Behind Last Year... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
There are just four more days left of this year's List Fund Raiser! Response has
been very good, but we are behind last year as far as the number of people
that have made a Contribution and as a percentage of the total number of subscribers.
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means I have of keeping these Lists running through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser.
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
do not archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bellanca starter debugging |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>9.2V at the battery while cranking seems low, indicating high internal
>resistance. I don=92t have another RG-35AXC battery for comparison. My
>battery is relatively new but has had a hard life of very hard starts and
>deep discharges. Any ideas or measurements on what the battery should be
>putting out?
9v is not bad . . . if the starter is drawing 300+ amps.
Have you measured voltage AT the starter terminals too?
Have you measured total ground side drop? Quite often in
older airplanes, the ground side resistances can be as much
or more than the hot side resistances.
>Does anybody have experience with a geared starter for big bore continentals
>such as the Sky-Tec C12ST3, which are claimed to have lower current draw and
>higher torque? The lighter weight would also help offset the weight gain
>from copper cable vs. the old aluminum conductor.
Many peddlers toss out phrases like 'new and improved' and 'lower
current' and 'higher torque' without publishing the repeatable
experiment where brand A model X is compared under the same
conditions with brand C model Y. Lightplane Maintenance indicated
an interest in financing such a study about 10 years ago but never
heard from them again after the initial conversation. It would be
VERY interesting to do a single test-stand comparison for the
various modern products compared with the ol' Prestolite pigs.
The most consistent report I've heard from individuals who replaced
the Prestolite with ANY of the newer technologies is improved starting
performance because the engine turns over FASTER. Horsepower is
horsepower is HORSEPOWER. If brand X cranks faster than brand C
then it is either (1) more efficient, or (2) takes more electrical
power or (3) both. I can buy into the greater efficiency . . . to
a point. With higher gear ratios, the armature can run faster which
means higher counter EMF with fewer turns on the armature. Fewer
turns means lower I(squared)*R losses. Going from series field
(pure electrical loss, energy expended in field contributes nothing
to HP output) to permanent magnet is also an opportunity
to recoup electrical losses.
The astute buyer is justified in being skeptical of such claims.
The bottom line is, how does the new starter crank compared to
the old starter? All other things being equal (wiring drops,
battery impedance, contact and joint drops), if the new starter
does BETTER than the old starter, then who cares if it takes more
power or not? For example, if I could rewind the armature and
field of an old Prestolte and achieve a perceived improvement
in the ability to get the engine going, then there would probably
be market for that service.
To be sure, if such a mod requires MORE power, then battery service
life will suffer. Then again, if the owner operator adopted the
policy of a new el-cheeso battery every year, then perhaps the
performance of even the P-pig would be found acceptable.
Without good data, it's not very useful to compare the value
of one starter over another without first specifying design
goals for all components in the SYSTEM and accounting for all
the ways that variables interact. Short story is, don't get
sucked in by anybody's marketing hype. Your best source of
feedback is from users and even then, you should get the
largest sample possible.
>Any ideas and demonstrated experience for dealing with high tubing-frame
>resistance? Short of trying multiple ground spots searching for the lowest
>resistance, I can't think of any other techniques to fix this especially
>in-situ.
This is an old airplane. I presume that at some time in its
past, cranking performance was deemed adequate. If it's not
adequate now, then one and probably many things have changed.
Check the ground and hot-side drops independently of each
other and get back with us. Ground side drops in a biz-jet
with 700A starter draws is generally under 0.5 volts!
Bob . . .
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: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
George et al ....
How about one manual contactor to supply the starter feed. Once the engine
is running turn off (open) the manual contactor. The hot side of the manual
contactor can feed a circuit to a small relay for the battery buss. Manual
contactors are available at the local farm store for under $10 and are both
simple and lighter than solenoid contactors. Of course they burn no juice
when closed. When opened there is no hot feed going to the starter. If the
manual contactor fails to make the circuit to feed the starter it doesn't
affect the rest of the aircraft electrical circuits. In my RV8A the manual
contactor would be accessible to be "hot wired", across the two contacts, to
start the engine.
How would such a circuit look, in comic book format, to include all the
diodes and the other protective devices this would require? What am I
missing with this proposal? It seems it would be safe when considering the
open circuit to the starter after engine start.
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV8A
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> It seemed over kill to have three solenoids under the cowl:
>
> FW Master: Has to be large to handle up to 300 amps flow thru to
> the starter
>
> FW Starter: Most modern aircraft starters (SkyTec) all have there
> own solenoid
>
> Starter: Has a big heavy duty solenoid already
>
> If you wire the battery to the starter direct you will by pass the
> firewall starter relay, which is not longer needed. Also since you
> no longer have to feed the starter current thru the master you can
> use a small relay to supply the "switch" master buss in the
> cockpit. The mess on the fire wall has always looked terrible and
> has many large connections. This alternate way will save almost
> 2 lbs and 1 amp of wasted current (12 watts) in wasted power to
> the master contactor. Picture below:
>
> http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7674/norelays21re.jpg
>
>
> I think this will work with no loss in function or safety. I suppose
> you could argue that the starter engages and back-drives as a
> generator. What is the chance of that? Slim or nil. Well if it is a
> concern add the firewall starter relay back. I see no reason to
> have a big old firewall master relay.
>
> George
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
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: Radio Panel Ground Buss |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Excellent idea Bob, would these come with appropriate fasteners for good
electrical contact ... ?
Jerry G
> I'm not ready to put them into the catalog yet. Which one
> are you interested in? Vertical . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AGB_V.jpg
>
> Right_Angle . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AVG_RA.jpg
>
>
> Bob . . .
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: Garmin 300xl/KI-202 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: jtortho@aol.com
I use the Kelly Airchart system. They list all the changes in the
system, and update it with every cycle. So it is easy to keep track of
local changes. If it is legal to do, it would be worth the price.
Jim
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: Latching power relays? (Bob how about NO relays?) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Match: #10 Message: #27374 Date: Nov 26, 2005 From:
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Subject: Re:
Latching power relays? (Bob how about NO relays?)
>The probability of having these design features becoming
>root cause or even exacerbation of an accident
>is very low compared to other reasons for bending
>airplanes and breaking people.
Good point, the thing I would consider is in an accident the
Starter wire grounds and causes a spark causing a gas fire.
However as you say this is unlikely and electrical spark. An
electrical spark could happen even with firewall starter/master
relays.
Fuel lines are on left, two short, strong, well protect fuel
lines; one goes from the carb to mech fuel pump and than
another to the gascolator. In the event of a forced landing
you would turn the fuel tanks off and electric pump off.
Consider routing the starter cable across the front of the
engine and on the right side away from the fuel lines.
Even if the starter cable grounded it would be fuse protected.
>The airplane I learned to fly in did not have a master
>contactor.
>Only a switch in the battery lead under the passenger side
>seat. Works good, lasts a long time. It didn't have starter
>contactor either. There was a really fat push-button under
>the pilot's seat. Also works good and lasts a long time.
Was that the Wright Flyer, JUST KIDDING. Yes I have seen
mechanical cables to throw mechanical switches or just running
big wires into the cockpit to big switches. It just shows that what
is old is new again and nothing new under the sun. Thanks for the
reply you make a good point. Also Eric points to:
http://www.flamingriver.com/index.cfm/page/ptype=results/Category_ID=133/home_id=76/mode=cat/cat133.htm
The BIG SWITCH could be firewall mounted with lever or cable
activation. The RED push switch could be used also if located
where you could kick it (with out doing it unintentionally).
Thanks Bob and Eric, interesting. I am going to run the cost,
weight reliability pro/con numbers and see if it makes sense.
Here is my latest way to wire the starter, main power distribution
and I added the ND alternator with internal regulation wiring.
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/3753/norelaysalt23xi.jpg
HERE IS WITH A "FOOT" ACTIVATED CUTOUT SWITCH
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/9797/norelaysalt2ks4rc.jpg
George
---------------------------------
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: | No Solenoid Wiring Scheme / ND alternator wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
I made a few modifications and added the ND alternator wiring
to the NO (almost) solenoid wiring scheme. As Eric pointed out
race cars have emergency battery disconnects that could be
incorporated in the firewall. I feel with a large fuse on the
starter wire, careful routing and protection the risk of not
being able to disable the the big wire to the starter is a
small risk.
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/3753/norelaysalt23xi.jpg
I show a battery disconnect in this one but not sure if this is
needed since you can cut most of the power from most of the
aircraft with one relay.
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/9797/norelaysalt2ks4rc.jpg
Comments?
George
---------------------------------
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: | Con(fusing) fusible link questions? Z11 and Z13 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Bob, I understand that we size the fuse to the wire but I am a little
confused about when and where one would use a fusible link. In the Z11
figure, you show the E-Bus Alt Feed with a 7a fuse off the main battery bus
using 16g wire through a 1-3 switch and 16g unprotected wire to the E-Bus.
Now, in Z13, you show the same thing with a fusible link between the E-bus
Alt Feed switch and E-Bus.
Questions:
In Z11, are we using the 7a fuse to protect the switch since 16g wire could
take a 12.5 amp fuse or is it size related to the design load on the E-bus?
In Z11, why aren't we protecting the wire after the switch since it is hot
when the master is on and it's a pretty long wire?
In Z13, why are we using a 20g fusible link (protects at 7 amps?) on the
wire after the E-Bus Alt Feed switch but not in the Z11 figure?
In the Z13 case, would it be acceptable to run the alt e-bus feed to a tab
on the e-bus with a 7a fuse instead of using a fusible link to the bus stud?
Assumes available tab positions.
I assume that the two 16g wires connecting the D25 Diode are not fused
because they are very short? Same for the always hot feed from the battery
to the Main Battery Buss?
Thanks Bill S
RV7a Ark Fuse/Panel
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: Radio Panel Ground Buss |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:47 PM 11/27/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>
>Excellent idea Bob, would these come with appropriate fasteners for good
>electrical contact ... ?
Not sure what your question is. This would be used as described
starting on page 18-11 of:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
There are no fasteners expected to participate in the electrical
circuit. In fact, on metal airplanes, the user will be instructed
to ISOLATE the ground bus mounting screws from the metallic structure.
On systems where the panel components are isolated from system
ground (most composites), the ground block is best mounted to one
of the radio trays.
High quality grounding takes place using one of the two
options described in Figure 18-17.
Bob . . .
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme / ND alternator wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Pebvjs@aol.com
In a message dated 11/27/05 8:02:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
>
> http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/9797/norelaysalt2ks4rc.jpg
>
George,
May I suggest the addition of a 70 amp fuse (or size appropriate to Max
system load) at the foot switch to feed the firewall pass through and remove it
from the starter side of the ANL 350 amp fuse. Then if the starter / sol shorted
it would not take down the whole electrical system.
Ed. Sadler
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
Thanks for the input, Bob.
I note the comment: "If I were going to use this alternator in any
application..." Which gets my antenna wiggling.
General concerns about internally regulated alternators not withstanding,
would you not recommend this alternator for a Z-19 based system?
Regards,
Mark
On 11/24/05, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
> nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 11:49 AM 11/23/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski"
> ><mark.supinski@gmail.com>
> >
> >Haven't gotten any feedback from anyone yet. More investigation on my
> part
> >has turned up some additional info -- here is an auto wiring diagram for
> the
> >alternator.
> >
> >http://www.rx7.org/jes/images/altsys91.jpg
> >
> >I presume the "B/W" lead corresponds to the "B" lead from the Z diagrams.
> >The remaining L and S remain confusing to me -- obviously I need to use
> one
> >of them (how to tell them apart on the connector is problem for the
> future.)
> >
> >Still looking for an insightful someone to stear me in the right
> >direction...
>
> Interesting diagram. If one blows it up enough, you can
> see a schematic of the voltage regulator! Aha! DATA!
>
> See:
>
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternators/IR_Alternator_Circa_1980.pdf
>
> for a redrawn schematic of what you posted above.
>
> Assuming the diagram matches the machine you have, one may deduce
> that this alternator's regulator is one of those "latch on"
> devices. A "tickler" current coming in through EITHER the IGN switch
> and series light bulb circuit "L" or through terminal "S" on my
> diagram will bring this alternator on line.
>
> This particular regulator is very simple . . . only 10 discrete
> components. Bill of materials in manufacturing volumes under
> $1.00. I visited the Wells Electronics plant in Fon du Lac, WI
> in 1988 and saw the same devices being manufactured on ceramic
> substrates by automated machines. The guy who gave me the grand
> tour said that his typical regulator had a manufacturing cost of
> under $1.50. The machine that assembled them built about 1200
> regulators per hour.
>
> However, if one studies the diagram, you'll see that power to
> run the regulator and energize the field comes off a separate trio
> of diodes (D7-D9) separate from the diodes that rectify b-lead
> output power (D1-D6). Once the alternator comes up, removing power
> from either the "L" or "S" leads will have no effect . . . the
> alternator will continue to provide output.
>
> If I were going to use this alternator in any application, I would
> attempt to identify the "S" lead with an ohmmeter. Depending on
> the instrument, a resistance measurement from each of the two
> terminals with respect to alternator case ground should produce
> some evidence of continuity. In the case of the "L" terminal,
> continuity will be indicated irrespective of the polarity of
> the meter leads. For the "S" terminal, the included diode (D11)
> will cause one of the ohmmeter connections to show infinite ohms.
>
> I'd run the "S" terminal to the alternator control switch
> KNOWING that until some other provisions are installed, the
> switch only controls ONSET of alternator operation and cannot
> turn it OFF later.
>
> This is a good example of the value of having internal schematics
> to any product. You need this kind of DATA to deduce things
> not revealed by a manufacturer's data sheets -AND/OR-
> to confirm that some supplier has adequately understood the
> finer points of some product he's trying to sell you.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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! --
|