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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: B&C Alternator field breaker tripping. |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Amplifier for Garmin 340... |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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
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! --
|