AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Mon 11/28/05


Total Messages Posted: 35



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 12:16 AM - Please Read - Who is "Matt Dralle" and What are "The Lists"...? (Matt Dralle)
     2. 12:22 AM - Re: Alternator terminals (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     3. 03:46 AM - Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme / ND alternator wiring ()
     4. 03:47 AM - Re: Garmin 300xl/KI-202 (JTORTHO@aol.com)
     5. 05:04 AM - Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments)  ()
     6. 05:39 AM - Garmin 300xl/KI-202 ()
     7. 06:35 AM - Re: P-Mag Which Bus? (Speedy11@aol.com)
     8. 06:49 AM - B&C Alternator field breaker tripping. (Mike)
     9. 07:29 AM - Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping. (Earl_Schroeder)
    10. 07:29 AM - Re: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which (Charlie Kuss)
    11. 07:39 AM - Re: RF Radiation (Ralph Keeping)
    12. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (Harley)
    13. 09:11 AM - Re: RF Radiation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    14. 09:21 AM - Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    15. 09:23 AM - Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    16. 09:53 AM - Re: P-Mag Which Bus? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    17. 09:57 AM - Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping. (John Schroeder)
    18. 10:17 AM - Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping. (Earl_Schroeder)
    19. 10:35 AM - Re: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (sportav8r@aol.com)
    20. 11:42 AM - P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    21. 12:22 PM - Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (Joseph Larson)
    22. 12:36 PM - Amplifier for Garmin 340... (Malcolm Thomson)
    23. 02:08 PM - Re: Amplifier for Garmin 340... (John Schroeder)
    24. 02:09 PM - Re: RF Radiation (Ralph Keeping)
    25. 04:16 PM - Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which  (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    26. 04:29 PM - Re: Re: P-Mag Which Bus? (Alex Peterson)
    27. 04:44 PM - lamina position lights (Jeff Peterson)
    28. 04:48 PM - Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (Alex Peterson)
    29. 06:19 PM - Do I Need an Ammeter? (Dennis Johnson)
    30. 06:28 PM - Questions on Z-20 and Z-16 (Matt & Jo)
    31. 06:44 PM - Re: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which (Charlie Kuss)
    32. 06:44 PM - Re: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which (Charlie Kuss)
    33. 08:30 PM - Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (Richard Sipp)
    34. 08:36 PM - Re: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (Richard Sipp)
    35. 08:49 PM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Stein Bruch)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 12:16:12 AM PST US
    From: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
    Subject: Please Read - Who is "Matt Dralle" and What are "The
    Lists"...? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com> Dear Listers, Who is Matt Dralle and what exactly are these Lists? Well, I've been working in the information technology industry for over 20 years primarily in computer networking design and implementation. I've also had a rather extensive background in web development and CGI design during this period. I started the Matronics Email Lists back in 1990 with about 30 fellow RV builders from around the world. Since that time, I have added 50 other kinds of aircraft related Lists to the line up and numerous other List related services such as the Archives and Search Engine just to name a few. For the upmost in flexibility and reliability, I have chosen to run all of my own servers here locally. Other support systems include a 1 Gigabit, fully switched network infrastructure, a commercial-grade Netscreen firewall, a Barracuda spam filter, a local T1 Internet router, and a commercial business T1 Internet connection with static addressing. The computer servers found here include two, dual processor Xeon Linux systems dedicated to the email and web functions respectfully, and another P4 Linux system serving as a remote storage disk farm for the archives, databases, and for an on-line, hard drive-based backup system with 3.2 Terabytes of storage. This entire system is protected by multiple commercial-grade uninterrupted power supply (UPS) systems that assure the Lists are available even during a local power outage! I recently upgraded all of the computer racking infrastructure including new power feeds and dedicated air conditioning for the room that serves as the Computer Center for the Matronics Email Lists. Here's a new composite photo of the List Computer Center following this Summer's upgrades! http://www.matronics.com/MattDralle-ListComputerCenter.jpg As you can see, I take running these Lists very seriously and I am dedicated to providing an always-on, 24x7x365 experience for each and every Lister. But building and running this system isn't cheap. As I've stated before, I don't support any of these systems with commercial advertising on the Lists. It is supported 100% through List member Contributions! That means you... and you... and YOU! To that end, I hold a List Fund Raiser each November and ask that members make a small Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade of this ever-expanding system. Its solely YOUR Contributions that keep it running! Please make a Contribution today to support these Lists! 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 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
    Time: 12:22:39 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Alternator terminals
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:53 PM 11/27/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> 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? I have no basis to recommend it or discourage it. By "any application" I meant that if I needed to discover a way to make it work anywhere, I'd proceed as follows . . . Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 03:46:43 AM PST US
    From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme / ND alternator wiring
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> Thanks Mr. Ed. Sadler: Yes, sound obvious when you say it. That is a good idea and well worth consideration, thanks. This is what I was thinking. The chance of the starter cable shorting is slim and..... Not shown is a true HOT BAT buss that is battery direct, NOT thru the 350 amp fuse (as you suggest). If the 350 amp fuse blew (ouch), an emergency feed thru the hot battery buss and gets the power back, with a throw of the switch, like what Bob shows with the avionics buss and a diode bridge. However thinking about it why have an emergency feed if you are direct to the battery. Getting rid of the relays has advantage obviously, it is no longer a possible failure point. Why have an emergency feed, switch, wires, fuses and diode? I like the emergency feed but wounder why it would be needed if wired as you suggest. Also you may not need protection if the wire feeding the BAT BUS distribution (Fuse block or CB bank) is short. Great idea and well worth the effort and it only adds one large fuse/CB and a few connections. Thanks again great idea, it is a work in progress and your suggestion is just what I needed. Regards George Time: 06:53:08 PM PST US From: Pebvjs@aol.com 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 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
    Time: 03:47:35 AM PST US
    From: JTORTHO@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Garmin 300xl/KI-202
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: JTORTHO@aol.com Hello I have to thank you guys for this topic, as it directly pertains to me. I have one of the refurbished Garmin 300XL's and have been thinking about the indicator. Winter is coming and the garage/fusalage is looking a bit less attractive, so thoughts turn to the panel. I had purchased a CD of install information off ebay a while ago. Just looked through it and there is noting on this unit. Where do you obtain the install manual/information such as the pin outs and CDI lists? Jim


    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
    Time: 05:04:04 AM PST US
    From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> Dan and Jerry: Good points: >From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com> >Dan wrote: "It seems that during service, the starter lead is an issue - drop a wrench against it and ground and you probably fry something." Good point I am a big believer in protecting every thing from inadvertent grounding. I don't like seeing big connections and battery terminals exposed. With the traditional relay many builders leave the studs wide open. I think this issue can be resolved by protecting exposed connections. This is more an issue during maintenance than in flight, but good point. As far as it taking the whole system down, Looking at the ANL fuse it has a delay. You could use the faster acting ANN fuse or reduce the amp rating for faster fusing. The standard SkyTec is about 260-280 amps MAX peak. The wire wound starters are down around 200 amps. Any way you vote for the starter contactor added back. It sounds like BIG -OLD master is something you might be willing to leave off? Jerry: From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net> Jerry wrote: "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" Actually based on Eric's suggestion I added an emergency shut off and posted it. It is a manual switch which can cut off everything, like you are talking about. The difference is it's only activated in an emergency. I can see your idea. To start you engage the manual switch (assume fire wall mounted and push/pull activated), start the engine and than turn off power to the starter, than go fly. Interesting idea. I guess if I was going to worry about the #2 wire, I would add the electric master back into the wiring. For me personally I am not worried about the starter wire grounding. I think the fuse will provide an acceptable level of safety. If I was not happy with a fused HOT #2 starter wire. These are all great ideas. The philosophy is for a lighter, simpler system that maintains a high level of safety and function. The standard wiring scheme Bob's shows in aero connection, using firewall master/starter contactors are very good, reliable and safe. However the above idea should be as reliable or even more reliable, while having a small weight, simplicity and efficiency advantage. The cons are...... ** I think the BIG or KEY HANG UPS I am hearing are two fold:** Worry about an after crash fire started by sparks from the long starter wire. Worry about an in-flight short of the #2 awg starter wire taking the system. The first issue, my rationalization is the only part of the system to be HOT in a crash (provided the pilot turned the master off) is the starter cable. So if it shorts, the fuse blows in 0.10 seconds to 1 second. What will catch on fire? Well fuel is the biggest worry to me. As long as you turned the fuel off and aux pump the chance is small for the spark to catch anything on fire, as long as the fuel tanks are not compromised. Fire is not a ZERO probability with any plane or wiring. The solution is the emergency cut off Eric suggest. This is like Jerry's suggestion, but Eric's suggestion is to have a cut off only for emergencies. A firewall electric shut off may be better than a standard wiring scheme from potential spark making. Second: Will an in-flight partial or full short take the whole electrical system down. Clearly it will be like starting the engine with the avionics on. The voltage will draw down to X value (8 volts?) for a period of time until the fuse blows. A dead short with a #2 will get your attention. My guess is it could be like turning everything off for an instant. I guess the worst case is an intermittent short, less than the rated fuse value, playing havoc with the radios. Worse is if you have EFI or EI depended engine. That is why you would have to secure and protect that big fat wire to assure that it can't happen (at least 10 to the 99 power chance). My thinking about "Electrics Light" has evolved. I think is makes sense and is most suitable for day/night VFR, with engines not electric dependent. If you are IFR with all electric flight instruments or have an electrical dependendant engine, the greater electrical dependency calls for more "ISOLATION" and redundancy clearly. However I think with careful routing and securing of the #2 awg starter cable (conduit) away from fuel (on a Lyc around front down the right side), the risk is reduce, and post crash or in-flight failure risks are very very unlikely. That is why we use the good wires, right. Keep those comments coming. I am learning a lot. I see the trade offs more clearly. It is also clear this is not a slam dunk either way. Regards George ---------------------------------


    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
    Time: 05:39:48 AM PST US
    From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
    Subject: Garmin 300xl/KI-202
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net> 11/28/2005 Responding to Skip and Old Bob's inputs copied below: Skip, Thanks for your question. What if weather, clearance, aircraft malfunction, communication failure, or whatever forces you away from your planned route and alternate in IMC conditions. Do you personally want to be up there wishing you were down here? Those of us who have been there and done that are not seeking a repeat if it can be avoided. I think the intent of the FAA is very clear -- current data base is required for IFR operations -- and that an FAA ramp check inspector, an NTSB judge, and a jury of your peers would agree with the FAA intent. I don't think that anything that an amateur builder of an experimental aircraft wrote in his aircraft's AFM or supplement would convince them otherwise. Old Bob, Thanks for your always sagacious and well based input. Did that 1997 Apollo GPS equipment Manual / Supplement provide suggested wording that specifically permitted approval of IFR operations in IMC with an outdated database? That would seem to be an operational issue and not a hardware capability / functionality issue. Can you envision some GPS unit manufacturer's company lawyer permitting that suggested wording today? If wording of that nature is not in the GPS equipment manual how could it get into the individual aircraft"s AFM or supplement? In the AFM itself there are portions that are FAA approved and others that are not. Could it also be that some parts of an AFM supplement related to GPS use are not, in fact, FAA approved at some higher level but only suggested? And those words are not FAA approved until the inspector inspecting the individual installations says so? And the wording in the AIM would be the controlling requirement? What installation inspector would deliberately flout the wording in the AIM? I've never met an FAA employee yet that was not concerned with packing paper around his ass that had somebody else's approval. With regard to checking to make sure that you have current data I once used an out of date approach plate after assuring myself that the amdt number on my plate was the same as the current plate. Turns out that communication frequencies can be changed (and were on the plate that I was using) without the amdt number on the plate changing. A bit embarrassing. OC Skip wrote: <<But if I verify that my database has current data for my route and alternates, am I legal for IFR even though my card may be out of date? Skip>> And Old Bob adds: <<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


    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
    Time: 06:35:06 AM PST US
    From: Speedy11@aol.com
    Subject: Re: P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably below 990 rpm. Stormy, So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you have to ensure your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing? Stan Sutterfield


    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
    Time: 06:49:13 AM PST US
    From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
    Subject: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping.
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net> Bob, I have a question on trouble shooting an aircraft electric system, I'm looking for the experienced answer based on symptoms. The airplane is a 9 year old Lancair 360 currently owned by the original builder. The system is 12 volt with a B&C alternator and voltage regulator (working on model numbers) on a Lycoming IO-360. The system has been working perfectly until last spring, at which time the system would trip the field breaker every now and then. The problem has been more pronounced during periods of cooler weather (Phoenix Arizona). The owner has had the alternator tested locally with no problems found. Most of the time the system works as designed. My latest advice to the owner was to check the engine, alternator, main bus, and voltage regulator grounds first. Wondering what you think? Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator terminals --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:53 PM 11/27/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> 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? I have no basis to recommend it or discourage it. By "any application" I meant that if I needed to discover a way to make it work anywhere, I'd proceed as follows . . . Bob . . . -- 11/24/2005 -- 11/24/2005


    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
    Time: 07:29:43 AM PST US
    From: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com>
    Subject: Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping.
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com> Mike, I'm not 'Bob' but I had a similar experience with my Lancair 235/320 when I had a 'large' alternator installed. [I have the B&C reg also]. When the gear pump kicked in [retracting the wheels] the field breaker would always pop. For unrelated reasons, I switched to the smaller of the two B&C alternators and the field breaker holds. I think the large alternator could simply draw more than 5 amps when trying to keep up with the gear pump demand. I think a larger field breaker is a likely solution. I think the small Panasonic battery with limited 'immediate need' capacity was also a factor. Choosing that particular battery model was a mistake since corrected but done after switching to the smaller alternator. Cooler weather probably just increases the current required to the pump. Earl Mike wrote: > The system has been working >perfectly until last spring, at which time the system would trip the >field breaker every now and then. The problem has been more pronounced >during periods of cooler weather (Phoenix Arizona). > > >


    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
    Time: 07:29:56 AM PST US
    From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Bus?
    Subject: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which
    Bus? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Bus? At 09:30 AM 11/28/2005, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com > > >In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, >aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: > >Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably >below >990 rpm. > > >Stormy, >So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you have to ensure >your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing? >Stan Sutterfield Stormy, What is the spark plug gap on the plugs run by your P Mag? Magnetos use a small gap (.018") to ensure that they will reliably fire the plugs during slow speed (engine cranking) operation. Charlie Kuss


    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
    Time: 07:39:44 AM PST US
    From: "Ralph Keeping" <Ralph_Keeping@cbc.ca>
    Subject: Re: RF Radiation
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph Keeping" <Ralph_Keeping@cbc.ca> Sorry if I missed it but what size capacitors would you use to filter out the vhf band? Ralph >>> nuckollsr@cox.net 11/25/05 11:34 PM >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 01:03 PM 11/24/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net> > > Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Paul McAllister" ><paul.mcallister@qia.net> > ><<Hi guys, I am looking for a few ideas. I have a fiberglass aircraft I am >having problems >with RF getting into systems and causing problems. > >The first area is headsets, I couldn't get my Lightspeeds to work properly. >Lightspeed >acknowledged that there can be problems and offered to modify the battery >box. That improved things, but from time to time I still have problems. > >The next on the list is my Navaid. Despite following Navaids suggestion of >disabling >the Navaid whenever the PTT is pressed I still have issues, if I transmit >for long enough it will still swing over to a 30 degree bank which is a real >pain if I am flying in IFR conditions. > >The latest trick is my intercom. Occasionally when I transmit I will get a >stuck >mike. I called the manufacturer and managed to speak to the design >engineer. >He acknowledged that is there is enough RF present then this could happen. >The company are currently working with me to resolve the issue. > >So..... does anyone have any ideas. I have a GX60 as my nav / com and the >antenna >(which is a Bob Archer) is buried in the tail. I have a single point ground >on the firewall.>> Your ground system is probably not a participant in the problems you're experiencing. Given that you have so many different systems being adversely affected, it appears that your cockpit space may be subject to an extra- ordinarily high RF field. First, I would make SURE that the radiation is coming from the normally working antenna as-installed. Can you put a temporary dummy load on the end of the coax before it goes into the vertical fin? If the problems go away, then it's normally radiated energy directly from the antenna. If the problem is still there, you have a coax joint open at a shield somewhere. When the inside of an airplane is this 'hot', it's a strong suggester of a compromised feed line. If the problems go away when the antenna is disconnected, try a belly mounted antenna with ground plane. This could reduce energy in the cockpit by 10db or more. The alternatives are to modify your affected systems to include the kind of filtering we generally design into vulnerable systems as a matter of course. I spent 7 days in Little Rock adding filters to a 1960's product that couldn't stand the 50-100 v/m interference present in some current production airplanes. 16 little capacitors were added to the backshell of the connector and potted. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Filters/filter_caps.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Filters/potted_filter.jpg This is a crummy way to run an airplane accessories business. These SHOULD have been built into the device in the first place. Your task is similar. Deduce which wires are vulnerable (you need schematics of the accessories). Built test filters to see what works. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Filters/breakout_filter_1.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Filters/breakout_filter_2.jpg These are filters required in the 2-30 MHz world. Since your problem is VHF (118-135 MHz) you might get by with ferrite beads. But even the ferrite bead doesn't work well if there is no downstream, shunt reactance (capacitor) to take advantage of the ferrite bead's series inductance. Then figure out how to get the necessary filtering either inside the victim accessory or right at the connector outside the accessory. In the OBAM aircraft world, you're ALLOWED to do anything you need to to to fix a problem. In the certified world, getting those caps installed was agonizingly difficult for non-technical reasons. Your best first step is to see if a different antenna style and location will work. Then go after the filters . . . Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 08:11:08 AM PST US
    From: Harley <harley@AgelessWings.com>
    Subject: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com> Charlie Kuss Bus? wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Bus? > >At 09:30 AM 11/28/2005, you wrote: > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com >> >> >>In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, >>aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: >> >>Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably >>below >>990 rpm. >> >> >>Stormy, >>So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you have to ensure >>your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing? >>Stan Sutterfield >> >> > >Stormy, > What is the spark plug gap on the plugs run by your P Mag? Magnetos use a >small gap (.018") to ensure that they will reliably fire the plugs during >slow speed (engine cranking) operation. >Charlie Kuss > Morning, Charlie... Sounds like you're not that familiar with the P Mag. If I understand your email right, you are asking if reducing the plug gap might produce the same results as on a "normal" magneto. The reason the P mag can't perform at low RPM applies ONLY if the plane's power supply is gone for some reason. It works normally if you still have a battery or alternator running. If ALL power to it is gone, then it has it's own internal alternator, that takes over...which doesn't put out enough power at low RPMs to work well...just at higher engine speeds. That is why they recommend one emag and one P mag. The emag will not work at all if the plane's power is totally gone...with the p mag, you have at least one mag still working even with power off, although you have to maintain a higher RPM for it to work. Which is a bit better than other electric ignition systems, they don't work at all if the plane's power is gone. Harley Dixon


    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
    Time: 09:11:01 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: RF Radiation
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 10:34 AM 11/28/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph Keeping" ><Ralph_Keeping@cbc.ca> > >Sorry if I missed it but what size capacitors would you use to filter >out the vhf band? The test-filter I illustrated had L/C filters using 10 uHy/.01 uF sections with the inductor facing aircraft wiring. These components were VERY effective at the 4.5 MHz antagonist of interest. For VHF signals, I'd try devices about 1/10th that size. 0.5 to 1 uHy (or ferrite bead) and .001 uF monolythic ceramic capacitors. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 09:21:06 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping.
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:26 AM 11/28/2005 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder ><Earl_Schroeder@juno.com> > >Mike, >I'm not 'Bob' but I had a similar experience with my Lancair 235/320 >when I had a 'large' alternator installed. [I have the B&C reg also]. >When the gear pump kicked in [retracting the wheels] the field breaker >would always pop. For unrelated reasons, I switched to the smaller of >the two B&C alternators and the field breaker holds. I think the large >alternator could simply draw more than 5 amps when trying to keep up >with the gear pump demand. I think a larger field breaker is a likely >solution. I think the small Panasonic battery with limited 'immediate >need' capacity was also a factor. Choosing that particular battery >model was a mistake since corrected but done after switching to the >smaller alternator. Cooler weather probably just increases the current >required to the pump. Earl What you were probably experiencing was a momentary overshoot response that is produced by ALL alternators irrespective of size. The magnitude and duration of the event is dependent on MANY variables including alternator transfer function, regulator transfer function, wiring arrangement, battery condition and size/duration of the antagonist pulse (hydraulic pump motor). A larger battery might have "fixed" the problem too. It's likely that your system dynamics with the smaller alternator were within the upper bounds for OV protection system sensitivity to such transients. It's worth noting that this phenomenon is NOT unique to the crowbar ov protection system. I used to work similar problems during my earliest experiences with OV protection relays. A larger field breaker is NOT a solution. No alternator on the market can draw more than 5A of field current. If your B&C regulator fusses, it's system dynamics, not alternator field loads. 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
    Time: 09:23:13 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping.
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 07:45 AM 11/28/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net> > >Bob, > >I have a question on trouble shooting an aircraft electric system, I'm >looking for the experienced answer based on symptoms. The airplane is a >9 year old Lancair 360 currently owned by the original builder. The >system is 12 volt with a B&C alternator and voltage regulator (working >on model numbers) on a Lycoming IO-360. The system has been working >perfectly until last spring, at which time the system would trip the >field breaker every now and then. The problem has been more pronounced >during periods of cooler weather (Phoenix Arizona). The owner has had >the alternator tested locally with no problems found. Most of the time >the system works as designed. My latest advice to the owner was to >check the engine, alternator, main bus, and voltage regulator grounds >first. Wondering what you think? See my post to another response to your question as well. The B&C regulators were updated a few years ago to reduce sensitivity to system dynamics and extraordinary noises on the bus. Call B&C and see if they'll update your regulator. If it's ten years old, it does not have these modifications. If they can't do it for you, send it to me. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 09:53:15 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:30 AM 11/28/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com > > >In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, >aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: > >Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably >below >990 rpm. > > >Stormy, >So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you have to ensure >your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing? If you're running e-mags, they MUST be powered by the ship's electrical system at all times. I recommend powering from the always-hot, battery bus. IF you believe in assertive preventative maintenance of the ship's battery, likelihood of loss of ignition system power is exceedingly small (meaning won't happen in this century). If you run p-mags, there are dual sources of power for each ignition system. Ship's battery -AND- a built in PM alternator that supports the ignition system at all RPM's above some published value. This means that dual p-mags enjoy the same levels of redundancy as the certified Laser ignition system. There's been some discussion recently about "reliability" which correctly cites the case where installing two identical systems offers TWICE the probability of failure for ignition systems on board . . . of course, what we're REALLY interested in is probability of losing too many essential components of the ignition system(s) during any single flight (one tank of gas). Obviously, ADDing redundancy increases cost of ownership and probability of increased maintenance activity. On the other hand, having say FIVE independent ignition systems offers no practical increase in flight safety and unnecessarily burdens both the design and maintenance persons. Dual e-mags offers the same or better suite of features as ANY of the popular electronic ignition systems on the market. Dual p-mags offers the same or better suit of features as the certified LASAR system. There are lots of folks flying with varied combinations of mags/ electronic+mags/all-electronic variants and each owner operator is willing to expound at length on the rationale for his/her decision. Bottom line is that when I walk up to a certified rental, concerns for reliability of that machine's ignition systems is the furthest thing from my mind. Do what makes sense to your pocketbook and space/weight budget for your project. The debate on suitability of one configuration over another will go on for decades, you need to finish your airplane SOONER. 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
    Time: 09:57:40 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping.
    From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net> Mike - He might also consider replacing the Circuit Breaker if the grounds check out OK. Per Z-14, we installed a fuseable link at the buss in the wire that goes to the breaker. Those connections also may be corroded or a source of trouble if installed. Cheers, John Lancair ES - 95%/95% On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:45:21 -0700, Mike <mlas@cox.net> wrote: > My latest advice to the owner was to > check the engine, alternator, main bus, and voltage regulator grounds > first. Wondering what you think? > Mike Larkin --


    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
    Time: 10:17:12 AM PST US
    From: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com>
    Subject: Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping.
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com> Thanks Bob for the clarification! Yep, a bigger hammer is not always the solution. :-D Earl Do not archive. > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder >> >> I think a larger field breaker is a likely >>solution. >> >> > > > A larger field breaker is NOT a solution. No alternator on the > market can draw more than 5A of field current. If your B&C > regulator fusses, it's system dynamics, not alternator field > loads. > > 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
    Time: 10:35:11 AM PST US
    From: sportav8r@aol.com
    Subject: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com Gap is someting like .035 (I'm at work now and can't look it up) but should have no bearing on plug firing, I think. The rpm issue is only there if ship's battery bus falls below about 8 volts or so (P-mags can be hand-propped with only a 9v transistor battery for excitation, I'm told). I don't expect this to ever be an operational issue for me, even on final approach. -Stormy -----Original Message----- From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Bus? At 09:30 AM 11/28/2005, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com > > >In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, >aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: > >Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably >below >990 rpm. > > >Stormy, >So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you have to ensure >your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing? >Stan Sutterfield Stormy, What is the spark plug gap on the plugs run by your P Mag? Magnetos use a small gap (.018") to ensure that they will reliably fire the plugs during slow speed (engine cranking) operation. Charlie Kuss


    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
    Time: 11:42:18 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> >That is why they recommend one emag and one P mag. The emag will not >work at all if the plane's power is totally gone...with the p mag, you >have at least one mag still working even with power off, although you >have to maintain a higher RPM for it to work. > >Which is a bit better than other electric ignition systems, they don't >work at all if the plane's power is gone. . . . which is why we strive to craft failure tolerant systems that NEVER leave you without power. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 12:22:46 PM PST US
    From: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
    Subject: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org> Bob, Does your response indicate caution towards P-mag? It seems like this is a relatively inexpensive and (by all appearances) reliable backup. It would seem like the fault tolerate systems you advocate coupled with a Emag/Pmag combo achieves an optimal solution. -Joe On Nov 28, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > >> That is why they recommend one emag and one P mag. The emag will not >> work at all if the plane's power is totally gone...with the p mag, >> you >> have at least one mag still working even with power off, although you >> have to maintain a higher RPM for it to work. >> >> Which is a bit better than other electric ignition systems, they >> don't >> work at all if the plane's power is gone. > > . . . which is why we strive to craft failure tolerant systems > that NEVER leave you without power. > > Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 12:36:15 PM PST US
    From: "Malcolm Thomson" <mthomson@showmeproductions.com>
    Subject: Amplifier for Garmin 340...
    0.15 HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY BODY: HTML contains text after BODY close tag --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson" <mthomson@showmeproductions.com> I currently have a Chelton flight display wired to the Garmin 340 Audio panel. I am using the "Alt Warn" un-muted input for the terrain and other warnings output by the Chelton. Unfortunately, the Chelton's output volume is set to max and there is no adjustment on the 340 and the audio level is too low. So, does anyone have a small amplifier circuit that would boost the output of the Chelton before it goes into the Garmin? Thanks --


    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
    Time: 02:08:14 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Amplifier for Garmin 340...
    From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net> Hello Malcolm - Looks like you are flying now? Try this website. Someone on this list recommended it a month or so ago. http://www.quasarelectronics.com/3087.htm Cheers, John On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:35:16 -0700 0.15 HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY BODY: HTML contains text after BODY close tag, Malcolm Thomson <mthomson@showmeproductions.com> wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson" > <mthomson@showmeproductions.com> > > I currently have a Chelton flight display wired to the Garmin 340 Audio > panel. I am using the "Alt Warn" un-muted input for the terrain and > other > warnings output by the Chelton. Unfortunately, the Chelton's output > volume > is set to max and there is no adjustment on the 340 and the audio level > is > too low. So, does anyone have a small amplifier circuit that would boost > the output of the Chelton before it goes into the Garmin? > > Thanks > > --


    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
    Time: 02:09:10 PM PST US
    From: "Ralph Keeping" <Ralph_Keeping@cbc.ca>
    Subject: Re: RF Radiation
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph Keeping" <Ralph_Keeping@cbc.ca> Perfect; thanks for the info. That's exactly what I have used but I was never sure I was in the right range. R >>> nuckollsr@cox.net 11/28/05 1:04 PM >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 10:34 AM 11/28/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph Keeping" ><Ralph_Keeping@cbc.ca> > >Sorry if I missed it but what size capacitors would you use to filter >out the vhf band? The test-filter I illustrated had L/C filters using 10 uHy/.01 uF sections with the inductor facing aircraft wiring. These components were VERY effective at the 4.5 MHz antagonist of interest. For VHF signals, I'd try devices about 1/10th that size. 0.5 to 1 uHy (or ferrite bead) and .001 uF monolythic ceramic capacitors. Bob . . .


    Message 25


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:16:57 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Bus?
    Subject: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which
    Bus? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Bus? At 02:23 PM 11/28/2005 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org> > >Bob, > >Does your response indicate caution towards P-mag? It seems like >this is a relatively inexpensive and (by all appearances) reliable >backup. It would seem like the fault tolerate systems you advocate >coupled with a Emag/Pmag combo achieves an optimal solution. Not at all. If I were building an airplane today, I'd probably install the system depicted in Z13-8 which shows a pair of p-mags. But if at purchase decision time I found that an 'extra' $400 would get me some equally attractive electro-whizzy, I'd have no problem dropping to a pair of e-mags. If my engine came with magnetos that I could not sell for good value, I'd run one mag and one e-mag. I'd wear out the first mag and then put the second mag back on. After using up the second mag, I'd replace it with another e/p-mag. Electronic ignition systems will not pay for themselves by fuel savings for all but a very few individuals who spend hundreds of hours per year in high-altitude cruise. For the rest of us, COST OF PLUGS is the big motivator with improved cranking performance running a distant second. The EASY decision is to choose from the suite of electronic ignition systems presently in production. In terms of performance, there isn't a nickle's worth of difference between them. In terms of comparing SYSTEM reliability of what's currently flying in the vast majority of the GA fleet, I perceive no great incentive for either encouraging or discouraging any particular configuration of ignition systems. Running at least one electronic ignition should get you better cranking and the promise of fuel savings under the right conditions. Beyond that, weight, volume and cost of ownership govern. Here, the Mag-Air folks have it hands down. Bob . . .


    Message 26


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:29:00 PM PST US
    From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net> > > Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will > self-power reliably below 990 rpm. > > > Stormy, > So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you > have to ensure > your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing? > Stan Sutterfield If the ship's battery is still putting out something like 8 volts, the Emag or Pmag will operate from ship's power. If the voltage drops below about 8 volts, the Emag drops off and the Pmag switches to its internally generated power. Only then does one need to keep the rpm above about 1000, which is not an issue at approach and landing speeds, at least with a C/S prop. I can't speak for fixed pitch, as they will turn slower, I believe. Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 694 hours Maple Grove, MN


    Message 27


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:44:59 PM PST US
    From: Jeff Peterson <jeffreyb.peterson@gmail.com>
    Subject: lamina position lights
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jeff Peterson <jeffreyb.peterson@gmail.com> I posted photos of some LED red and green wing tip position lights here: http://w1.lancair.net/pix/Lamina-LED-Positon-Lights The LED arrays are from Lamina Ceramics. These have a very wide illumination pattern, essentially Lambertian, and are so bright that without any lens they meet FAA specs in the forward direction. The FAA specs require much lower intensity off the forward direction, so these lights are way over spec for other azimuths. I just used a series resistor to set the current. Keep it simple. One amp for the green, two for the red. Note that the standard Whelen bulb also uses 2 amps so these create no more heat than the bulbs. They make a LOT more red or green light, however. I will attach the LEDs to the aluminum heat sinks I made with thermal heat sink grease. Also, you will see my strobes in the photos. These are public service units I bought on E-bay. I made a toroidal lens of D shape cross section to project more light into the azimuthal plane. The lens was made from 1/2 inch plexiglas rod. I heated it with a heat gun and bent it into a curve. I then cut the cylindrical inner surface on a milling machine with a fly cutter. These are for my LNC2 (360), but a similar design would work almost any experimental. Cheers. -- Jeff Peterson


    Message 28


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:48:25 PM PST US
    From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
    Subject: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net> SNIP > Electronic ignition systems will not pay for themselves by fuel > savings for all but a very few individuals who spend hundreds of > hours per year in high-altitude cruise. For the rest of us, COST > OF PLUGS is the big motivator with improved cranking performance > running a distant second. > SNIP > Bob . . . Bob, quite a few RV's around MN have one or two EI's installed, and our consensus is that they do indeed pay for themselves quite rapidly, even in sport flying. Having an advanced, higher intensity spark allows one to run leaner at low power settings (or, equivalently, at high altitude). When flying side by side with similar engine and airframes, it is not unusual at all to see the mag'd plane burning 8.5 to 9.0 gph, while the one running next to it with EI only 7.0 to 7.5. The savings is typically about $4/hour at $3/gallon. Obviously not all side by side comparisons will yield the same result, but we do these comparisons regularly. Many RVer's run at MP's of only 22 or 23 inHg, which also amplifies the differences. I cruise at 155 to 165 ktas between 4 and 10k feet, burning around 7.1 to 7.4 gph. I have FI also, but tests have shown that most of the gain is with the ignition system. Non EI'd RV's typically are in the 9gph range for these speeds (the -4's are slightly faster). Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 694 hours Maple Grove, MN


    Message 29


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:19:33 PM PST US
    From: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net>
    Subject: Do I Need an Ammeter?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net> Greetings, I'm building a Lancair Legacy composite airplane, installing a "glass cockpit." I'm using the Z-13 "all electric airplane on a budget" wiring plan. I'll have a voltmeter, but I'm not planning to install an ammeter. I wonder if that's a mistake. I'll have one battery, a main alternator, and an SD8 aux alternator. Both alternators have overvoltage crowbar protection. The main bus has a low voltage warning light. I'm not planning to install an ammeter for several reasons: additional weight of a shunt, higher parts count, more money, and the temptation to do troubleshooting in flight that is better done on the ground. No voltmeter means I'll have to test my pitot heat by touching it during preflight, but other than that, is an ammeter worth the additional complexity, cost, and weight in my robust electrical system? Thanks, Dennis Johnson Legacy #257: finishing the engine installation and getting ready to start wiring


    Message 30


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:28:50 PM PST US
    From: "Matt & Jo" <archermj@swbell.net>
    Subject: Questions on Z-20 and Z-16
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt & Jo" <archermj@swbell.net> Questions for Bob. I bought the AeroElectric Connection and have really enjoyed it. What a great reference. I live here in Wichita also. I am the guy that bought it at your home. I am planning on using a Jabiru 3300 in a Zodiac with basic Night VFR. Nothing Fancy. I am planning on using a Low voltage monitor and a crowbar. I am considering both Z-16 and Z-20 as the basis for my system. On Z-20 - Why is the starter contactor required if there is already a starter solenoid on the starter? Why isn't there a contactor on the battery circuit? Are these Contactors an S701-1? Is the OV Relay an S704-1? Why doesn't it have a Diode like on Z-16? Odyssey batteries are described as dry batteries. Is this the same as an RC battery? I am also looking at Z-16 for the Jab 3300. If I were to incorporate the Voltage regulator from Z-20 into Z-16 is there anything that I need to be concerned about? Thanks for the help Cheers Matt www.zodiacxl.com


    Message 31


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:44:27 PM PST US
    From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Bus?
    Subject: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which
    Bus? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Bus? At 11:05 AM 11/28/2005, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com> > > >Charlie Kuss Bus? wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss > <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Bus? > > > >At 09:30 AM 11/28/2005, you wrote: > > > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com > >> > >> > >>In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > >>aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: > >> > >>Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably > >>below > >>990 rpm. > >> > >> > >>Stormy, > >>So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you have > to ensure > >>your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing? > >>Stan Sutterfield > >> > >> > > > >Stormy, > > What is the spark plug gap on the plugs run by your P Mag? Magnetos use a > >small gap (.018") to ensure that they will reliably fire the plugs during > >slow speed (engine cranking) operation. > >Charlie Kuss > > >Morning, Charlie... > >Sounds like you're not that familiar with the P Mag. If I understand >your email right, you are asking if reducing the plug gap might produce >the same results as on a "normal" magneto. > >The reason the P mag can't perform at low RPM applies ONLY if the >plane's power supply is gone for some reason. > >It works normally if you still have a battery or alternator running. If >ALL power to it is gone, then it has it's own internal alternator, that >takes over...which doesn't put out enough power at low RPMs to work >well...just at higher engine speeds. > >That is why they recommend one emag and one P mag. The emag will not >work at all if the plane's power is totally gone...with the p mag, you >have at least one mag still working even with power off, although you >have to maintain a higher RPM for it to work. > >Which is a bit better than other electric ignition systems, they don't >work at all if the plane's power is gone. > >Harley Dixon Harley, I grasp the operation of the P-Mag. Bendix and Slick magnetos work the same way. All generators, alternators and magnetos are speed dependent. They can't produce a useful amount of current if the speed is to low. However, the amount of spark needed to be produced by a magneto or P-Mag (when in self generating mode) are both affected by the gap of the spark plugs. Changing the spark plug gap WILL affect the minimum operating speed of the P-Mags in fail safe mode. (without ships power) The P-Mags will be reliable in fail safe mode, so long as the pilot understands what the minimum RPM that they require to function is. Charlie


    Message 32


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:44:27 PM PST US
    From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Bus?
    Subject: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which
    Bus? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Bus? >-----Original Message----- >From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> >Bus? > >At 09:30 AM 11/28/2005, you wrote: > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com > > > > > >In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > >aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: > > > >Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably > >below > >990 rpm. > > > > > >Stormy, > >So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you have > to ensure > >your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing? > >Stan Sutterfield > >Stormy, > What is the spark plug gap on the plugs run by your P Mag? Magnetos use a >small gap (.018") to ensure that they will reliably fire the plugs during >slow speed (engine cranking) operation. >Charlie Kuss > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com > >Gap is someting like .035 (I'm at work now and can't look it up) but >should have no bearing on plug firing, I think. > >The rpm issue is only there if ship's battery bus falls below about 8 >volts or so (P-mags can be hand-propped with only a 9v transistor battery >for excitation, I'm told). I don't expect this to ever be an operational >issue for me, even on final approach. > >-Stormy Stormy, The amount of power that the P-Mag must generate when it is in fail safe mode is dependent on the gap of the spark plugs. The wider the gap, the more power must be produced to fire the plugs. You can reduce the plug gap, which will allow lower RPM operation in fail safe mode. The trade off is, that you will lose some of the fuel economy that electronic ignition gives you due to it's superior fuel/air combustion. All in all, it's probably better to leave the plugs gapped to .035" and keep in mind that you must keep the engine speed above 1000 rpm when in fail safe mode. As with everything in life, there is no free lunch. For myself, I'd rather be forced to keep the engine speed a bit above a normal idle during emergency operations (fail safe) rather than give up the fuel economy given by the larger spark plug gaps. It's simpy a matter of knowing the limitations of your equipment. Charlie


    Message 33


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:30:53 PM PST US
    From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > <alexpeterson@earthlink.net> > > > SNIP >> Electronic ignition systems will not pay for themselves by fuel >> savings for all but a very few individuals who spend hundreds of >> hours per year in high-altitude cruise. For the rest of us, COST >> OF PLUGS is the big motivator with improved cranking performance >> running a distant second. >> > SNIP >> Bob . . . > > > Bob, quite a few RV's around MN have one or two EI's installed, and our > consensus is that they do indeed pay for themselves quite rapidly, even in > sport flying. Having an advanced, higher intensity spark allows one to > run > leaner at low power settings (or, equivalently, at high altitude). When > flying side by side with similar engine and airframes, it is not unusual > at > all to see the mag'd plane burning 8.5 to 9.0 gph, while the one running > next to it with EI only 7.0 to 7.5. The savings is typically about > $4/hour > at $3/gallon. Obviously not all side by side comparisons will yield the > same result, but we do these comparisons regularly. Many RVer's run at > MP's > of only 22 or 23 inHg, which also amplifies the differences. I cruise at > 155 to 165 ktas between 4 and 10k feet, burning around 7.1 to 7.4 gph. I > have FI also, but tests have shown that most of the gain is with the > ignition system. Non EI'd RV's typically are in the 9gph range for these > speeds (the -4's are slightly faster). > > Alex Peterson > RV6-A N66AP 694 hours > Maple Grove, MN > >Bob: I'll second Alex's data. My 4 has 9.0 to 1 compression/carb/CS prop and my cruise fuel numbers are slightly better than Alex reports at 6.8 to 7.2 GPH at cruise above 7000. Flying in large formations of RVs I always buy less fuel than the others (granted several of them are heavier bigger models). I maintain the groups speed usually about 150-160 KTAS at approx 2250 RPM and 23-24 inches MP. Another important factor to me is the engine's smoothness, and reliable starting. Best regards Dick Sipp


    Message 34


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:36:36 PM PST US
    From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net> Harley, Small point here, the Unison Lasar system also runs fine with total failure of ship's power. The electrically controlled mag timing reverts to the standard manufacturer's mag setting in the event of controller failure for any reason. Dick Sipp > > Which is a bit better than other electric ignition systems, they don't > work at all if the plane's power is gone. > > Harley Dixon


    Message 35


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:49:27 PM PST US
    From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
    Subject: Do I Need an Ammeter?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com> Couple things.... Most "glass" (assuming you're including an engine monitor) systems include both volts and amps, so your question may be a moot point. 2nd, a simple hall effect current sensor adds maybe 1/2 to 1 ounce and a wire to the plane...not overly complex or heavy, so I wouldn't worry about it. Plan on both Volts/Amps and then you needn't worry! Just my 2 cents as usual. Cheers, Stein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dennis Johnson Subject: AeroElectric-List: Do I Need an Ammeter? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net> Greetings, I'm building a Lancair Legacy composite airplane, installing a "glass cockpit." I'm using the Z-13 "all electric airplane on a budget" wiring plan. I'll have a voltmeter, but I'm not planning to install an ammeter. I wonder if that's a mistake. I'll have one battery, a main alternator, and an SD8 aux alternator. Both alternators have overvoltage crowbar protection. The main bus has a low voltage warning light. I'm not planning to install an ammeter for several reasons: additional weight of a shunt, higher parts count, more money, and the temptation to do troubleshooting in flight that is better done on the ground. No voltmeter means I'll have to test my pitot heat by touching it during preflight, but other than that, is an ammeter worth the additional complexity, cost, and weight in my robust electrical system? Thanks, Dennis Johnson Legacy #257: finishing the engine installation and getting ready to start wiring




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --