Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:19 AM - 2005 List of Contributors - Thank You... (Matt Dralle)
2. 04:48 AM - Re: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (LarryRobertHelming)
3. 05:03 AM - Re: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Ken)
4. 05:27 AM - Re: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 05:43 AM - Re: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 05:51 AM - Re: Re: OVPM Active Notification (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 05:54 AM - Re: Master Relay Mount (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 06:03 AM - Aviation intercom mod for PC computer use (Charlie Kuss)
9. 06:11 AM - Re: Generator question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 06:37 AM - Re: Re: Van's ND alternator failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 06:42 AM - Avionics, ACU, etc (bob rundle)
12. 06:45 AM - Re: Questions on Z-20 and Z-16 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 06:58 AM - Re: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) (Eric M. Jones)
14. 07:03 AM - Re: Re: Electrical system test points was (Charlie Kuss)
15. 07:28 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (BobsV35B@aol.com)
16. 08:12 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Wayne Sweet)
17. 08:16 AM - Electrical system test points (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 08:20 AM - Re: Regulator VR (better than Ford) ()
19. 09:03 AM - Re: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Wayne Sweet)
20. 09:13 AM - Re: 2005 List of Contributors - Thank You... (Marcos Della)
21. 09:19 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Paul Folbrecht)
22. 09:21 AM - Re: Re: Regulator VR (better than Ford) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 09:40 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
24. 09:42 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Bill Denton)
25. 09:44 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (BobsV35B@aol.com)
26. 10:30 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Paul Folbrecht)
27. 10:34 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Paul Folbrecht)
28. 10:48 AM - Re: LV warning (Carlos Trigo)
29. 10:49 AM - Static electricity and fuel filler neck (Mickey Coggins)
30. 11:29 AM - Digital Ammeter - Batt meter or Load meter? (Carlos Trigo)
31. 11:51 AM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Wayne Sweet)
32. 11:56 AM - Re: Static electricity and fuel filler neck (Carl Morgan)
33. 12:05 PM - Looking for alternator (Mark R. Supinski)
34. 12:44 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (sportav8r@aol.com)
35. 12:44 PM - Z-14 (John Burnaby)
36. 12:58 PM - Re: Looking for alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
37. 01:05 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (sportav8r@aol.com)
38. 01:17 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Bill Denton)
39. 01:24 PM - Re: Z-14 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
40. 01:31 PM - Re: Digital Ammeter - Batt meter or Load (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
41. 01:34 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Bill Denton)
42. 01:39 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
43. 01:55 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Mark R Steitle)
44. 01:59 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Paul Folbrecht)
45. 02:06 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (BobsV35B@aol.com)
46. 02:40 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Bruce Gray)
47. 02:53 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
48. 02:58 PM - BNC attenuator for aviation tranceiver technical question (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
49. 03:01 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (John Schroeder)
50. 03:06 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Kevin Horton)
51. 03:10 PM - Re: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Craig Payne)
52. 03:35 PM - Re: Re: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) (Craig Payne)
53. 03:49 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Wayne Sweet)
54. 04:20 PM - Re: Z-14 (James Clark)
55. 04:32 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (sportav8r@aol.com)
56. 04:36 PM - Re: Looking for alternator (Craig Payne)
57. 04:42 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (sportav8r@aol.com)
58. 05:25 PM - Dynon EMS-D10 (Jack Lockamy)
59. 05:41 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Kevin Horton)
60. 05:57 PM - Re: Z-14 (John Schroeder)
61. 06:15 PM - Re: Dynon EMS-D10 (Craig Payne)
62. 06:20 PM - Re: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) (Eric M. Jones)
63. 06:28 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Folbrecht, Paul)
64. 06:52 PM - Re: IFR GPS INSTALLATION ()
65. 07:09 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (sportav8r@aol.com)
66. 07:51 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (John Huft)
67. 08:00 PM - Re: Avionics, ACU, etc (Folbrecht, Paul)
68. 08:05 PM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Speedy11@aol.com)
69. 09:03 PM - Re: Z-14 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: | 2005 List of Contributors - Thank You... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Let me say *thank you* to everyone that made a Contribution in
support of the Lists this year! It was really nice to hear all the
great comments people had regarding what the Lists mean to them and
how much they look forward to reading the new posts each day. As I
have said many times before, running these Lists and creating the
many new features is truly a labor of love. This is why your
comments of support and appreciation have particular meaning for
me. Your generosity during this time of List support only
underscores the great sentiments people have made regarding the Lists.
If you haven't yet made a Contribution in support of this year's Fund
Raiser please feel free to do so. There are still a number of the
various Free Gifts to be had as well. Once again, the URL for the
Contribution web site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore (
http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Paul Besing of Aeroware Enterprises (
http://www.kitlog.com ), and Jon Croke of Homebuilt HELP (
http://www.homebuilthelp.com ) for their extremely generous support
during this year's Fund Raiser through the contribution of
merchandise. These are three great guys that support this industry
and I encourage each and every Lister to have a look at their
respective web sites. Thank you Andy, Paul, and Jon!! Your support
is very much appreciated!
And finally, below you will find the 2005 List of Contributors
current as of 12/4/05! Have a look at this list of names as these
are the people that make all of these List services possible! I
can't thank each of you enough for your support and great feedback
during this year's Fund Raiser! THANK YOU!
I will be shipping out all of the gifts in the next few weeks and
hope to have everything out by the end of the month. In most cases,
gifts will be shipped via US Postal Service.
Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
------------------ 2005 List of Contributors ---------------------
Ackerman, John P
Ackland, Andrew
Ackworth, Robert
Adamson, Arden
Akerstrom, Ed
Alberti, David
Alexander, George
Allee, Joseph
Allen, Mark L
Alley, Brian
Allington, Wally
Allsop, Bryan
Alons, Kevin
Al, Rupp
Altenhein, Gary
Anderson, Edward
Anderson, John
Anderson, Ken
Andrews, Ronald
Anliker, Mark
Anthony, Bruce
Anton, Bill
Applefeld, Gerald
Archer, Matt
Ashcraft, Keith
Atkinson, Paul
Austin, Peter
Babb, Tony
Bahrns, Stan
Baker, Mike
Baker, Owen
Baker, Roger
Baker, Victor
Baleshta, Doug
Ballenger, James
Barba, Alberto
Barnes, Thomas
Barrie, Darwin
Barson, Ron
Barter, Tom
Basiliere, Rick
Bass, George
BatchelderJr, Ellery
Bates Jr, Marcus
Bean, Jim
Bean, Robert
Bearden, Jeff
Beauchamp, Norm
Bellach, Robin
Bell, Bruce B
Bell, Jack
Belvin, Thomas
Benjamin, Hal
Benson, Lonn
Benson, Lonnie
Berges, Duncan
Berg, Wayne
Bermudez, John
Berner, Walter
Bernier, Jim
Berry, Bert
Berry, Jim
Bertz, Gary
Berube, Bob
Betz, Judie
Bezzard, Richard
Bickham, John
Bidle, Jerry
Bieberdorf, Roger
Billingsley, Dan
Billington, Chuck
Bish, Dan
Black, Milton
Blackwell, Jimmie
Blackwell, Rodney
Blair, Sean
Blank, Stephen
Boeshaar, David
Boetto, Steve
Bohannon, Larry
Bollaert, Brian
Bonds, Kevin
Boothe, Gary
Booze, Greg
Bope, David
Bordelon, Bruce
Borger, Robert
Boucher, Michel
Boulet, Paul
Bourne, Larry
Bowen, Gordon
Bowen, James
Bowen, Larry
Bowman, Brice
Bowman, John
Boxill, Mike
Boyd, Bill
Boyer, James R
Boyle, Neville
Brame, Charles
Brandt, Leroy
Brasch, Glenn
Breckenridge, Bruce
Bressler, Wes
Bressler, Wesley
Brick, John
Brien, Tim
Briggs, Gary
Brogley, Michael
Brooks, John
Brooks, Kenyon
Brooks, Sterling
Broom, Richard
Brown, Allen
Brown, Bob
Brunke, Judy
Bryan, Mark
Buchanan, Guy
Buchmann, Keith
Buckthal, Robert
Buess, Alfred
Bullett, Charles
Bullock, Jack
Bumhoffer, Al
Burden, Ron
Burke, James
Burkhardt, Michael
Burnaby, John
Burnett, Ron
Burns, Mark
Burrill, Phil
Burrows, Alan
Burton, James
Busch, Rob
Butcher, James
Butcher, Ron
Butler, Francis
Butler, Sherman
Butterfield, John
Buyse, Lieven
Caldwell, Rick
Cannon, Michael
Cannon, Paul
Cann, Tony
Cantrell, Jim
Cantrell, Jimmy
Capen, Ralph
Capra, Sal
Cardell, Bill
Carillon Sr, Paul
Carpenter, Jeffrey
Carpenter, Kenneth
Carriere, James
Carroll, Randy
Carter, David
Carter, Howard
Carter, PaulQ
Carter, Preston
Cary, William
Casson, Perry
Challgren, Stanley
Chambers, Ken
Champion, Robert
Chandler, Rick
Chang, Ted
Chatham, Robert
Checkoway, Dan
Chelvanayagam, Indran
Chenoweth, William
Chevaillier, Mason
Circle, Roger
Clarke, Christopher
Clarke, Paddy
Clark, James
Clark, Michael
Clay, Dennis
Cleaveland Aircraft Tool
Cliff, John
Clifford, Dewayne
Clyma, Frank
Coalwell, Timothy
Cochran, Mark
Cochran, Stewart
Coggins, Mickey
Cole, Gary
Cole, Gerry
Cole, Roger
Colucci, Tony
Combs, Doyle
Combs, Jim
Comfort, Gordon
Compton, Scott
Condrey, Bob
Connell, Joseph
Conrad, Gerald
Constant, Jeremy
Cook, Doug
Cook, Marc
Cooling, John
Cooper, James
Cooper, Marcus
Corbalis, Leo
Corder, Michael
Corner, Jim
Corriveau, Grant
Cottingham, Richard
Cottrell, Larry
Coursey, William
Courtney, James
Coussons, Herb
Cox, John
Cravener, Donald
Crawford, Corey
Creer, Michael
Cribb, William
Crockett, Jim
Crosby, Harry
Crosley, Rich
Cross, Brian
Crothers, Bill
Cruikshank, Bruce
Culver, Ronald
Curtis, William
Dalstrom, Douglas
Dalton, Bob
Daniell, William
Danielsen, HansJ%c3%b8rgen
Daves, Russell
Davidson, Jeff
Davies, Brian
Davis, Barry
Davis, Deems
Davis, Robert
Dawson, Clif
Dawson, Garth
Decker, Daniel
Decramer, Dick
Deford, David
De Jong, Jan
Delaney, Tom
Deloach, Reginald
DelPeso, Jose
Delsol, Mich%c3%a8le
Dennis, Chris
Dewees, Ron
Dewey, Debbie
Dial, Larry
Dickson, Robert
Dieh, Donald
Dietrich, Klaus
Disher, John
Dominy, Kenneth
Donato, John
Dondlinger, Leo
Doran, Thomas
Dorsey, Robert
Doud, Herbert
Dovey, Martin
Doyle, Mike
Draper, Mike
Dresden, Robert
Dufresne, Robert
Duke, Gordon
Dunne, John
Durakovich, David
East, David
Eckenroth, Paul
Edgerton, Wayne
Edwards, Ed
Edwards, Joe
Ehlers, Clyde D
Eli, Robert
Ellenberger, Christopher
Ellenberger, Mike
Elliott, Andrew
Ellis, Dale
Elrod, Michael
Engel, Jerry
Engh, Duncan
England, Charles
Erickson, Alan
Erickson, Gerald
Erickson, Ken
Ervin, Thomas
Evenson, Roger
Fackler, Ken
Fair, Deal
Falik, Donald
Farmer, Daniel
Faulkner, Thomas
F, Dwight
Featherston, Les
Feldman, Herb
Felker, Timothy
Fetterman, Lanny
Fillinger, Fred
Filucci, Michael
Finley, John
Fischer, Douglas
Fischer, John
Fishe, James
Fisher, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Robert
Fix, Douglas
Flamini, Dennis
Flavin, John
Fluent, Grant
Flynn, Harold
Ford, Dean
Ford, John
Ford, Michael
Forrest, Gerald
Forsberg, Erik
Fosse, James M
Fox, Byron
Fox, Stephen
Franz, Carl
Fray, Jerry
Frazier, Ford
French, Edwin
French, James
Fromm, John
Fulgham, Bill
Fullilove, Ken
Fulmer, Joseph
Fussell, Larry
Fux, Franz
Gabbard, Gary
Gallagher, Noel
Gallenbach, Craig
Gantzer, Charles G
Gardner, Albert
Gardner, Terrence
Garland, Doug
Garrou, Douglas
Gates, Leo
Geese, Ronald
Geldermann, Daniel
Genzlinger, Reade
George, Joe
George, Neal
German, Mark
Giacona, William
Gibbons, Robert
Giddens, Gerald
Gillespie, Byron
Gillespie, Rl
Gilliatt, Jim
Glaeser, Dennis
Gleason, Mike
Goff, George
Goguen, Jon
Goguen, Nelson
Golden, Dennis
Goode, Richard
Goodings, John
Goodridge, Stuart
Goolsby, James
Gordon, Keith
Gottelt, Herbert
Gott, Shelby
Goudinoff, Peter
Gower, Gary
Gowing, John
Grabb, Gary
Graham, Jim
Graham Jr, W Doyce
Graichen, Peter
Grajek, Al
Grant, Jordan
Grantz, Alan
Green, Luther
Greenough, Jim
Griffin, Bill
Griffin, Jim
Griffin, Robert
Grigson, Greg
Grimmonpre, Jerry
Groell, Pascal
Groote, Curtis
Grosse, John
Gummo, Thomas
Gustafson, Aaron
Gwin, Rique
Hackler, Douglas
Haertlein, Frank
Hagar, Steve
Hale, Ade
Haley, Gary
Hall, Charles
Hall, Joel
Halvorsen, Lyf
Hamer, Steve
Hamilton, Red
Hamilton, William J
Hand, Christopher
Hankinson, Julian
Hanley, BrettAlan
Hanley, Mark
Hansen, ArnoldKristian
Hansen, Graham
Happ, Paul
Harcourt, David
Haring, Robert
Harmon, John
Harrill, Roy
Harrison, Nigel
Harrod, Peter
Hart, Rob
Hasbrouck, John
Hatch, Fletcher
Hatfield, Cecil
Hatfield, William
Hauck, John
Haverlah, Dennis
Haynes, Joel
Heaton, Herb
Hedrick, Keith
Hefferan, Rex
Hefner, Jim
Hegenauer, Elmar
Hegenauer, Manuela
Heindl, Karl
Hein, Jim
Heller, Martin
Helming, LarryRobert
Henwick, Mark
Heritch, Ian
Herminghaus, John
Herron, Al
Hershberger, Edward
Herzner, Fred
Hetrick, Dale
Heykoop, John
Hibbing, William
Higgins, Floran
Hill, Jeff
Hill, Ken
Hill, Kenneth
Hill, StanleyA
Hinde, Frank
Hodges, Mitchell
Hoffman, Allan
Hoffman, Carl
Holifield, Steve
Holland, James
Holland, Rick
Holliday, Robert
Holyoke, Ed
Honer, Michael
Hooper, Randy
Horne, Gilbert
Horton, Kevin
Howell, Kenneth
Howey, Ralph
Huft, John
Hughes, Robert
Hukill, Chris
Hunter, Robert
Hunt, Malcolm
Hunton, Jim
Hunt, Wallace
Hurd, James
Hurn, JohnAllen
Hurst, Kingsley
Hutchins, Mike
Hyde, Ken
Isler, Jerry
Jacko, Victor W
Jaussi, Curtis
Jensen, Charles
Jensen, Marinus
Jernigan, Carroll
Jessen, John
Johannsson, Johann G
Johansson, Max
John, Kent
Johnsen, Svein
Johnson, David
Johnson, DennisL
Johnson, Forrest
Johnson, Ken
Johnson, Russell
Johnson, William
Johnston, Christopher
Johnston, Dudley
Johnston, Stephen
Jones, David
Jones, Don W
Jones, Eric M
Jones, Kenneth
Joosten, Craig
Jordan, JR
Joyce, David
Jula, TheodoreF
Julian, Raymond
Jung, John
Jurotich, Matthew
Kaluza, Charles
Katra, James
Kaufmann, Robert
Kayner, Dennis
Kearney, John
Keener, Forest
Kelly, Michael
Kemp, Roger
Kenney, Thomas
Kerr, Dennis
Kesterton, Donald
Kilburg, Larry
Killion, Clay
Kimsey, Thomas
King, John
Kinkade, Les
Kinne, Russ
Kinney, Kevin
Kirk, Floyd
Kister, Dale
Klein, Larry
Klingmuller, Lothar
Knievel, Gerald
Knoll, Barrett
Knotts, F Barry
Knott, Vernon
Kohles, Jerry
Koonce, RL
Kramer, Ed
Krueger, Grant
Kruleski, Chet
Kulp, David
Kummer, Gerald
Kuntz, Paul
Kuss, Charles
Kyle, Fergus
Kyle, Larry
Lackwitz, Raymond
Ladd, Pat
Laird, Dave
Lammers, Dave
Lannon, Walter
Lansden, John
Larsen, Gene
Larson, Joseph
Larzilliere, Alain
Lathrop, Jim
Laundy, Mike
Laurie, Kip
Ledbetter, Gene
Lederman, Howard
Ledoux, Paul
Lee, Terrence
Lee, Thomas
Leggette, Edward
Lehman, Ken
Leinberger, Gary
Lekven, Carl
Lendon, Ron
Lenton, Dennis
Lerohl, Gaylen
Levy, Pierre
Lewis, Scott
Lewis, Terry
Lewis, Tim
Ligon, Howard
Lilja, Ken
Lind, David
Lindsay, Robert
Linebaugh, Jeff
Lineberry, Gary
Linse, Mike
Lively, Chad
Lloyd, Brian
Lloyd, Daniel
Loer, Stanley
Logan, Michael
Long, Charles
Long, Eugene
Long, Patrick
Longwell, Anna
Loring, Arthur
Loring Jr, Arthur P
Loubert, Gary
Lovley, Forrest
Lucas, David
Lundin, Richard
Lynch, Charles
Lyscars, Alan
Macdonald, Larry
Macinnes, Bruce
Mackay, Alex
Macon, Mike
Mahurin, Jerry
Mains, Ralph
Malczynski, Francis
Markle, Jim
Marlow, Sam
Marshall, Aaron
Marshall, FR
Martin, Jay
Martin, Mickey
Mason, John
Mason, Marty
Massari, Stephen
Massey, Allen
Masys, Daniel
Matejcek, Glen
Matlack, Dean
Matteson, Lynn
May, George
May, James
Mcallister, Paul
Mcbean, John
Mcbride, Duncan
Mccallister, Don
Mccallum, Robert
Mcchesney, James
Mcconnell, Roger
Mcdaniel, Steve
Mcdonald, Stephen
Mcfarland, Larry
Mcfarlane, Lloyd
Mckeon, Vincent
Mckervey, Joseph
Mckinnon, Greg
Mcmahon, John
Mcnutt, George
Medeiros, Joel
Melenyzer Iv, Cl
Mell, Roger
Merchant, Dean
Merrill, Dj
Messinger, Paul
Meyers, Jess
Meyers, John
Meylor, Dean
Milgrom, Mark
Miller, David
Miller, John
Miller, Michael
Miller, Terrence
Mills, Jack
Mitchell, Paul
Montagne, Ray
Montague, Neita
Montoure, Kenneth
Moore, Dave
Moore, David
Moore, Goff
Moore, Paul
Moore, Tom
Moore, Warren
Moran, Felix
Morawski, Brett
Morehead, Jim
Morley, Hal
MorrisN75up, Dave
Morris, Steven
Morrow, Dan
Mortimore, Terry
Moser, Scott
Mountain, Patrick
Mrotzek, Dan
Mulcahy, Bob
Muldoon Jr, Francis
Muller, Albert
Muller, Mick
Mulwitz, Paul
Munn, Mike
Munro, Robert
Murphy, Walt
Myers, George
Myers, Gerald
Myers, John
Nadeau, Michael
Naumuk, William
Navratil, Mark
Navratil, Richard
Naylor, Doug
Needham, James
Neilsen, Richard
Neitzel, Richard
Nelson, James
Nelson, Larry
Newkirk, Bill
Newsum, James
Nicely, Vince
Nichols, Clem
Niles, Bruce
Nimigon, David
Noyer, Robert
Nuckolls Iii, Robert L
Nutt, James
Obrien, John
Ochs, James
Ockuly, Bernie
Oconnor, Edward
O'Day, Jim
Offill, Danny
O'Hara, Tom
Ohnigian, Steve
Okeefe, Lawrence
Oke, Jim
Oldford, David
Oliver, Bradley
Olsen, Paul
Olson, Bob
Olson, Brad
Olson, Gary
Olson, Tim
Orear, Jeff
Orsborn, Thomas
Overgaard, Allan
Owens, Donald
Packard, Tom
Palamarek, Ted
Pansier, Don
Partyka, LeeM
Paulich, John
Payne, Craig
Pearsall, Don
Peck, Kenneth
Peerenboom, Paul
Pelletier, David
Pellien, James
Peoples, James
Perez, M Domenic
Perkinson, Robert
Perry, Ilan
Perry, Richard
Persels, Lyle
Peterson, Alex
Peterson, David A
Petri, David
Petty, Paul
Pfeifer, Michael
Pfundt, Jan
Phillips, Mark
Phillips, Terrence
Pierce, Roger
Pierce, Tony
Pierson Jr, Edward
Pierzina, Michael
Pike, Richard
Pilling, Kevin
Plecenik, Michael
Pocock, Graham
Point, Jeff
Polits, Richard
Ponzio, John
Porter, Richard
Portouw, Lawrence
Powell, Ken
Prater, Michael
Preston, Doug
Prevost, Guy
Princell, Bill
Pritchard, Jeff
Pritchard, Roger
Puglise, James
Puls, Jeffrey
Quinn, Rollie
Quist, David
Rabbers, Richard
Raby, Ron
Radford, Joe
Rammos, Ricardo
Randolph, George
Ransom, Brad
Rataj, Mark
Ray, Carl
Reel, David
Reese, Craig
Reese, Wayne
Reeves, Dan
Reid, Greg
Reining, Bill
Reining, Jonathan
Reusser, Hans-peter
Reynolds, Richard
Ribb, Dan
Rice, Paul
Richardson, Colin
Richardson, Paul
Richards, Stephen
Rickard, Ian
Rickman, Loy
Ricks, Allen
Rigby, David
Riggs, Lynn
Rigney, Bruce
Risch, Robert
Ritter, Mark T
Roberts, Gary
Roberts, John
Robertson, Bob
Roberts, Rick
Robinette, William
Robson, Peter
Rodebush, James
Rodgers, Paul
Rodriguez, Paul
Rodriguez, Pedro
Roehr, Michael
Ronnau, James
Ross, Christopher
Ross, Jonathan
Rousselle, Kenneth
Rowbotham, Chuck
Rowe, Denny
Rowe, Jay
Rueb, Duane
Ruksnaitis, WilliamF
Russell, Larry
Ryan, Michael
Sa, Carlos
Sagerser, James
Sager, Truman
Saligman, Ira
Sallas, C William
Salter, Phillip
Sanders, Andrew
Sanford, Fred
Sapp, Douglas
Sargeant, Jack
Sargent, Thomas
Savarese, Anthony Dennis
Sax, Sam
Saylor, David
Schemmel, Grant
Schertz, William
Schieber, Cedric
Schieffer, Charles
Schilf, Richard
Schlafly, Fred
Schlatterer, Bill
Schlosser, Kevin
Schmidt, John
Schmitendorf, Bill
Schneider, Benjamin
Schneider, Werner
Schoenberger, Robert
Schott, Jared
Schrader, Kurt
Schreck, Ron
Schrimmer, Mark
Schroeder, Earl
Schroeder, John
Schulke, Thomas
Scott,Jr, Fred W
Scott, Mark
Scroggs, Ross
Seagrave, Scott
Seal, John
Selby,Jr, Jim
Setser, David
Seve, Eddie
Shablow, John
Shafer, James
Shanks, Jim
Shank, William
Shannon, Kevin
Sharp, Michael
Sharp, Ralph
Shaw, Cliff
Shaw, Rex
Shepherd, Dallas
Shepherd, Stanislaus
Sheridan, Roger
Sherry, James
Shiple, Fred
Shipley, RobWM
Shipley, Walt
Shumaker, Jim
Siegfried, Oldbob
Simmons, Kendall
Simpson, Skip
Simutis, Frank J
Sinclair, Michael
Sinke, Jim
Sipp, Richard
Sisson, Phil
Skelly, Brian
Skyring, Kerry
Slatt, Gary
Small, Thomas
Smart, Steven
Smith, Bret
Smith, DannyL
Smith, Gene
Smith, Jeff
Smith, Kirk
Smith, Roland
Smith, Ronal
Smith, Zed
Snedaker, Bob
Snyder, Bruce
Soikkeli, Robert
Solecki, John
Sparks, Timothy
Spaur, Chuck
Specht, Stan
Spencer, Scott
Springer, Gerald
Spudis, Robert
Staal, Stephen
Staley, Dick
Starnes, Robert
Starn, JH "kabong"
Stefan, Leon
Steitle, Mark
Stelwagon, Frank
Stephanak, Bob
Stevenson, Will
Stewart, Michael
Stinemetze, Thomas
St-laurent, Ray
Stone, Christopher
Stone, Jim
Strange, Ted
Stribling, James
Strong, Gary
Sutterfield, Stan
Swaney, Mark
Swankie, Ian
Swartout, John
Swinford, George
Syverson, David
Szantho, John B
Tarmar, Brian
Tasker, Richard
Tatro, John
Tatz, Norm
Tauchen, Bryan
Taupier, John
Teegarden, Vaughn
Testement, John
Tew, Stanley
Textor, Jack
Tezyk, Robert
Thatcher, Scott
Therrien, Michel
Tholen, Tom
Thomas, Bruce
Thomas, Glenn
Thomas, James
Thomas, Lee
Thomason, Mannan
Thomason, Michael
Thomas, Stephen
Thorp, Kevin
Thwing, Randy
Tichy, Robert
Tilford, Stephen
Tillmann, Johan
Timm, Peter
Timoney, James
Tinker, R Rupert
Tomlin, Thomas
Tomm, Bevan
Tompkins, Jeff
Toro, Jose
Tower, John
Trombley, Erich
Trost, Sebastian
Trotter, Paul
Tuck, John
Tupper, Kirby
Turrell, Mike
Turrentine, Donna
Tuton, Bill
Tyler, George
Unruh, Brian
Unternaehrer, Rolf
Upshaw, Roman
Usrey, Reed
Utsey, Randy
Utterback, ThomasE
Vader, Tim
Valovich, Paul
Vandenberg, Daniel
Van Der Voort, Hans
VanDerZouw, Henkjan
Van Eldik, Anthony
Vangrunsven, Stan
VanHeeswijk, J
Van Lanen, David
Van Winkle, Alden
Varnes, William
Vaughan, Cye
Vaughan, Lee
Venables, JohnRoger
Verdev, Victor
Versteeg, Maarten
Vervoort, Jef
Vetterli, Richard
Vinal, Adelbert
Vinroot, Robert
Vogt, Gary
Von Bevern, Brian
Von Doymi, Carl
VonRuden, Dennis
Voss, Richard
Vranken, Karel
Wade, Jim
Wagner Jr, James E
Wagoner, Richard
Waligroski, Gregg
Walker, Robbie
Walker, Tommy
Walker, Valerie
Walker, Weston
Walmsley, Brett
Walrath, Howard
Walsh, Denis
Wambolt, Charles
Ward, Ann
Washburn, Oliver
Watson, Terrence
Weaver, Fred
Webb, Randol
Wehner, Clem
Weiler, Douglas C
Weinstock, Steven
Weisfeld, Hans-peter
Weiss, Richard
Welsch, Philip
Welsh, Don
Werner, Russell
Wetzel, Bob
Whelan, Thomas
White, Bob
White, Charles
Whiteley, Kenneth
White, Phil
Whittfield, Clive
Whittington, Dewitt
Wigney, John
Wilde, Daniel
Williamson, Richard
Williamson, William
Williams, Terry
Willis, Tim
Wilson, James
Wilson, Kelly
Winburn, Larry
Winings, James
Wither, Louis
Woboril, David
Wood, Larry
Woods, Donald
Wsiaki, Michael
Wynn, Michael
Yeamans, David
York, Richard
Young, Al
Young, Dan
Young, Dee
Young, Greg
Zakreski, Steve
Zecherle, John
Zelinski, Alan
Zilz, Dave
Zirges, Malcolm
Zollinger, Duane
Zuniga, Oscar
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: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Based on desire for an immediate answer as to where anyone could place
sensors I will stick my toe into the pond and get the first ripple started.
"Hall effect devices sense the effects of current flowing in the
wire without actually taking energy out and wasting it."
So, I would use the 24 Hall Effect Devices to report where current is
flowing within my system. I want to know first how much the alternator is
producing. I want to know how much the landing lights are using when I turn
them on. How much the radio uses when listening and when transmitting. I
think you get the idea. Then you need a selector switch of some sort to
select which sensor you want to look in on. I guess you could program you
own mini TV and display the results of all 24 sensors. Add up all the
usages, and compare that to the alternator output to know what your loss is
in the overall system.
Indiana Larry
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> Bob,
> As usual, your answers are extremely frustrating! You talk all around the
> subject but never address the subject headon.
> " Correct. Hall effect devices sense the effects of current flowing
> in the wire without actually taking energy out and wasting it. However,
> the term 'acceptable' is not terribly relevant in the context of this
> discussion. ALL methods are acceptable to someone's design goals."
> Let's assume that my design goal is to sense current in the wire without
> out
> taking energy out of the wire. Therefore, let's accept that sensing that
> current using a HE device is "acceptable" to me.
> SNIP
> I'm anxious to see what the run-around answer will be this time.
> Actually, I've probably PO'd Bob enough that he won't answer.
> Perhaps someone can help.
> Again, my design goal:
> ---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
> better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's see
> ... just
> make it 24 sensors)
> ---where to locate the sensors to permit troubleshooting
> ---type of sensors to get the readings
> Anyone?
> Stan Sutterfield
>
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: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Can you achieve that without reducing the reliability of the system?
Mostly you are going to be reading voltages. With that many sense
points, you almost have to use small (22awg?) wire to the sense points
which probably means a fuse-link at the sense point to protect each
sensor wire. Now the sense wire has some protection should it short out.
However if it did short out could it cause failures in the system it is
connected to? If you use a sensor selector switch or a common connector,
could failure of that switch or connector cause multiple failures?
There is something to be said for adding monitoring circuitry if/as/when
needed. What about the other less reliable systems? Leak detectors,
vibration monitors, strain gauges?
Personally I like it when Bob tries to make us think a bit and consider
other factors rather than directly and only answering a specific
question. Hmmm - I guess I didn't provide the answer you wanted either...
Ken
>Now we're getting somewhere. Design goal is to have access to multiple
>readings of the electrical system - whether airborne or on the ground. And I'm
>willing to expend lots of $time$ now to provide said readings to save $time$ in
>the future.
>
>
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: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Bob,
As usual, your answers are extremely frustrating! You talk all around the
subject but never address the subject headon.
As usual?
<snip>
>>My design goal is to offer tools for under $100 that
>>will let you do things on your airplane that an
>>auto mechanic can now do on your car."
>But, your product is not yet available and I want to wire my airplane now.
You don't NEED my product. The vast majority of your
troubleshooting tasks can be accomplished with a voltmeter.
What your going to need is ACCESS to test points for
making useful measurements. The product I described will
be useful to those builders who want to KNOW more things
about their airplane's system performance. Yes, it will
be useful for troubleshooting too. But for research or
troubleshooting, my DAS (and your voltmeter) are worthless
unless you can CONNECT them to stimuli of interest.
>Here's what I want. I want to know where the best locations are in an
>aircraft circuit to peek at the electrons so as to be able to narrow down and
>trouble shoot problems. There must be SOMEONE out there who can make
>suggestions
>where to sample (peek at) volts and amps so as to be able to trouble shoot
>the
>circuits. Disregard the constraints of money and time. If I want to install
>twelve sensors throughout my electrical system so as to be able to check
>readings and trouble shoot problems, where would you locate those sensors
>and what
>type sensor(s) would you use?
I thought I did but without the use of ANY sensors.
>I'm anxious to see what the run-around answer will be this time.
>Actually, I've probably PO'd Bob enough that he won't answer.
>Perhaps someone can help.
I don't think it was a runaround. Rather a suggestion of
what's inexpensive, requires zero sensors, and brings
a lot of test points (most of which you'll never need)
to a convenient point for observation . . . say from
the copilot's seat in the airplane.
>Again, my design goal:
>---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
>better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's see
>... just
>make it 24 sensors)
>---where to locate the sensors to permit troubleshooting
>---type of sensors to get the readings
>Anyone?
In the process of troubleshooting the last dozen
or so airplanes, I've used perhaps two or three
hall-effect sensors to measure current in wires of interest
for the recalcitrant system. 99% of all measurements of
interest were simply taps onto various points so that
voltage and sometimes waveforms can be observed over long
periods of time (for recording) and particularly in
flight. If I had be prohibited from installing the
hall effect sensors, it would not have been a particularly
large roadblock to finding and fixing the problem.
The roadblocks to troubleshooting are seldom defined
by WHAT sensors or voltage taps are installed but
HOW to get them installed at all. The airplanes I work on
are extreme examples. I can't tell you how many hours
of test-preparation were expended to get a pair of wires
through a pressure bulkhead or routed to some piece of
equipment back in the tail or up in the nose so that
a 5 second measurement could be made.
Another example: When I get the 8-channel DAS
into a working configuration, I'd love to run it in
my car for some shakedown cruises. It's going to take
hours to run a wire bundle from inside the car to
various places under the hood. Yes, I'll stick a few
SENSORS on but only for the purposes of having measurable
stimulus for debugging the hardware and software for
the DAS.
I'd be hard pressed to design anything more elaborate
for you than what I've already described. You're making this
much more complicated than it needs to be. The value
in looking ahead is to install a easily accessed test
connector on wires that fan out to relatively inaccessible
places in the airplane. Now, you could add say 6 wires
in your test connector that run forward and get capped off
under the cowl. If you really wanted to add some
test point later or install a temporary hall-effect
device for an investigation, the wires are already in
place without spending further efforts to install them.
I'll confess that when you wondering about how many
and where some hall effect devices should be installed,
I did not grasp the notion that you wanted to sprinkle
a bunch of them around the airplane. I thought you were
wrestling with the age-old questions of to "ammeter or
not-to-ammeter?" and "battery-ammeter or load-ammeter?".
I can see how you could perceive my answer as a run-around.
Allow me to clarify. The most I can recommend now is to
install a system not unlike that which I've illustrated
and NO sensors. When and if a problem arises in any system
where you'd like some remote measurement abilities, then
the wires and connector will be in place. You'll need
a test jack box and a voltmeter to plug into your
cabin mounted test connector. You may even want to
add some spare wires so that hall effect or temperature
SENSORS might be added at test-time.
I've suggested the test connector and simple harness with
plenty of wires in it because it's easy and inexpensive
to install while the airplane is being built. The
existence of this connector makes future testing much
easier because you can add stuff as needed to attack
the problem at hand. Going beyond that now assumes
a lot we don't know until some problem arises. To sprinkle
lots of sensors around now is a huge waste of $time$ for
the vast majority of them would never be called upon to
give you useful information.
Bob . . .
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: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:19 PM 12/4/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>Good Evening Stan,
>
>Please don't assume that my commenting on your question means that I know
>anything at all about the subject, but I was having some problems a year
>or so
>ago with an alternator control circuit on a certificated airplane.
>
>I wanted to be able to check the voltages in a manner similar to what you
>want to do, so this is what I did.
>
>I got the Zeftronics trouble shooting guide and looked to see what places
>Zeftronics suggested using for measuring voltages while checking
>the system. I
>then attached a number twenty-two wire at each of those points and led those
>wires to a DB nine plug which was positioned where it could be easily
>reached from the right seat. That way, I could use a Fluke Meter to make
>the
>checks Zeftronics wanted while the airplane was airborne.
>
>Worked just fine for me!
Works just fine for most folks. This is what I
do most of the time working on the heavy-iron
too . . .
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: OVPM Active Notification |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:05 AM 12/4/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
><rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>
>The OV protection module, as designed by Bob and purchased from B&C, does
>indeed provide active notification. It's not an "idiot light" but it's the
>next best thing.
> The 5 amp pullable circuit breaker is black with the
>numeral 5 imprinted in the center of the round pull tab. When the system is
>in normal mode the black on black (my panel) sits quietly in my peripheral
>vision. When the breaker trips, the white "collar" is easily visible and
>catches my eye.
>
>If we are exercising even minimal flight discipline and doing our routine
>check lists periodically during flight, the non illuminated but easily
>visible white breaker collar informs us that the thing has tripped. I
>usually look next at the volt meter which is reading lower than when the ALT
>is on line.
>
>So far, the only time mine trips is during engine start. For this reason I
>start my engine with the master in the middle, BAT only, position and add
>the ALT after the engine lights off but before adding strobes, radios,
>etc... I watch the Volt meter needle swing up to the usual indication and am
>consoled. Not only is my OBAM aircraft's electrical system functioning
>properly BUT I actually understand what it's doing and why!!! Thank you Bob
>Nuckolls. My wife still wants to bake you a cake :o)
One could install the ov protection system and rely on a popped breaker
as some form of active notification . . . but keep in mind that alternators
will fail to produce power for lots of reasons that will not open the
breaker. Therefore, whether an ov protection system is even installed,
the active notification of low voltage would be my FIRST recommendation
for installed instrumentation in the electrical system. All other goodies
have some degree of usefulness but that light is your primary notice that
implementation of plan-B is called for to insure sweat-free termination
of the flight.
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: | Master Relay Mount |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:03 PM 12/3/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
><rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> Maybe dissecting one would be of value to show the reason for the change.
I considered that . . . but I'll bet nothing has changed inside
the contactor. If I put my hands on a new one, I might do some
non-destructive testing (hi-pot testing) to see if insulating
the mounting feet has any merit for that cause . . .
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aviation intercom mod for PC computer use |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Listers,
I have a friend who wants to modify a Telex TC200 aviation portable
intercom for interface with the sound card on his home PC. The idea is to
fabricate a more realistic flight simulator experience. Any suggestions on
what would need to be done to correct the speaker impedence mismatch?
Charlie Kuss
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: | Generator question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:10 PM 12/3/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron" <rondefly@rtriano.com>
>
>Bob, If your suggesting me to consider the LV/OV indicator I assume the
>generator is not a problem that needs to be shut off as with an alternator.
>I have already built your two voltage controllers but with the generator I
>guess I only need an indicator for either lo or high voltage.
>
>Thankyou
>
>Ron Triano
It's not a matter of generators being less risky than alternators.
It has to do with output current capabilities and how fast the
bus voltage might rise in a runaway event.
20A from any power source will be mitigated by a well maintained
battery such that a pilot has ample time to react to the OV
WARN light and shut the power generation device off. The presupposes
that the light is located such and has sufficient intensity that
it will never go unnoticed.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Van's ND alternator failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:50 PM 12/3/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 12/03/05 2:58:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> While I've strongly suggested an idiot light for active
> NOTIFICATION of low voltage, I'd much prefer automatic and
> active RESPONSE to over voltage thus negating the value
> of an ov warning light . . . if present in the system, it
> would be illuminated for only milliseconds.
>Bob,
>Could an OV light be "locked" on until cleared to continue its indication
>even though the OV condition has been mitigated. That way the pilot would
>have
>active indication that required acknowledgement. Then the pilot would have
>indications of both OV and LV.
That could be done. I've considered that to be a troubleshooting
data point of interest to the owner/operator after he's on
the ground and trades his pilot's hat for a mechanic's hat.
Once on the ground, it's a simple task to deduce wether the
the LV light is coming on SUBSEQUENT to an OV trip or because
of another kind of failure that simply shuts down the alternator.
Bob . . .
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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob rundle" <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
I'm trying to decide what exactly I need in terms of an ACU (Annunciation
Control Unit) for my setup.
My avionics are:
GNS430
GNC300XL
GMA340
GI106A
GTX327
Right now I only only a single GI106A. When this is connected to the G430, I
understand the G430 can select between GPS input and NAV input. i.e. it has
a built in ACU.
What about the 300XL? I too can be connected to a GI106A and display GPS
track information. But for this to occur you need to have an external ACU
to select between GPS/NAV, as well as ARM and ACTV the approach for
non-precision approaches.
So what if I only have 1 GI106A? Do I still need this ACU? The G430 will
change it without the need for an ACU. Right now I;m considering getting a
second GI106A and the ACU to hook up to the G300XL. Would this be the best
solution? As well I presume since I'll be only be doing non-precision
appracohes with the 300XL then I only need the GI102A, not the 106A
(glideslope indication as well).
Can someone clarify this for me?
Thank you
BobR
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: Questions on Z-20 and Z-16 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:27 PM 11/28/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> 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?
It's not required. It may be desirable. Z-20 intends to convey
no requirements . . . only suggestions all of which should be
sifted for suitability to your task.
See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
>Why isn't there a contactor on the battery circuit? Are these Contactors an
>S701-1?
Z-20 was crafted when the Jabiru was being shipped with about a 10A
alternator. Is it larger now? If only 10A, the battery contactor
represents a significant portion of total output. If you have a larger
alternator, consider Z-16 instead.
>Is the OV Relay an S704-1? Why doesn't it have a Diode like on Z-16?
It should have been there. It is on Z-16.
>Odyssey batteries are described as dry batteries. Is this the same as an RC
>battery?
RG (recombinant gas)? Yes. Virtually ALL brands and part nubmers
of lead-acid batteries offered as "sealed" are the same technology
whether described as absorbed glass mat (AGM), recombinant gas (RG),
vented sealed lead-acid (VSLA), etc, etc. What the are NOT is
a 'gel cell'.
>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?
Nope.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
nuckollsr@cox.net
>One could install the ov protection system and rely on a popped breaker
>as some form of active notification . . . but keep in mind that
alternators
>will fail to produce power for lots of reasons that will not open the
>breaker. Therefore, whether an ov protection system is even installed,
>the active notification of low voltage would be my FIRST recommendation
>for installed instrumentation in the electrical system. All other
goodies
>have some degree of usefulness but that light is your primary notice
that
>implementation of plan-B is called for to insure sweat-free termination
>of the flight. Bob . . .
The LV warning is the primary indicator of the health of the electrical
system.
I will be adding one of these to my website soon but you can see it now.
Contact me offlist.
http://www.periheliondesign.com/LV_Annunciator%20Manual.pdf
This device has facility for dimming or adding alarms. Comments would be
appreciated.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
- E Stobblehouse
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: Electrical system test points was |
Do I Need an Ammeter?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> Do
I Need an Ammeter?
At 10:19 PM 12/4/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 12/4/2005 7:53:54 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>Speedy11@aol.com writes:
>
>Again, my design goal:
>---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
>better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's see ...
>just
>make it 24 sensors)
>---where to locate the sensors to permit troubleshooting
>---type of sensors to get the readings
>Anyone?
>Stan Sutterfield
>
>
>Good Evening Stan,
>
>Please don't assume that my commenting on your question means that I know
>anything at all about the subject, but I was having some problems a year
>or so
>ago with an alternator control circuit on a certificated airplane.
>
>I wanted to be able to check the voltages in a manner similar to what you
>want to do, so this is what I did.
>
>I got the Zeftronics trouble shooting guide and looked to see what places
>Zeftronics suggested using for measuring voltages while checking
>the system. I
>then attached a number twenty-two wire at each of those points and led those
>wires to a DB nine plug which was positioned where it could be easily
>reached from the right seat. That way, I could use a Fluke Meter to make
>the
>checks Zeftronics wanted while the airplane was airborne.
>
>Worked just fine for me!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
Bob, Ken & Listers,
How about another way to skin this cat? Rather than add permanent weight
to our aircraft, could we make up "break out boxes! The idea is to install
a temporary connector with a third leg, from which we can connect our
meters. This could be inserted anywhere there is a splice connector in the
wiring harness. Automotive manufacturers make breakout boxes to allow
service techs (like me) to take direct measurements of engine computer
signals without hacking up the harness.
Most of you will be familiar with a similar concept. Most automotive
vendors now make a auto trailer wiring harness which installs directly into
the tail/brake light wiring of modern autos. No cutting or splicing of the
stock harness is needed. This Tee harness installs into the vehicle's
wiring at a connector point when needed. It can be easily removed when no
longer needed. Best of all, no added weight when not used and no damage to
the wiring harness. Hoppy makes these trailer wiring harnesses for many
vehicles. One example of this can be found at:
http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductDetail.aspx?mfrcode=HOP&mfrpartnumber=40125
Does Molex or Amp make this sort of a Tee connector for their products? How
about a similar device for D-Sub connectors?
Charlie Kuss
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Bob,
I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of that
many
components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your need
for instrumentation.
Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR only?
If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally <G>.
If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there is
no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just as
well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness or to
follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
Keep It Simple!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 12/5/2005 8:45:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bobrundle2@hotmail.com writes:
So what if I only have 1 GI106A? Do I still need this ACU? The G430 will
change it without the need for an ACU. Right now I;m considering getting a
second GI106A and the ACU to hook up to the G300XL. Would this be the best
solution? As well I presume since I'll be only be doing non-precision
appracohes with the 300XL then I only need the GI102A, not the 106A
(glideslope indication as well).
Can someone clarify this for me?
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Old Bob,
As a somewhat silent observer of this group, I always enjoy reading your
posts. You are gentlemanly and knowledgeable. I mentioned your "handle" to a
friend of mine, Dennis King V35B flyer, fellow BTO member, and retired FedEx
747 driver, and he immediately knew you and was highly complimentary of your
knowledge and professionalism.
So keep sharing your wisdom with us here on this list. What you have said
that I have any experience with makes abundant sense.
Wayne Sweet
MustangII builder/flyer
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Morning Bob,
>
> I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
> (nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of
> that many
> components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your
> need
> for instrumentation.
>
> Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
> 300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR
> only?
>
> If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
> always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally <G>.
>
> If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there
> is
> no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>
> Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
> for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just
> as
> well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
>
> As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
> line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness
> or to
> follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
>
> Keep It Simple!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
> In a message dated 12/5/2005 8:45:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> bobrundle2@hotmail.com writes:
>
> So what if I only have 1 GI106A? Do I still need this ACU? The G430
> will
> change it without the need for an ACU. Right now I;m considering getting
> a
> second GI106A and the ACU to hook up to the G300XL. Would this be the
> best
> solution? As well I presume since I'll be only be doing non-precision
> appracohes with the 300XL then I only need the GI102A, not the 106A
> (glideslope indication as well).
>
> Can someone clarify this for me?
>
>
>
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: | Electrical system test points |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>Bob, Ken & Listers,
> How about another way to skin this cat? Rather than add permanent weight
>to our aircraft, could we make up "break out boxes! The idea is to install
>a temporary connector with a third leg, from which we can connect our
>meters. This could be inserted anywhere there is a splice connector in the
>wiring harness. Automotive manufacturers make breakout boxes to allow
>service techs (like me) to take direct measurements of engine computer
>signals without hacking up the harness.
> Most of you will be familiar with a similar concept. Most automotive
>vendors now make a auto trailer wiring harness which installs directly into
>the tail/brake light wiring of modern autos. No cutting or splicing of the
>stock harness is needed. This Tee harness installs into the vehicle's
>wiring at a connector point when needed. It can be easily removed when no
>longer needed. Best of all, no added weight when not used and no damage to
>the wiring harness. Hoppy makes these trailer wiring harnesses for many
>vehicles. One example of this can be found at:
>
>http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductDetail.aspx?mfrcode=HOP&mfrpartnumber=40125
>
>Does Molex or Amp make this sort of a Tee connector for their products? How
>about a similar device for D-Sub connectors?
What your talking about is a standard tool of the aviation industry
that's been around for a very long time (WWII or earlier). I have
a variety of breakout boxes, some fairly standard like 9, 15, 25 pin
d-sub interfaces and some more specific like this one:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/19-Pin_Application_Specific_BO_Box.jpg
This fits the ground fault detectors on a Beechjet. The problem
with these tools are several. (1) not well suited to taping into
a pair of points that don't use connectors . . . like back of
alternator. (2) test points are made available only localy
to accessory. You might want to observe the measurement
from some remote point. I've done a lot of work with breakout harnesses
like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Universal_Breakout_Box.jpg
The breakout fixture terminates in a 37-pin d-sub. I can extend
this sample point on any length of ribbon cable see coiled
up. Ribbon cable will run out the baggage compartment door,
tape to outside of fuselage and in through gasket of entry
door so that I can attach the other end to a jack-panel (shown)
or attached to my data acquisition system . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/16_Channel_DAS.jpg
The system I've proposed is a mix of all these ideas. (1) Permanently
installed taps on items of interest. (2) Pre-installed extension of
these data points to some convenient monitoring point. (3) Easy
interface to measurement device of choice.
It's the "pre-installed" part that saves a lot of time.
Bob . . .
>Charlie Kuss
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
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: Regulator VR (better than Ford) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Jerry:
The down side of any Ford VR, circa 1963-1987, it they have a voltage set
point of about 14.2 or 14.3 volts or less. If you are using an Odyssey battery
(SLA or AGM), it needs at least 14.3 volts to be happy. 14.5 volts is just
right. The good news is if you wire your old Ford regulator to detect buss
voltage and wire the alternator output (b-lead) direct to the battery (as Bob
N. suggest thru a busman fuse), the battery will see just a little higher
voltage than the buss. Make sense. Since the VR is detecting voltage at the
main bus, there is no doubt a little voltage drop from the battery.
I think there are way way better voltage regulators out there. Two come to
mind a Bosch (adjustable)
http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/IB301A.jpg
OR if you want deluxe Transpo makes a replacement FORD regulator for Limo,
Marine, Police Car, RV, Taxi and emergency vehicles. It has OV protect,
adjustable and a host of fault detection, control and warning/fault lights.
http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/V1200.jpg
http://www.transpo.de/catalog/spec_d/V1200.gif
Voltage Set Point: 14.2 V Adjustable Voltage (13.0-16.0 Volts)
Regulation: B-Circuit
> Precise Digital Regulation
> Short Circuit Protected
> High Current Capability
> Over Voltage protection
> Ignition or Light circuit activated with High Side Regulation (B-Circuit)
> Protected Against Loss of Ground and Under Voltage
> LED'S for Easy Troubleshooting
> Fault Detection Indicators
George
From: Jerry2DT(at)aol.com
Subject: Regulator VR
List and Bob...
The guy at NAPA AV Dept. *thinks* the regulator he sold me, Echlin VR440,
interchanges with Ford VR166 per Z-11 and Bob's note 21. Would it matter if
it isn't as long as terms are wired the same?
Jerry Cochran Wilsonville, OR
---------------------------------
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
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: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
IMHO, it seems to have an automotive type readout to trouble shoot faults,
should they ever occur, is much ado about a very small chance. It seems in
my installations of various avionics in my plans built MustangII which is
night and IFR approach approved equipped (with several versions along the
way), my troubles were few and mostly at installation time. Today modern
avionics are almost bullet proof and if standard wiring and routing
procedures are followed, it is very unlikely that in a 30 year service
period, much could "wear out" to cause faults of some kind. MILSPEC wire is
extremely robust (as anyone who has stripped that stuff well knows), so
unless poor routing allowing rubbing against structures, that wire will last
a lifetime. Connectors are altogether another story however. But again,
isolation of such failures is usually rather straight forward.
In short, trying to create a system with ease of maintenance sometimes can
complicate so much as to be counter-productive.
Again, just my $0,02.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> Can you achieve that without reducing the reliability of the system?
> Mostly you are going to be reading voltages. With that many sense
> points, you almost have to use small (22awg?) wire to the sense points
> which probably means a fuse-link at the sense point to protect each
> sensor wire. Now the sense wire has some protection should it short out.
> However if it did short out could it cause failures in the system it is
> connected to? If you use a sensor selector switch or a common connector,
> could failure of that switch or connector cause multiple failures?
>
> There is something to be said for adding monitoring circuitry if/as/when
> needed. What about the other less reliable systems? Leak detectors,
> vibration monitors, strain gauges?
>
> Personally I like it when Bob tries to make us think a bit and consider
> other factors rather than directly and only answering a specific
> question. Hmmm - I guess I didn't provide the answer you wanted either...
>
> Ken
>
>>Now we're getting somewhere. Design goal is to have access to multiple
>>readings of the electrical system - whether airborne or on the ground.
>>And I'm
>>willing to expend lots of $time$ now to provide said readings to save
>>$time$ in
>>the future.
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | 2005 List of Contributors - Thank You... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Marcos Della" <mdella@cstone.com>
Just curious, how much bandwidth do you consume at your colocation and how much
are you paying a month? The reason I as is that I have three cabinets at my
co-lo that are half filled and I think I still have something like 3-5MB/sec (95%)
still available on the setup that I haven't used in the last 6 years. I
have something like 50-60 HP LP1000R dual P3's on my system that I play with (I
can't remember the number since I never log into them all).
In my case, everything is running some version of Solaris 8,9, or 10.
Marcos
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Matt Dralle
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2005 List of Contributors - Thank You...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Let me say *thank you* to everyone that made a Contribution in
support of the Lists this year! It was really nice to hear all the
great comments people had regarding what the Lists mean to them and
how much they look forward to reading the new posts each day. As I
have said many times before, running these Lists and creating the
many new features is truly a labor of love. This is why your
comments of support and appreciation have particular meaning for
me. Your generosity during this time of List support only
underscores the great sentiments people have made regarding the Lists.
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
My tentative plan for my 9A panel as been a GRT Sport EFIS with a 300XL,
206, SL-30, and the annunciator that I would definitely need to make the
300 IFR-legal. However, I've been thinking that the WAAS approaches
that a 430 would give me would really make it worthwhile, and
cost-justifiable, and that would allow me to go with an SL-40 instead of
the 30 as well (since the 430 has built-in NAV of course). If I don't
need the annunciator with the 430 - and I'm just about sure I don't -
that saves another $800 and makes it almost a no-brainer.
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>>
>>
>>Good Morning Bob,
>>
>>I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
>>(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of
>>that many
>>components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your
>>need
>>for instrumentation.
>>
>>Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
>>300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR
>>only?
>>
>>If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
>>always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally <G>.
>>
>>If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there
>>is
>>no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>>
>>Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
>>for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just
>>as
>>well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
>>
>>As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
>>line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness
>>or to
>>follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
>>
>>Keep It Simple!
>>
>>Happy Skies,
>>
>>Old Bob
>>AKA
>>Bob Siegfried
>>Ancient Aviator
>>Stearman N3977A
>>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>>630 985-8503
>>
>>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Regulator VR (better than Ford) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> The down side of any Ford VR, circa 1963-1987, it they have a voltage set
>point of about 14.2 or 14.3 volts or less. If you are using an Odyssey
>battery
>(SLA or AGM), it needs at least 14.3 volts to be happy. 14.5 volts is just
>right. The good news is if you wire your old Ford regulator to detect buss
>voltage and wire the alternator output (b-lead) direct to the battery (as Bob
>N. suggest thru a busman fuse), the battery will see just a little higher
>voltage than the buss. Make sense. Since the VR is detecting voltage at the
>main bus, there is no doubt a little voltage drop from the battery.
>
>I think there are way way better voltage regulators out there. Two come to
>mind a Bosch (adjustable)
>
>http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/IB301A.jpg
>
>
>OR if you want deluxe Transpo makes a replacement FORD regulator for Limo,
>Marine, Police Car, RV, Taxi and emergency vehicles. It has OV protect,
>adjustable and a host of fault detection, control and warning/fault lights.
>
>http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/V1200.jpg
>http://www.transpo.de/catalog/spec_d/V1200.gif
>
> Voltage Set Point: 14.2 V Adjustable Voltage (13.0-16.0 Volts)
>Regulation: B-Circuit
> > Precise Digital Regulation
> > Short Circuit Protected
> > High Current Capability
> > Over Voltage protection
> > Ignition or Light circuit activated with High Side Regulation (B-Circuit)
> > Protected Against Loss of Ground and Under Voltage
> > LED'S for Easy Troubleshooting
> > Fault Detection Indicators
I agree that there are many suitable options for upgrading
from the stock "Ford" configuration. Certainly, adjustability
is a strong point of consideration.
The only item I can't sign up to is an alleged preference
of the SVLA technology for some other setpoint voltage as
compared to flooded batteries of yesteryear. In my
travels about the world of batteries for RAC a few years
ago, I discovered that the overall effects of offering
preferential treatment to the various technologies are
so tiny as to be insignificant to the end user even if
some differences could be quantified in the lab.
EVERY lead-acid battery in existence will achieve 100 plus
or minus 5% charge at 13.8v at room temperature if you leave it
hooked up long enough. The only reason to exceed this voltage
is for (1) average operating temperatures lower than 20C,
(2) increased recharge rates for short term usage (like
1 hour flight) where the effects of "overcharge" are
insignificant. I had a voltage regulator in my Safari
running about 15.0 volts for several years before the
alternator crapped and it was replaced with a new one that
ran about 14.3v. I was running Wal-Mart flooded batteries and the
occasional Panasonic RG battery experimentally. Battery
life was not affected in any apparent way. Just installed
my second replacement (in 196,000 miles - bearings went
dry) and don't know what it runs and don't much care.
Choose a regulator based on any perceived improvements
in operational features but know that doing so to
favor the "needs" of any particular battery brand or
technology is a no-value-added exercise.
Bob . . .
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
You don't need the annunciator with the GNS 430
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
--> <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
My tentative plan for my 9A panel as been a GRT Sport EFIS with a 300XL,
206, SL-30, and the annunciator that I would definitely need to make the
300 IFR-legal. However, I've been thinking that the WAAS approaches
that a 430 would give me would really make it worthwhile, and
cost-justifiable, and that would allow me to go with an SL-40 instead of
the 30 as well (since the 430 has built-in NAV of course). If I don't
need the annunciator with the 430 - and I'm just about sure I don't -
that saves another $800 and makes it almost a no-brainer.
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>>
>>
>>Good Morning Bob,
>>
>>I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
>>(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration
>>of that many components in my memory bank!), however, I would like
>>to comment on your need for instrumentation.
>>
>>Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use
>>the 300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up
>>as VFR only?
>>
>>If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you
>>can always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost
legally <G>.
>>
>>If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes,
>>there is no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>>
>>Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR
>>legality for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup
>>will work just as well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained
>>as an IFR unit.
>>
>>As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your
>>normal line of sight, but everything you need to use it for
>>situational awareness or to follow a course is available within the
>>Panel Control Unit.
>>
>>Keep It Simple!
>>
>>Happy Skies,
>>
>>Old Bob
>>AKA
>>Bob Siegfried
>>Ancient Aviator
>>Stearman N3977A
>>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>>630 985-8503
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Unless you already have the 430, do you really want to roll the dice on how
soon a WAAS upgrade will be available?
Just a guess, but I've got the feeling that Garmin will eventually just give
up on WAAS on the 430/530 units, and allow a substantial trade-in allowance
on a GNS 480 or successor...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
<pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
My tentative plan for my 9A panel as been a GRT Sport EFIS with a 300XL,
206, SL-30, and the annunciator that I would definitely need to make the
300 IFR-legal. However, I've been thinking that the WAAS approaches
that a 430 would give me would really make it worthwhile, and
cost-justifiable, and that would allow me to go with an SL-40 instead of
the 30 as well (since the 430 has built-in NAV of course). If I don't
need the annunciator with the 430 - and I'm just about sure I don't -
that saves another $800 and makes it almost a no-brainer.
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>>
>>
>>Good Morning Bob,
>>
>>I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
>>(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of
>>that many
>>components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your
>>need
>>for instrumentation.
>>
>>Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
>>300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR
>>only?
>>
>>If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
>>always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally <G>.
>>
>>If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there
>>is
>>no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>>
>>Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
>>for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just
>>as
>>well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
>>
>>As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
>>line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness
>>or to
>>follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
>>
>>Keep It Simple!
>>
>>Happy Skies,
>>
>>Old Bob
>>AKA
>>Bob Siegfried
>>Ancient Aviator
>>Stearman N3977A
>>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>>630 985-8503
>>
>>
>
>
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Paul,
Please don't confuse my answer with anything you can hang your hat on, but
my take would be that whether or not you need a remote annunciator for the 430
is dependent on just where the Panel Unit is located.
If it is way over to the right side in a canted panel as is common on many
Bonanzas, it may or may not be considered as being within the pilots "normal"
view. Some FAA inspectors have judged that such a location was OK.
Others have disagreed.
If the panel unit is mounted in the center panel of a Bonanza, as it is in
some of the newer Cessna's and Pipers, I have never heard of anyone denying it
is in the normal scan.
When you are installing it in an experimental machine, I would say it is up
to you to determine normal scan, but I am sure there are many fine Federal
Officials who would disagree with me!
There has been some guidance given that considered the pilots eyeball
location and various angles therefrom, but I do not believe that has been written
into a precise regulation as yet. I may well be wrong!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 12/5/2005 11:22:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com writes:
As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
It would be in the center stack of an Affordable Panels XL panel -
certainly in normal view.
I'd forgotten about the "in normal scan" rule re: annunciators. Thx.
~Paul
~9A QB started July, quit for 5 months, starting again soon.
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>Good Morning Paul,
>
>Please don't confuse my answer with anything you can hang your hat on, but
>my take would be that whether or not you need a remote annunciator for the 430
>is dependent on just where the Panel Unit is located.
>
>If it is way over to the right side in a canted panel as is common on many
>Bonanzas, it may or may not be considered as being within the pilots "normal"
>view. Some FAA inspectors have judged that such a location was OK.
>
>Others have disagreed.
>
>If the panel unit is mounted in the center panel of a Bonanza, as it is in
>some of the newer Cessna's and Pipers, I have never heard of anyone denying it
>is in the normal scan.
>
>When you are installing it in an experimental machine, I would say it is up
>to you to determine normal scan, but I am sure there are many fine Federal
>Officials who would disagree with me!
>
>There has been some guidance given that considered the pilots eyeball
>location and various angles therefrom, but I do not believe that has been written
>into a precise regulation as yet. I may well be wrong!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8503
>
>
>In a message dated 12/5/2005 11:22:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com writes:
>
>As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
>annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
Hadn't considered that. That would stink.
No, no 430 yet. I watch them on eBay and at sometimes less than $5K
used it has been tempting, but there's no way I'd buy avionics this far
out (just starting a QB kit).
I don't think I could ever justify a 480 costwise unless they get a lot
cheaper. There's no doubt that the 480 is a far nicer unit overall, but
they're just to pricey for me.
do not archive
Bill Denton wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>Unless you already have the 430, do you really want to roll the dice on how
>soon a WAAS upgrade will be available?
>
>Just a guess, but I've got the feeling that Garmin will eventually just give
>up on WAAS on the 430/530 units, and allow a substantial trade-in allowance
>on a GNS 480 or successor...
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
Eric
Is it easy to make that same device not only to indicate Low Voltage (steady
lit light) at 13.0 V, but also to indicate High Voltage at, for example
15,0 V, with the same LED but flashing ?
I would buy it right away.
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> nuckollsr@cox.net
>
> >One could install the ov protection system and rely on a popped
> breaker
> >as some form of active notification . . . but keep in mind that
> alternators
> >will fail to produce power for lots of reasons that will not open the
> >breaker. Therefore, whether an ov protection system is even installed,
> >the active notification of low voltage would be my FIRST
> recommendation
> >for installed instrumentation in the electrical system. All other
> goodies
> >have some degree of usefulness but that light is your primary notice
> that
> >implementation of plan-B is called for to insure sweat-free
> termination
> >of the flight. Bob . . .
>
> The LV warning is the primary indicator of the health of the electrical
> system.
> I will be adding one of these to my website soon but you can see it now.
> Contact me offlist.
>
> http://www.periheliondesign.com/LV_Annunciator%20Manual.pdf
>
> This device has facility for dimming or adding alarms. Comments would be
> appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
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: | Static electricity and fuel filler neck |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
The filler necks on my RV8 tanks are made of aluminum, and
have a very thick layer of anodization on it, such that it
does not conduct electricity, as tested with a multi-meter.
The filler rings are connected to the "original" filler
rings using pro-seal. I've got some pictures here,
if it helps understand what I've got.
http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20040822215643234
My question is the following - can this cause problems
with static electricity when I'm fueling the aircraft?
Thanks for any advice.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: | Digital Ammeter - Batt meter or Load meter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
Dear all
I already have a 50 mV shunt and a digital ammeter to hook on it, to serve as a
load ammeter or a battery ammeter.
I want to order an Hall efect sensor (Hes) to serve as the other. Questions:
Where can I find a digital ammeter (sources and part number would be very apreciated)
to receive the signal from the Hes ?
(I know that I can wire the Hes to the EFIS that I am planning to use, but I'd
prefer a separate digital ammeter)
Should I put the Shunt as a battery ammeter sensor and the Hes as a load meter
sensor or the other way round ?
Thanks
Carlos
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Paul,
To add to your considerations, let me relate my experience with 430 vice
480. I downloaded PC simulators for both and try them. Since I was using a
GX50 at the time, I was familiar with the Direct button and also flight
planning. The GNS430 knowledge transfer needed was similar to the GX50; the
user interface, after a brief tutorial, was easily adopted. The other bells
and whistles on the 430 are delightful, but still require refreshing every
now and then (I have flown with it for over a year). The 480 simulator took
going through the rather lengthy tutorial and even then could not figure out
how to simply do a direct-to. Example; fire up and want to go to an airport
80 miles away. The 480, as far as I could figure out, wanted a complete
flight plan, including a departure procedure. Later, I read on some website,
that in the opinion of the writer (apparently a corporate type pilot) the
480 was a Flight Management System first and a fly-around type GPS maybe (my
words). The video that I have(had??? can't find it), is a King Air pilot
demonstrating the capabilities of the 480.
At the time eBay had both a 430 and 480, so I bid and won the 430.
BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one SWEEEEEET
system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and the
Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off unevenly
(wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot, the
wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with the
EzPilot.
One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are included
for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
installing the S-Tec.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
> <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>
> Hadn't considered that. That would stink.
>
> No, no 430 yet. I watch them on eBay and at sometimes less than $5K
> used it has been tempting, but there's no way I'd buy avionics this far
> out (just starting a QB kit).
>
> I don't think I could ever justify a 480 costwise unless they get a lot
> cheaper. There's no doubt that the 480 is a far nicer unit overall, but
> they're just to pricey for me.
>
> do not archive
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
>><bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>Unless you already have the 430, do you really want to roll the dice on
>>how
>>soon a WAAS upgrade will be available?
>>
>>Just a guess, but I've got the feeling that Garmin will eventually just
>>give
>>up on WAAS on the 430/530 units, and allow a substantial trade-in
>>allowance
>>on a GNS 480 or successor...
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Static electricity and fuel filler neck |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii@rvproject.gen.nz>
Hi Mikey,
I was thinking along similar lines a few days ago. The conclusion we came
to is the wing tie downs (which is threaded straight into the spar) will be
left unpainted and can be used for the refuelling grounding strap.
As a sidebar, our local CAA freebie mag (Vector) had a couple of articles -
one with a picture of when 'Static goes bad'. This includes during build /
maintenance on the ground, as well as once we are flying.
http://www.caa.govt.nz/fulltext/vector/vector_05_5_sept_oct%2005.pdf (page
3-6)
http://www.caa.govt.nz/fulltext/vector/vec98-5.pdf (older - 1998 article -
common content in places I think)
Regards,
Carl
--
ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - fuse / engine
Cromwell, New Zealand
http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mickey
> Coggins
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 7:49 a.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Static electricity and fuel filler neck
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> The filler necks on my RV8 tanks are made of aluminum, and
> have a very thick layer of anodization on it, such that it
> does not conduct electricity, as tested with a multi-meter.
>
> The filler rings are connected to the "original" filler
> rings using pro-seal. I've got some pictures here,
> if it helps understand what I've got.
>
> http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20040822215643234
>
> My question is the following - can this cause problems
> with static electricity when I'm fueling the aircraft?
>
> Thanks for any advice.
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
> --
>
--
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: | Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
Hello All-
Well, I'm throwing in the towel on using my stock, internally regulated
RX-7 alternator. The design seems to make it very difficult (impossible) to
shut it down if the internal VR fails.
So, I am looking for a nice externally regulated 80-Amp alternator. I've
found a candidate at summit racing for $89. Wondering whether anyone has a
different recommendation? It's tough finding an appropriate alternator --
all the online sources want to know what car your looking to get a part for
first...
Mark
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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Wayn
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Sweet <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Paul,
To add to your considerations, let me relate my experience with 430 vice
480. I downloaded PC simulators for both and try them. Since I was using a
GX50 at the time, I was familiar with the Direct button and also flight
planning. The GNS430 knowledge transfer needed was similar to the GX50; the
user interface, after a brief tutorial, was easily adopted. The other bells
and whistles on the 430 are delightful, but still require refreshing every
now and then (I have flown with it for over a year). The 480 simulator took
going through the rather lengthy tutorial and even then could not figure out
how to simply do a direct-to. Example; fire up and want to go to an airport
80 miles away. The 480, as far as I could figure out, wanted a complete
flight plan, including a departure procedure. Later, I read on some website,
that in the opinion of the writer (apparently a corporate type pilot) the
480 was a Flight Management System first and a fly-around type GPS maybe (my
words). The video that I have(had??? can't find it), is a King Air pilot
demonstrating the capabilities of the 480.
At the time eBay had both a 430 and 480, so I bid and won the 430.
BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one SWEEEEEET
system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and the
Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off unevenly
(wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot, the
wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with the
EzPilot.
One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are included
for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
installing the S-Tec.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
> <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>
> Hadn't considered that. That would stink.
>
> No, no 430 yet. I watch them on eBay and at sometimes less than $5K
> used it has been tempting, but there's no way I'd buy avionics this far
> out (just starting a QB kit).
>
> I don't think I could ever justify a 480 costwise unless they get a lot
> cheaper. There's no doubt that the 480 is a far nicer unit overall, but
> they're just to pricey for me.
>
> do not archive
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
>><bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>Unless you already have the 430, do you really want to roll the dice on
>>how
>>soon a WAAS upgrade will be available?
>>
>>Just a guess, but I've got the feeling that Garmin will eventually just
>>give
>>up on WAAS on the 430/530 units, and allow a substantial trade-in
>>allowance
>>on a GNS 480 or successor...
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury@impulse.net>
Excuse my ignorance, but what is the advantage of having the cross feed contactor
in Z-14 ? In an all electric ship (EI, EFI) please give me the "what ifs" that
I'm missing.
Why not have the whole system on the primary(bigger) alternator and have the #2
alt kick in if the # 1 drops output below a preset? Like Bob said in the Z-14
text, the batteries will suck up the output deficit of the # 2 Alt and all I
have to know is to be on terra firma before the batts go dry.
Thanks,
John
Message 36
| 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: Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:04 PM 12/5/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski"
><mark.supinski@gmail.com>
>
>Hello All-
>
>Well, I'm throwing in the towel on using my stock, internally regulated
>RX-7 alternator. The design seems to make it very difficult (impossible) to
>shut it down if the internal VR fails.
>
>So, I am looking for a nice externally regulated 80-Amp alternator. I've
>found a candidate at summit racing for $89. Wondering whether anyone has a
>different recommendation? It's tough finding an appropriate alternator --
>all the online sources want to know what car your looking to get a part for
>first...
Have you considered modifying the alternator you have? Unless
someone is offering you $ for it, you're not out much by attempting
the mod. If you have a digital camera, you can share the
configuration of what you find inside. I presume you've reviewed
the modification project linked several times here on the List?
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/
Bob . . .
Message 37
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Wayne-
perhaps you can help me out a bit. (And if my laptop decides to send this mail
before I'm done composing it, all I can say is, Sorry, dude; it's a Dell with
a touchpad. Even though I float my thumbs off the keyboard I sometimes manage
to hit a secret key sequence that erases half the message and sends the rest
out...)
I fly a VFR RV-6A with the Trio EZ-Pilot and a Garmin 296. I want to add altitude
hold and one day a GRT EFIS, and learn to fly IFR. In these respects, I'm
alot like the owner of GRT except he has the EFIS already ;-) Also, he went
with TruTrak (I'm getting back to that later...)
Since I have a brand loyalty to Trio, for whatever reason, I have been looking
at their Alt Hold product as the next step for me. I became concerned that GRT
didn't support Trio as of yet, except for lateral guidance. I called Trio
today to discuss this, and all they could tell me was that altitude hold devices
with any type of ILS-tracking capability were not even in the development phase,
though it was in their future planning.
I'm sure I could "get by" with the system you mention below, but having read Greg's
experiences with coupled approaches flown in his RV-6 on the GRT EFIS with
the Tru-Trak, I am really hoping to get that kind of sexy and luxurious capability
in my plane one day. Now, however, I am bringing myself up short and
asking whether I should just set my sights on your type of set-up, with Trio gear
driven by the GNS-430. Obviously, to fully exploit the intelligent frequency
nomination and TIS capabilities of the GRT EFIS, know I need to be looking
at that type of nav/comm/GPS to replace the Icom A-200 and the GPSmap 296 I'm
currently flying with.
I'm afraid that as an IFR-wanna be, I'm too ignorant to even be asking the right
questions. My gut tells me I should plan to remove and sell the Trio A/P and
plan on installing a high-end TruTrak, for the kind of coupled-approach capability
I _think_ I will want, but my wallet is screaming, "NO! Not 6k for an A/P
after what the EFIS and radios themselves will cost!" The Trio comes in at
under 4k altogether, of course.
I hope that's enough background on my situation to now ask, "So, what do you think?"
-Stormy
Snip>>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one SWEEEEEET
system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and the
Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off unevenly
(wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot, the
wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with the
EzPilot.
One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are included
for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
installing the S-Tec.
Wayne
<< snip
Message 38
| 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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Allow me to reply to Wayne Sweet, who wrote: "The 480 simulator took
going through the rather lengthy tutorial and even then could not figure out
how to simply do a direct-to. Example; fire up and want to go to an airport
80 miles away. The 480, as far as I could figure out, wanted a complete
flight plan, including a departure procedure."
As background, I don't yet fly (starting Sport Pilot after New Years), but I
have flown MS Flight Simulator, along with the Garmin 430/530/480
Simulators.
On the GNS 480 Simulator, when you start from scratch, it will not do a
simple "Direct To" for a very simple reason: the sim doesn't know where it
is. In order to do a Direct To, the simulator tries to calculate a course
from its current position to the desired waypoint, but the simulator doesn't
know where it is when you first start it up. This problem should not exist
with the "real" GNS 480.
As far as flight planning goes, I entered KIGQ as a departure airport, and
KMLU as a destination, and the simulator began flying the route with no
requirement for a departure or approach procedure, then pressed EXEC and it
began flying that route. After a minute or so, I entered a Direct To KRDU,
and the simulator began flying that route.
Admittedly, I'm a computer geek, and am not intimidated by this type of
equipment, but I have found the GNS 480 simulator, as well as the GNS
430/GNS 530 simulators, both intuitive and relatively easy to use...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
sportav8r@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Wayn
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Sweet <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Paul,
To add to your considerations, let me relate my experience with 430 vice
480. I downloaded PC simulators for both and try them. Since I was using a
GX50 at the time, I was familiar with the Direct button and also flight
planning. The GNS430 knowledge transfer needed was similar to the GX50; the
user interface, after a brief tutorial, was easily adopted. The other bells
and whistles on the 430 are delightful, but still require refreshing every
now and then (I have flown with it for over a year). The 480 simulator took
going through the rather lengthy tutorial and even then could not figure out
how to simply do a direct-to. Example; fire up and want to go to an airport
80 miles away. The 480, as far as I could figure out, wanted a complete
flight plan, including a departure procedure. Later, I read on some website,
that in the opinion of the writer (apparently a corporate type pilot) the
480 was a Flight Management System first and a fly-around type GPS maybe (my
words). The video that I have(had??? can't find it), is a King Air pilot
demonstrating the capabilities of the 480.
At the time eBay had both a 430 and 480, so I bid and won the 430.
BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one SWEEEEEET
system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and the
Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off unevenly
(wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot, the
wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with the
EzPilot.
One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are included
for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
installing the S-Tec.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
> <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>
> Hadn't considered that. That would stink.
>
> No, no 430 yet. I watch them on eBay and at sometimes less than $5K
> used it has been tempting, but there's no way I'd buy avionics this far
> out (just starting a QB kit).
>
> I don't think I could ever justify a 480 costwise unless they get a lot
> cheaper. There's no doubt that the 480 is a far nicer unit overall, but
> they're just to pricey for me.
>
> do not archive
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
>><bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>Unless you already have the 430, do you really want to roll the dice on
>>how
>>soon a WAAS upgrade will be available?
>>
>>Just a guess, but I've got the feeling that Garmin will eventually just
>>give
>>up on WAAS on the 430/530 units, and allow a substantial trade-in
>>allowance
>>on a GNS 480 or successor...
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:44 PM 12/5/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury@impulse.net>
>
>Excuse my ignorance, but what is the advantage of having the cross feed
>contactor in Z-14 ? In an all electric ship (EI, EFI) please give me the
>"what ifs" that I'm missing.
See page Z-4 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11D.pdf
>Why not have the whole system on the primary(bigger) alternator and have
>the #2 alt kick in if the # 1 drops output below a preset? Like Bob said
>in the Z-14 text, the batteries will suck up the output deficit of the # 2
>Alt and all I have to know is to be on terra firma before the batts go dry.
That's figure Z-12 which is described on page Z-3.
Check those sources out and get back with me if the
descriptions are unclear and/or you have additional
questions.
Bob . . .
Message 40
| 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: Digital Ammeter - Batt meter or Load |
meter?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
meter?
At 07:24 PM 12/5/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo"
><trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
>
>Dear all
>
>I already have a 50 mV shunt and a digital ammeter to hook on it, to serve
>as a load ammeter or a battery ammeter.
>I want to order an Hall efect sensor (Hes) to serve as the other. Questions:
>
>Where can I find a digital ammeter (sources and part number would be very
>apreciated) to receive the signal from the Hes ?
>(I know that I can wire the Hes to the EFIS that I am planning to use, but
>I'd prefer a separate digital ammeter)
>
>Should I put the Shunt as a battery ammeter sensor and the Hes as a load
>meter sensor or the other way round ?
Are you considering one of the z-figures? None of those architectures
supports the battery ammeter concept. See chapter 7 for a description
of architecture requirements to support the minus-0-plus style
battery ammeter. There are no standards for mating hall effect
sensors and there indicators . . . if you want such an instrument,
the sensor will come with the companion instrument.
If you want to run a battery ammeter with one of the z-figures,
you'll have to use a hall effect device . . . shunts should not
be wired such that they have to carry starter current while
hall-effect devices will not be damage by the short overload
transient . . .
Bob . . .
Message 41
| 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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
From what I have read, the Trio unit only offers an add-on Altitude Hold.
The TruTrak DigiFlight-II VSGV offers Vertical GPS Steering. Apparently, the
GRT EFIS can also take Glideslope data from a Nav radio, massage it, and
send it to the TruTrak unit as Vertical GPS data. In other words, it is
tricking the autopilot by sending it Vertical GPS data, even though the EFIS
is actually receiving Glideslope data. The EFIS also sends Vertical GPS data
to provide altitude preselect.
Note also that TruTrak also offers two high end autopilots, the DFC-200,
which will accept VOR/LOC/GS data directly from a Nav radio, and the
Sorcerer, which will also directly accept VOR/LOC/GS data and offers an
altitude preselect, with no EFIS required.
Please note that this is just from reading specs, and I don't work for any
of these guys...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
sportav8r@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Wayne-
perhaps you can help me out a bit. (And if my laptop decides to send this
mail before I'm done composing it, all I can say is, Sorry, dude; it's a
Dell with a touchpad. Even though I float my thumbs off the keyboard I
sometimes manage to hit a secret key sequence that erases half the message
and sends the rest out...)
I fly a VFR RV-6A with the Trio EZ-Pilot and a Garmin 296. I want to add
altitude hold and one day a GRT EFIS, and learn to fly IFR. In these
respects, I'm alot like the owner of GRT except he has the EFIS already ;-)
Also, he went with TruTrak (I'm getting back to that later...)
Since I have a brand loyalty to Trio, for whatever reason, I have been
looking at their Alt Hold product as the next step for me. I became
concerned that GRT didn't support Trio as of yet, except for lateral
guidance. I called Trio today to discuss this, and all they could tell me
was that altitude hold devices with any type of ILS-tracking capability were
not even in the development phase, though it was in their future planning.
I'm sure I could "get by" with the system you mention below, but having read
Greg's experiences with coupled approaches flown in his RV-6 on the GRT EFIS
with the Tru-Trak, I am really hoping to get that kind of sexy and luxurious
capability in my plane one day. Now, however, I am bringing myself up
short and asking whether I should just set my sights on your type of set-up,
with Trio gear driven by the GNS-430. Obviously, to fully exploit the
intelligent frequency nomination and TIS capabilities of the GRT EFIS, know
I need to be looking at that type of nav/comm/GPS to replace the Icom A-200
and the GPSmap 296 I'm currently flying with.
I'm afraid that as an IFR-wanna be, I'm too ignorant to even be asking the
right questions. My gut tells me I should plan to remove and sell the Trio
A/P and plan on installing a high-end TruTrak, for the kind of
coupled-approach capability I _think_ I will want, but my wallet is
screaming, "NO! Not 6k for an A/P after what the EFIS and radios themselves
will cost!" The Trio comes in at under 4k altogether, of course.
I hope that's enough background on my situation to now ask, "So, what do you
think?"
-Stormy
Snip>>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one
SWEEEEEET
system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and the
Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off unevenly
(wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot, the
wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with the
EzPilot.
One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are included
for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
installing the S-Tec.
Wayne
<< snip
Message 42
| 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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Wait! Did he just say "GNS 430" and "intuitive" in the same
sentence?!?!
TDT
RV-10 40025 Finish kit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
<bdenton@bdenton.com>
Allow me to reply to Wayne Sweet, who wrote: "The 480 simulator took
going through the rather lengthy tutorial and even then could not figure
out
how to simply do a direct-to. Example; fire up and want to go to an
airport
80 miles away. The 480, as far as I could figure out, wanted a complete
flight plan, including a departure procedure."
As background, I don't yet fly (starting Sport Pilot after New Years),
but I
have flown MS Flight Simulator, along with the Garmin 430/530/480
Simulators.
On the GNS 480 Simulator, when you start from scratch, it will not do a
simple "Direct To" for a very simple reason: the sim doesn't know where
it
is. In order to do a Direct To, the simulator tries to calculate a
course
from its current position to the desired waypoint, but the simulator
doesn't
know where it is when you first start it up. This problem should not
exist
with the "real" GNS 480.
As far as flight planning goes, I entered KIGQ as a departure airport,
and
KMLU as a destination, and the simulator began flying the route with no
requirement for a departure or approach procedure, then pressed EXEC and
it
began flying that route. After a minute or so, I entered a Direct To
KRDU,
and the simulator began flying that route.
Admittedly, I'm a computer geek, and am not intimidated by this type of
equipment, but I have found the GNS 480 simulator, as well as the GNS
430/GNS 530 simulators, both intuitive and relatively easy to use...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
sportav8r@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Wayn
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Sweet <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
<w_sweet@comcast.net>
Paul,
To add to your considerations, let me relate my experience with 430 vice
480. I downloaded PC simulators for both and try them. Since I was using
a
GX50 at the time, I was familiar with the Direct button and also flight
planning. The GNS430 knowledge transfer needed was similar to the GX50;
the
user interface, after a brief tutorial, was easily adopted. The other
bells
and whistles on the 430 are delightful, but still require refreshing
every
now and then (I have flown with it for over a year). The 480 simulator
took
going through the rather lengthy tutorial and even then could not figure
out
how to simply do a direct-to. Example; fire up and want to go to an
airport
80 miles away. The 480, as far as I could figure out, wanted a complete
flight plan, including a departure procedure. Later, I read on some
website,
that in the opinion of the writer (apparently a corporate type pilot)
the
480 was a Flight Management System first and a fly-around type GPS maybe
(my
words). The video that I have(had??? can't find it), is a King Air pilot
demonstrating the capabilities of the 480.
At the time eBay had both a 430 and 480, so I bid and won the 430.
BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one
SWEEEEEET
system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and
the
Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off
unevenly
(wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot,
the
wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice.
The
430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with
the
EzPilot.
One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are
included
for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
installing the S-Tec.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
> <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>
> Hadn't considered that. That would stink.
>
> No, no 430 yet. I watch them on eBay and at sometimes less than $5K
> used it has been tempting, but there's no way I'd buy avionics this
far
> out (just starting a QB kit).
>
> I don't think I could ever justify a 480 costwise unless they get a
lot
> cheaper. There's no doubt that the 480 is a far nicer unit overall,
but
> they're just to pricey for me.
>
> do not archive
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
>><bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>>Unless you already have the 430, do you really want to roll the dice
on
>>how
>>soon a WAAS upgrade will be available?
>>
>>Just a guess, but I've got the feeling that Garmin will eventually
just
>>give
>>up on WAAS on the 430/530 units, and allow a substantial trade-in
>>allowance
>>on a GNS 480 or successor...
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 43
| 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: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
John,
Sure, I would be happy to post a follow-up message on this. I just put
the wings on this weekend, so it won't be long until I put some fuel in
one or both of them and can verify the fuel gauges are working. I don't
see how anything will change from when I first tested them though.
During my initial test, the probes were connected to the EFIS/1 high
freq inputs, fuel was poured into the open end (vent hole at inboard end
was plugged) and we observed the EFIS/1 fuel gauge registering from
empty to full. We then slowly drained the fuel out of the probe and the
gauge went back to empty. I anticipate having to do a final
calibration, but as for the basic operation, I sure do hope that nothing
changes.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
Mark & D -
Here is a quote from the BMA discussion board, followed by a reply from
Bob Northrup - their tech support guy. We were told that the EI and VM
probes were virtually identical so we had to buy the Princeton modules
for
our VM probes. Using the sensor map that BMA put together, we are
putting
the output of the two princeton modules into pins 11 & 12 of Analog 2 on
the EFIS/ONE. We are using the frequency channels for fuel flow and
tachometer.
Mark - It looks like you are hooking your EI probes directly to the two
hi
freq channels (13 & 14) (Pins 9 & 10 of analog 2). I'll be interested in
seeing how it works and quite irked if we got a bad steer from BMA. And
being irked is also contingent on finding out that the EI and VM probes
are not equal electrically. This would make the tech people at EI appear
to be wandering in the swamp.
Anyway, since neither of us are flying yet, let's keep each other
informed
as to how this problem shakes out.
Cheers,
John
===================Quote =============
Message 44
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
IMHO the user interfaces on all of the Garmin GPSs, panel and portable,
just plain stink. (The 480 is outside this category as it was not
designed at Garmin.) It's "simple" to figure out if you don't know what
you're doing, but once you do there is a quite inordinate amount of
buttton-pushing to accomplish most near anything.
I sold the 296 I was using in my 152 and went with a PDA-based soln
(AnywhereMap/AnywhereWX) for this reason.
Unfortunately you just can't legally fly direct w/out an IFR GPS and
WAAS approaches are the wave of the future as well, so the RV'll have to
have one.
do not archive
Bill Denton wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>Allow me to reply to Wayne Sweet, who wrote: "The 480 simulator took
>going through the rather lengthy tutorial and even then could not figure out
>how to simply do a direct-to. Example; fire up and want to go to an airport
>80 miles away. The 480, as far as I could figure out, wanted a complete
>flight plan, including a departure procedure."
>
>As background, I don't yet fly (starting Sport Pilot after New Years), but I
>have flown MS Flight Simulator, along with the Garmin 430/530/480
>Simulators.
>
>On the GNS 480 Simulator, when you start from scratch, it will not do a
>simple "Direct To" for a very simple reason: the sim doesn't know where it
>is. In order to do a Direct To, the simulator tries to calculate a course
>from its current position to the desired waypoint, but the simulator doesn't
>know where it is when you first start it up. This problem should not exist
>with the "real" GNS 480.
>
>As far as flight planning goes, I entered KIGQ as a departure airport, and
>KMLU as a destination, and the simulator began flying the route with no
>requirement for a departure or approach procedure, then pressed EXEC and it
>began flying that route. After a minute or so, I entered a Direct To KRDU,
>and the simulator began flying that route.
>
>Admittedly, I'm a computer geek, and am not intimidated by this type of
>equipment, but I have found the GNS 480 simulator, as well as the GNS
>430/GNS 530 simulators, both intuitive and relatively easy to use...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>sportav8r@aol.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Wayn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wayne Sweet <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
>Paul,
>To add to your considerations, let me relate my experience with 430 vice
>480. I downloaded PC simulators for both and try them. Since I was using a
>GX50 at the time, I was familiar with the Direct button and also flight
>planning. The GNS430 knowledge transfer needed was similar to the GX50; the
>user interface, after a brief tutorial, was easily adopted. The other bells
>and whistles on the 430 are delightful, but still require refreshing every
>now and then (I have flown with it for over a year). The 480 simulator took
>going through the rather lengthy tutorial and even then could not figure out
>how to simply do a direct-to. Example; fire up and want to go to an airport
>80 miles away. The 480, as far as I could figure out, wanted a complete
>flight plan, including a departure procedure. Later, I read on some website,
>that in the opinion of the writer (apparently a corporate type pilot) the
>480 was a Flight Management System first and a fly-around type GPS maybe (my
>words). The video that I have(had??? can't find it), is a King Air pilot
>demonstrating the capabilities of the 480.
>At the time eBay had both a 430 and 480, so I bid and won the 430.
>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one SWEEEEEET
>system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and the
>Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off unevenly
>(wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot, the
>wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
>intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
>430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with the
>EzPilot.
>One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
>climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are included
>for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
>installing the S-Tec.
>Wayne
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul Folbrecht" <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
>><pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>>
>>Hadn't considered that. That would stink.
>>
>>No, no 430 yet. I watch them on eBay and at sometimes less than $5K
>>used it has been tempting, but there's no way I'd buy avionics this far
>>out (just starting a QB kit).
>>
>>I don't think I could ever justify a 480 costwise unless they get a lot
>>cheaper. There's no doubt that the 480 is a far nicer unit overall, but
>>they're just to pricey for me.
>>
>>do not archive
>>
>>Bill Denton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
>>><bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>>
>>>Unless you already have the 430, do you really want to roll the dice on
>>>how
>>>soon a WAAS upgrade will be available?
>>>
>>>Just a guess, but I've got the feeling that Garmin will eventually just
>>>give
>>>up on WAAS on the 430/530 units, and allow a substantial trade-in
>>>allowance
>>>on a GNS 480 or successor...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 45
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Bill,
You make a very good point.
Most of us learn by seeing how what we are learning connects with what we
already know and then progressing on from there.
The older Northstar Loran and GPS units were very easy for most folks to
learn to use, but they took more button pushing and knob twisting than did
several other offerings that took a bit more time to learn how to use. I would
imagine that using any of the new boxes when coming from a clean slate would be
a lot different than it is for we who have been using various pieces of
equipment for fifty years or more.
The more capable and flexible the machine, the more possible combinations
that need to be understood. I have no experience with either the 430 or the 480,
but I have been told that the operating philosophies are quite a bit
different from one to the other. Since the 430 builds on procedures that have
been
common in earlier GPS and LORAN units, it is easier for previous Garmin users
to learn, but if one is starting with a clean slate, the 480 may be just as
easy to learn as the 430!
Thanks for telling us of your experience.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 12/5/2005 3:19:04 P.M. Central Standard Time, bden
ton@bdenton.com writes:
Admittedly, I'm a computer geek, and am not intimidated by this type of
equipment, but I have found the GNS 480 simulator, as well as the GNS
430/GNS 530 simulators, both intuitive and relatively easy to use...
Message 46
| 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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
You don't need an IFR rated GPS to go direct. To go direct, even with the
approved GPS box requires you be in radar contact at all times.
So, you just ask the controller, "How about radar vectors, direct to HFD
(400 NM away)from our present position? It looks like 088 degrees (heading
from your hand held GPS) will do it."
The controller will answer "Cleared radar vectors, direct HFD, heading 088
until able."
All perfectly legal.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
<pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
Unfortunately you just can't legally fly direct w/out an IFR GPS and
WAAS approaches are the wave of the future as well, so the RV'll have to
have one.
do not archive
Message 47
| 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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
As I understand it, basically the GRT and Chelton take the data derived from whatever
other systems and generate the HITS information. It is that HITS information
that is then used to drive the VSGV. Pretty slick. Essentially you can
put in a decent or climb profile for the HITS and the VSGV would punch holes
in the boxes.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 3 days till fuselage get's here :-)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Denton
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
--> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
From what I have read, the Trio unit only offers an add-on Altitude Hold.
The TruTrak DigiFlight-II VSGV offers Vertical GPS Steering. Apparently, the GRT
EFIS can also take Glideslope data from a Nav radio, massage it, and send it
to the TruTrak unit as Vertical GPS data. In other words, it is tricking the
autopilot by sending it Vertical GPS data, even though the EFIS is actually receiving
Glideslope data. The EFIS also sends Vertical GPS data to provide altitude
preselect.
Note also that TruTrak also offers two high end autopilots, the DFC-200, which
will accept VOR/LOC/GS data directly from a Nav radio, and the Sorcerer, which
will also directly accept VOR/LOC/GS data and offers an altitude preselect, with
no EFIS required.
Please note that this is just from reading specs, and I don't work for any of these
guys...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of sportav8r@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Wayne-
perhaps you can help me out a bit. (And if my laptop decides to send this mail
before I'm done composing it, all I can say is, Sorry, dude; it's a Dell with
a touchpad. Even though I float my thumbs off the keyboard I sometimes manage
to hit a secret key sequence that erases half the message and sends the rest
out...)
I fly a VFR RV-6A with the Trio EZ-Pilot and a Garmin 296. I want to add altitude
hold and one day a GRT EFIS, and learn to fly IFR. In these respects, I'm
alot like the owner of GRT except he has the EFIS already ;-) Also, he went with
TruTrak (I'm getting back to that later...)
Since I have a brand loyalty to Trio, for whatever reason, I have been looking
at their Alt Hold product as the next step for me. I became concerned that GRT
didn't support Trio as of yet, except for lateral guidance. I called Trio
today to discuss this, and all they could tell me was that altitude hold devices
with any type of ILS-tracking capability were not even in the development phase,
though it was in their future planning.
I'm sure I could "get by" with the system you mention below, but having read Greg's
experiences with coupled approaches flown in his RV-6 on the GRT EFIS with
the Tru-Trak, I am really hoping to get that kind of sexy and luxurious capability
in my plane one day. Now, however, I am bringing myself up short and
asking whether I should just set my sights on your type of set-up, with Trio gear
driven by the GNS-430. Obviously, to fully exploit the intelligent frequency
nomination and TIS capabilities of the GRT EFIS, know I need to be looking
at that type of nav/comm/GPS to replace the Icom A-200 and the GPSmap 296 I'm
currently flying with.
I'm afraid that as an IFR-wanna be, I'm too ignorant to even be asking the right
questions. My gut tells me I should plan to remove and sell the Trio A/P and
plan on installing a high-end TruTrak, for the kind of coupled-approach capability
I _think_ I will want, but my wallet is screaming, "NO! Not 6k for an A/P
after what the EFIS and radios themselves will cost!" The Trio comes in at
under 4k altogether, of course.
I hope that's enough background on my situation to now ask, "So, what do you think?"
-Stormy
Snip>>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one
SWEEEEEET
system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and the Navaid
require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off unevenly (wing
tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot, the wing trim
can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also, intercept and track
even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The 430 gives turn anticipation,
but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with the EzPilot.
One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which climb
and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are included for HALF
the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER installing the
S-Tec.
Wayne
<< snip
Message 48
| 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: | BNC attenuator for aviation tranceiver technical question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
Howdy-
I fly an experimental aircraft (RV) which uses a Microair 760 transceiver,
about 6 feet of RG 400 coax to simple bent-whip antenna mounted on bottom of
airplane. Under normal conditions this unit works exceptional, often providing
up to 100 mile line-of-sight communications. Problem is that I also
occasionally engage in formation flight where I need to communicate with another
aircraft whose antenna is perhaps 25 feet from mine. Normally the other plane
can
hear my transmissions perfectly, but their transmissions to me are often very
garbled, often unintelligible, as if they are overloading my receiver and audio
section.
After some research, I have been advised to install an inline attenuator
(BNC) to my antenna lead at the rear of my radio rated at approximately 10 db.
Your SA2B75-XX is available at 10 db, but is rated for only 2 watts- my radio's
maximum output power is around 4 watts.
Is this an appropriate product for my application or do you have something
else that would be more appropriate, or am I simply barking up the wrong tree
since I don't even pretend to understand this stuff?
Thanks for any assist!
Mark Phillips
Columbia, TN
"do not archive" included here in consideration of cc: to Aeroelectric List
Message 49
| 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: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Hi Mark -
I must have missed the point that you had tested the concept of using the
high freq inputs to EFIS/ONE. Just to re-affirm: you have EI probes in
your Legacy and will use them to get your fuel quantity from the EFIS/ONE.
If you don't have any troubles, I'll really be pissed with BMA!!! We had
to buy the Princeton modules, wire them in (at the cost of adding more
complexity to the system) and then calibrate the fuel system twice - once
for the modules and once for the EFIS.
How did you get the 5 volts to the probes? Did you have to use a voltage
divider?
Has Greg or Bob Northrup been advised? Any comments from them about the
test? The only difference between yours and mine is that we have VM probes
- which EI swears are identical to theirs. WE shall see.
Ah well, we may be able to bypass the modules and dispense with one of the
calibrations!!! :-))
Best,
John
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:54:29 -0600, Mark R Steitle
<mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
>
> John,
> Sure, I would be happy to post a follow-up message on this. I just put
> the wings on this weekend, so it won't be long until I put some fuel in
> one or both of them and can verify the fuel gauges are working. I don't
> see how anything will change from when I first tested them though.
> During my initial test, the probes were connected to the EFIS/1 high
> freq inputs, fuel was poured into the open end (vent hole at inboard end
> was plugged) and we observed the EFIS/1 fuel gauge registering from
> empty to full. We then slowly drained the fuel out of the probe and the
> gauge went back to empty. I anticipate having to do a final
> calibration, but as for the basic operation, I sure do hope that nothing
> changes.
>
> Mark S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Mark & D -
>
> Here is a quote from the BMA discussion board, followed by a reply from
>
> Bob Northrup - their tech support guy. We were told that the EI and VM
> probes were virtually identical so we had to buy the Princeton modules
> for
> our VM probes. Using the sensor map that BMA put together, we are
> putting
> the output of the two princeton modules into pins 11 & 12 of Analog 2 on
>
> the EFIS/ONE. We are using the frequency channels for fuel flow and
> tachometer.
>
> Mark - It looks like you are hooking your EI probes directly to the two
> hi
> freq channels (13 & 14) (Pins 9 & 10 of analog 2). I'll be interested in
>
> seeing how it works and quite irked if we got a bad steer from BMA. And
>
> being irked is also contingent on finding out that the EI and VM probes
>
> are not equal electrically. This would make the tech people at EI appear
>
> to be wandering in the swamp.
>
> Anyway, since neither of us are flying yet, let's keep each other
> informed
> as to how this problem shakes out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> ===================Quote =============
>
>
--
Message 50
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 5 Dec 2005, at 12:43, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
> Good Morning Paul,
>
> Please don't confuse my answer with anything you can hang your hat
> on, but
> my take would be that whether or not you need a remote annunciator
> for the 430
> is dependent on just where the Panel Unit is located.
>
> If it is way over to the right side in a canted panel as is common
> on many
> Bonanzas, it may or may not be considered as being within the
> pilots "normal"
> view. Some FAA inspectors have judged that such a location was OK.
>
> Others have disagreed.
>
> If the panel unit is mounted in the center panel of a Bonanza, as
> it is in
> some of the newer Cessna's and Pipers, I have never heard of anyone
> denying it
> is in the normal scan.
>
> When you are installing it in an experimental machine, I would say
> it is up
> to you to determine normal scan, but I am sure there are many fine
> Federal
> Officials who would disagree with me!
>
> There has been some guidance given that considered the pilots eyeball
> location and various angles therefrom, but I do not believe that
> has been written
> into a precise regulation as yet. I may well be wrong!
>
Bob,
Way up here in Canada there was a lot of confusion and conflicting
interpretations when trying to use the guidance in AC 20-138A. AC
20-138A refers to a "center avionics stack", which may be installed
in different places in different model aircraft. We decided that
tighter criteria were needed to ensure the intent of AC 20-138A was
met, and to avoid inconsistent interpretations. We initially created
a Flight Test Working Note, then took the resulting feedback,
adjusted it, and published it as Transport Canada Aircraft
Certification Policy Letter 523-008 "Design Guidelines and Human
Factors Considerations for Installation of IFR GPS/GNSS Receivers".
It details our interpretation of the guidance in AC 20-138A. ACPL
523-008 obviously isn't applicable to US registered aircraft, and it
specifically is only applicable to type certificated light aircraft.
But it might be of interest in this discussion. I think it provides
practical guidance on when an external annunciator unit is required,
and when it isn't. See:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/certification/guidance/523/523-008.htm
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 51
| 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: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Or to save a lot of money (Hall effect sensors are not cheap) stick *one* in
the line feeding the main bus and watch the change as you turn an individual
load off and on.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
--> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Based on desire for an immediate answer as to where anyone could place
sensors I will stick my toe into the pond and get the first ripple started.
"Hall effect devices sense the effects of current flowing in the
wire without actually taking energy out and wasting it."
So, I would use the 24 Hall Effect Devices to report where current is
flowing within my system. I want to know first how much the alternator is
producing. I want to know how much the landing lights are using when I turn
them on. How much the radio uses when listening and when transmitting. I
think you get the idea. Then you need a selector switch of some sort to
select which sensor you want to look in on. I guess you could program you
own mini TV and display the results of all 24 sensors. Add up all the
usages, and compare that to the alternator output to know what your loss is
in the overall system.
Indiana Larry
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> Bob,
> As usual, your answers are extremely frustrating! You talk all around
> the subject but never address the subject headon.
> " Correct. Hall effect devices sense the effects of current flowing
> in the wire without actually taking energy out and wasting it. However,
> the term 'acceptable' is not terribly relevant in the context of this
> discussion. ALL methods are acceptable to someone's design goals."
> Let's assume that my design goal is to sense current in the wire
> without out taking energy out of the wire. Therefore, let's accept
> that sensing that current using a HE device is "acceptable" to me.
> SNIP
> I'm anxious to see what the run-around answer will be this time.
> Actually, I've probably PO'd Bob enough that he won't answer.
> Perhaps someone can help.
> Again, my design goal:
> ---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
> better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's
> see ... just make it 24 sensors) ---where to locate the sensors to
> permit troubleshooting ---type of sensors to get the readings Anyone?
> Stan Sutterfield
>
Message 52
| 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: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Here is a stupid question - what if you are driving the LED from the same
line that is being monitored and the voltage goes to zero? No power for the
LED. It is true that in a points & coil system the engine will just stop.
But in a mag-based system the motor will keep going. If an auxiliary battery
is installed then shouldn't the LED be powered from that? Or am I worrying
too much?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
--> <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
nuckollsr@cox.net
>One could install the ov protection system and rely on a popped breaker
>as some form of active notification . . . but keep in mind that
alternators
>will fail to produce power for lots of reasons that will not open the
>breaker. Therefore, whether an ov protection system is even installed,
>the active notification of low voltage would be my FIRST recommendation
>for installed instrumentation in the electrical system. All other
goodies
>have some degree of usefulness but that light is your primary notice
that
>implementation of plan-B is called for to insure sweat-free termination
>of the flight. Bob . . .
The LV warning is the primary indicator of the health of the electrical
system.
I will be adding one of these to my website soon but you can see it now.
Contact me offlist.
http://www.periheliondesign.com/LV_Annunciator%20Manual.pdf
This device has facility for dimming or adding alarms. Comments would be
appreciated.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
- E Stobblehouse
Message 53
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I am not familiar with TruTrak, other than the name, so I cannot comment on
it. However, being a "gadget guy" and firmly believing that the one with the
most gadgets wins, a couple AP to the ILS (my GNS430 is SO nice on ILS
approaches; does some of the frequency settings, etc) would be a fun thing
to have. Would I trust it in IMC? Would I want to "miss out" on hand flying
the ILS to minimums? Well, if I'm at the end of a 3 hour leg in solid IMC
(extremely rare for me anyway), then, yeh, I might use that couple approach
system. However at the instant of disconnecting the AP and starting to hand
fly AND at decision ht........ whew, not sure I would want to do that.
Suppose the airplane is a bit out of trim, nose and/or ailerons. You can see
my reluctance.
It seems to me to utilize the coupled ILS/AP would require more recent
experience (UH,, more currency???) then just the old fashioned hand stuff
requires. Here in Central Ca., at KSNS, we get low stratus and fog often in
the summer and ground fog in the winter. Many times IMC is not until about
1000 AGL, well inside the outer marker and where the LOC/GS cones are
getting really narrow, and ceilings at minimums. To me this is the most
difficult approach, since it's so easy to stay VMC until that ~1000' AGL
point. Now one has to get on the gauges and focus on the NAV information,
having the missed approach stuff in mind, etc., etc.,... and so on. The more
one does this, the more likely one will have the plane at speed and trimmed,
so that upon AP disconnect there are no surprises.
Holly cow, not sure I've answered any of your concerns. Sorry if that is the
case.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <sportav8r@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
> Wayne-
>
> perhaps you can help me out a bit. (And if my laptop decides to send this
> mail before I'm done composing it, all I can say is, Sorry, dude; it's a
> Dell with a touchpad. Even though I float my thumbs off the keyboard I
> sometimes manage to hit a secret key sequence that erases half the message
> and sends the rest out...)
>
> I fly a VFR RV-6A with the Trio EZ-Pilot and a Garmin 296. I want to add
> altitude hold and one day a GRT EFIS, and learn to fly IFR. In these
> respects, I'm alot like the owner of GRT except he has the EFIS already
> ;-) Also, he went with TruTrak (I'm getting back to that later...)
>
> Since I have a brand loyalty to Trio, for whatever reason, I have been
> looking at their Alt Hold product as the next step for me. I became
> concerned that GRT didn't support Trio as of yet, except for lateral
> guidance. I called Trio today to discuss this, and all they could tell me
> was that altitude hold devices with any type of ILS-tracking capability
> were not even in the development phase, though it was in their future
> planning.
>
> I'm sure I could "get by" with the system you mention below, but having
> read Greg's experiences with coupled approaches flown in his RV-6 on the
> GRT EFIS with the Tru-Trak, I am really hoping to get that kind of sexy
> and luxurious capability in my plane one day. Now, however, I am
> bringing myself up short and asking whether I should just set my sights on
> your type of set-up, with Trio gear driven by the GNS-430. Obviously, to
> fully exploit the intelligent frequency nomination and TIS capabilities of
> the GRT EFIS, know I need to be looking at that type of nav/comm/GPS to
> replace the Icom A-200 and the GPSmap 296 I'm currently flying with.
>
> I'm afraid that as an IFR-wanna be, I'm too ignorant to even be asking the
> right questions. My gut tells me I should plan to remove and sell the
> Trio A/P and plan on installing a high-end TruTrak, for the kind of
> coupled-approach capability I _think_ I will want, but my wallet is
> screaming, "NO! Not 6k for an A/P after what the EFIS and radios
> themselves will cost!" The Trio comes in at under 4k altogether, of
> course.
>
> I hope that's enough background on my situation to now ask, "So, what do
> you think?"
>
> -Stormy
>
>
> Snip>>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one
> SWEEEEEET
> system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and
> the
> Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off
> unevenly
> (wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot,
> the
> wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
> intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
> 430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with
> the
> EzPilot.
> One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
> climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are
> included
> for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
> installing the S-Tec.
> Wayne
> << snip
>
>
>
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Clark <jclarkmail@gmail.com>
I think Bob describes this in his documentation somewhere in the
AeroElectric Book but as a "subsciber" to Z-14 here is my take. <Bob correct
me if I am wrong ..>
1. You have two *independent* electrical systems with Z-14 whose
2. Copmponents **can** be "shared" when needed such as ..
3. Use of both batteries for cranking **IF** needed or
4. Having things wired so one battery can CRANK and the other keep the EI
happy or
5. If one of the *4* sources of electricity dies, you have access to each of
the other 3 to power anything you want in your all electric system and ..
6. The ability to either leave the "crossfeed" switch always "on" or simply
throw it "on" when some part dies (in the middle of the night while IFR in a
storm, over the mountains, bkah, blah ....:-) ) and not have to worry about
much else for quite some time.
That's what I see in it and why I am using it. And quite frankly for those
who say it is heavier, I really don't care.
James
p.s. Some will see complexity in it ... I see a level of elegance and
simplicity.
On 12/5/05, John Burnaby <jonlaury@impulse.net> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Burnaby" <
> jonlaury@impulse.net>
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is the advantage of having the cross feed
> contactor in Z-14 ? In an all electric ship (EI, EFI) please give me the
> "what ifs" that I'm missing.
>
> Why not have the whole system on the primary(bigger) alternator and have
> the #2 alt kick in if the # 1 drops output below a preset? Like Bob said in
> the Z-14 text, the batteries will suck up the output deficit of the # 2 Alt
> and all I have to know is to be on terra firma before the batts go dry.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james@nextupventures.com .
Message 55
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
I g
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Sweet <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I am not familiar with TruTrak, other than the name, so I cannot comment on
it. However, being a "gadget guy" and firmly believing that the one with the
most gadgets wins, a couple AP to the ILS (my GNS430 is SO nice on ILS
approaches; does some of the frequency settings, etc) would be a fun thing
to have. Would I trust it in IMC? Would I want to "miss out" on hand flying
the ILS to minimums? Well, if I'm at the end of a 3 hour leg in solid IMC
(extremely rare for me anyway), then, yeh, I might use that couple approach
system. However at the instant of disconnecting the AP and starting to hand
fly AND at decision ht........ whew, not sure I would want to do that.
Suppose the airplane is a bit out of trim, nose and/or ailerons. You can see
my reluctance.
It seems to me to utilize the coupled ILS/AP would require more recent
experience (UH,, more currency???) then just the old fashioned hand stuff
requires. Here in Central Ca., at KSNS, we get low stratus and fog often in
the summer and ground fog in the winter. Many times IMC is not until about
1000 AGL, well inside the outer marker and where the LOC/GS cones are
getting really narrow, and ceilings at minimums. To me this is the most
difficult approach, since it's so easy to stay VMC until that ~1000' AGL
point. Now one has to get on the gauges and focus on the NAV information,
having the missed approach stuff in mind, etc., etc.,... and so on. The more
one does this, the more likely one will have the plane at speed and trimmed,
so that upon AP disconnect there are no surprises.
Holly cow, not sure I've answered any of your concerns. Sorry if that is the
case.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <sportav8r@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
> Wayne-
>
> perhaps you can help me out a bit. (And if my laptop decides to send this
> mail before I'm done composing it, all I can say is, Sorry, dude; it's a
> Dell with a touchpad. Even though I float my thumbs off the keyboard I
> sometimes manage to hit a secret key sequence that erases half the message
> and sends the rest out...)
>
> I fly a VFR RV-6A with the Trio EZ-Pilot and a Garmin 296. I want to add
> altitude hold and one day a GRT EFIS, and learn to fly IFR. In these
> respects, I'm alot like the owner of GRT except he has the EFIS already
> ;-) Also, he went with TruTrak (I'm getting back to that later...)
>
> Since I have a brand loyalty to Trio, for whatever reason, I have been
> looking at their Alt Hold product as the next step for me. I became
> concerned that GRT didn't support Trio as of yet, except for lateral
> guidance. I called Trio today to discuss this, and all they could tell me
> was that altitude hold devices with any type of ILS-tracking capability
> were not even in the development phase, though it was in their future
> planning.
>
> I'm sure I could "get by" with the system you mention below, but having
> read Greg's experiences with coupled approaches flown in his RV-6 on the
> GRT EFIS with the Tru-Trak, I am really hoping to get that kind of sexy
> and luxurious capability in my plane one day. Now, however, I am
> bringing myself up short and asking whether I should just set my sights on
> your type of set-up, with Trio gear driven by the GNS-430. Obviously, to
> fully exploit the intelligent frequency nomination and TIS capabilities of
> the GRT EFIS, know I need to be looking at that type of nav/comm/GPS to
> replace the Icom A-200 and the GPSmap 296 I'm currently flying with.
>
> I'm afraid that as an IFR-wanna be, I'm too ignorant to even be asking the
> right questions. My gut tells me I should plan to remove and sell the
> Trio A/P and plan on installing a high-end TruTrak, for the kind of
> coupled-approach capability I _think_ I will want, but my wallet is
> screaming, "NO! Not 6k for an A/P after what the EFIS and radios
> themselves will cost!" The Trio comes in at under 4k altogether, of
> course.
>
> I hope that's enough background on my situation to now ask, "So, what do
> you think?"
>
> -Stormy
>
>
> Snip>>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one
> SWEEEEEET
> system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and
> the
> Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off
> unevenly
> (wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot,
> the
> wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
> intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
> 430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with
> the
> EzPilot.
> One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
> climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are
> included
> for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
> installing the S-Tec.
> Wayne
> << snip
>
>
>
Message 56
| 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: | Looking for alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires 80
amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR panel.
What am I missing here?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark R.
Supinski
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski"
--> <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
Hello All-
Well, I'm throwing in the towel on using my stock, internally regulated
RX-7 alternator. The design seems to make it very difficult (impossible) to
shut it down if the internal VR fails.
So, I am looking for a nice externally regulated 80-Amp alternator. I've
found a candidate at summit racing for $89. Wondering whether anyone has a
different recommendation? It's tough finding an appropriate alternator --
all the online sources want to know what car your looking to get a part for
first...
Mark
Message 57
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered absolute brain
disconnect while on approach in the soup, the electronics would be there to
take over for me while I slapped myself and got back in the groove. Having yet
to experience an approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot,
I may be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into inadvertent
IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the adrenaline surge that accompanies
the inner voice, "Now you've done it!" and how hard it is to keep wits
about you when suddenly distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those times after
I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit more dicey than forecast.
I'll talk to the gurus at GRT soon, but have this feeling that the Trio A/P is
coming out of my plane and going onto eBay in favor of the more expensive but
more capable TruTrak units. This is a sad thing. I like Trio alot for what it
does. It's been a terrific VFR addition to my flying.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Sweet <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I am not familiar with TruTrak, other than the name, so I cannot comment on
it. However, being a "gadget guy" and firmly believing that the one with the
most gadgets wins, a couple AP to the ILS (my GNS430 is SO nice on ILS
approaches; does some of the frequency settings, etc) would be a fun thing
to have. Would I trust it in IMC? Would I want to "miss out" on hand flying
the ILS to minimums? Well, if I'm at the end of a 3 hour leg in solid IMC
(extremely rare for me anyway), then, yeh, I might use that couple approach
system. However at the instant of disconnecting the AP and starting to hand
fly AND at decision ht........ whew, not sure I would want to do that.
Suppose the airplane is a bit out of trim, nose and/or ailerons. You can see
my reluctance.
It seems to me to utilize the coupled ILS/AP would require more recent
experience (UH,, more currency???) then just the old fashioned hand stuff
requires. Here in Central Ca., at KSNS, we get low stratus and fog often in
the summer and ground fog in the winter. Many times IMC is not until about
1000 AGL, well inside the outer marker and where the LOC/GS cones are
getting really narrow, and ceilings at minimums. To me this is the most
difficult approach, since it's so easy to stay VMC until that ~1000' AGL
point. Now one has to get on the gauges and focus on the NAV information,
having the missed approach stuff in mind, etc., etc.,... and so on. The more
one does this, the more likely one will have the plane at speed and trimmed,
so that upon AP disconnect there are no surprises.
Holly cow, not sure I've answered any of your concerns. Sorry if that is the
case.
Wayne
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jack Lockamy <jacklockamy@verizon.net>
After 110 flight hours in my RV-7A, I decided to remove the Grand Rapids Technolofy
(GRT) EIS-4000 Digital Engine monitor with the Dynon EMS-D10 Digital/Graphic
Engine monitor to go with my Dynon EFIS-D10. The process was pretty painless
with the aid of the EIS/EMS wiring harness provided by SteinAir (nice job
Stein....).
All the GRT sensors are functioning/displaying info properly on the Dynon EMS-D10
with the following exceptions:
1. Alternator Output: I have the GRT Hall effect (wire runs thru ring) sensor
on the Alternator output wire. With the EIS-4000, I always got a (+) reading
indicating the alternator was indeed putting out positive amperage. With the
Hall Effect sensor wire going to the AMPS (+) wire on the EMS-D10, I get a (-)
reading on the EMS-D-10 which to me means a DISCHARGE in the system. The EMS-D10
instructions say that if the indications are reversed of what you normally
expect to see, reverse the wire(s). Thus I changed the EIS-4000 AMP sensor
to connect to the EMS-D10 AMPS (-) pin. Now the EMS display indicates +99 AMPS.
Has anyone else had this problem? I do not have a ammeter shunt installed,
but maybe I should....
2. My GRT Carb temp probe always read +58 to +87 degrees F based on the altitude
or ambient temps. I read this as above the 32 deg F freezing level and all
is well. The EMS-D10 is now displaying -58 to -87 thus I interprete this as
WELL BELOW freezing and a problem. Has anyone else seen this?
I have talked to Dynon and they are looking into these two sensors/reverse readings.
I am curious if anyone else who has installed an EMS-D10 after using the
GRT EIS-4000 has observed these abnormal indications.
Please feel free to contact me off-list if you wish: jacklockamy@verizon.net
Thanks,
Jack Lockamy
RV-7A N174JL flying 117.0 hrs
Camarillo, CA
www.jacklockamy.com or www.jacklockamy.net
do not archive
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
Message 59
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
> absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
> electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
> myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
> approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
> be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
> inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
> adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
> it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
> distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
> capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
> times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
> more dicey than forecast.
>
Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
Fly safe.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
James -
You said it better than I: It is an elegant, flexible electrical system. I
installed it in our Lancair ES.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
LNCE Wings and things in the paint shop.
> 1. You have two *independent* electrical systems with Z-14 whose
> 2. Copmponents **can** be "shared" when needed such as ..
> 3. Use of both batteries for cranking **IF** needed or
> 4. Having things wired so one battery can CRANK and the other keep the EI
> happy or
> 5. If one of the *4* sources of electricity dies, you have access to
> each of
> the other 3 to power anything you want in your all electric system and ..
> 6. The ability to either leave the "crossfeed" switch always "on" or
> simply
> throw it "on" when some part dies (in the middle of the night while IFR
> in a
> storm, over the mountains, blah, blah ....:-) ) and not have to worry
> about
> much else for quite some time.
>
> That's what I see in it and why I am using it. And quite frankly for
> those
> who say it is heavier, I really don't care.
>
> James
> p.s. Some will see complexity in it ... I see a level of elegance and
> simplicity.
>
> On 12/5/05, John Burnaby <jonlaury@impulse.net> wrote:
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance, but what is the advantage of having the cross feed
>> contactor in Z-14 ? In an all electric ship (EI, EFI) please give me the
>> "what ifs" that I'm missing.
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
The Hall effect sensors I have seen (and purchased) are three-wire devices:
power in, common ground and signal out. Do you have three wires and if so
which did you reverse?
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/pdf/current_sensor_tech_note.pdf
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Lockamy
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon EMS-D10
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jack Lockamy
--> <jacklockamy@verizon.net>
After 110 flight hours in my RV-7A, I decided to remove the Grand Rapids
Technolofy (GRT) EIS-4000 Digital Engine monitor with the Dynon EMS-D10
Digital/Graphic Engine monitor to go with my Dynon EFIS-D10. The process
was pretty painless with the aid of the EIS/EMS wiring harness provided by
SteinAir (nice job Stein....).
All the GRT sensors are functioning/displaying info properly on the Dynon
EMS-D10 with the following exceptions:
1. Alternator Output: I have the GRT Hall effect (wire runs thru ring)
sensor on the Alternator output wire. With the EIS-4000, I always got a (+)
reading indicating the alternator was indeed putting out positive amperage.
With the Hall Effect sensor wire going to the AMPS (+) wire on the EMS-D10,
I get a (-) reading on the EMS-D-10 which to me means a DISCHARGE in the
system. The EMS-D10 instructions say that if the indications are reversed
of what you normally expect to see, reverse the wire(s). Thus I changed the
EIS-4000 AMP sensor to connect to the EMS-D10 AMPS (-) pin. Now the EMS
display indicates +99 AMPS. Has anyone else had this problem? I do not
have a ammeter shunt installed, but maybe I should....
2. My GRT Carb temp probe always read +58 to +87 degrees F based on the
altitude or ambient temps. I read this as above the 32 deg F freezing level
and all is well. The EMS-D10 is now displaying -58 to -87 thus I interprete
this as WELL BELOW freezing and a problem. Has anyone else seen this?
I have talked to Dynon and they are looking into these two sensors/reverse
readings. I am curious if anyone else who has installed an EMS-D10 after
using the GRT EIS-4000 has observed these abnormal indications.
Please feel free to contact me off-list if you wish:
jacklockamy@verizon.net
Thanks,
Jack Lockamy
RV-7A N174JL flying 117.0 hrs
Camarillo, CA
www.jacklockamy.com or www.jacklockamy.net
do not archive
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
Message 62
| 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: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
<craig@craigandjean.com>
>Here is a stupid question - what if you are driving the LED from the same
>line that is being monitored and the voltage goes to zero? No power for the
>LED. It is true that in a points & coil system the engine will just stop.
>But in a mag-based system the motor will keep going. If an auxiliary
>battery
>is installed then shouldn't the LED be powered from that? Or am I worrying
>too much?-- Craig
Craig,
This design has separate sensor and LED circuits that allow powering the LED
from some other source (like the E-bus or battery bus). If the monitor lead
is then attached to the alternator output it will detect a failing
alternator with high confidence.
See: http://www.periheliondesign.com/LV_Annunciator%20Manual.pdf
There have been questions regarding this both on and off the list--
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo"
<trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
>Is it easy to make that same device not only to indicate Low Voltage
>(steady
>lit light) at 13.0 V, but also to indicate High Voltage at, for example
>15,0 V, with the same LED but flashing ? Carlos Trigo
Carlos,
Doing both is possible. My view is that a high voltage warning demands
immediate and automatic action, and low voltage warning does not. (Some of
this depends on what you are flying). Even in a combined Hi-Lo system I
would want some sort of quick alternator shut off to occur. Once the
alternator was shut off then the lo volt warning light would immediately go
on---so the high voltage blinking light might be on for only milliseconds.
>I need a similar device but, really would like a high voltage warning
>(adjustable) alarm also. I have seen too many instances where the
>alternator runs high >due to a voltage regulator failure. By the time the
>pilot figures out his alternator is running afoul his battery has cooked
>and puked its acid base into the >battery box and other places.
From David Lloyd--
>Any suggestions to finding a unit that does both high and low voltage
>monitoring?? David
As above, one should have automatic protection against high voltage, but
then the transition from high to low is just a blink. Whether you use the
crowbar or Linear-OVM, you need some automatic OV protection.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
Message 63
| 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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
You know, I'd forgotten about that little trick (not really a trick, as you say
- it's quite legit).
I normally just accept the direct clearances I get (which is all the time, even
when I don't ask, and I file /U). Nothing but additional verbage to use the
"RV" (radar vectors) method, really, which is probably why the controllers (at
least around here) avoid it.
There was recently a giant thread on rec.aviation.ifr - as there is every few months,
it seems - about the legalities of VFR GPS under IFR. It's amazing how
much confusion, and how much inconsistency on the part of controllers, there
is.
Anyway it's the WAAS-enabled precision approaches that are the big selling point
for me for the panel-mounted IFR GPS. Soon they will be plentiful - hopefully.
I did the MWC VOR 4 in 1 mile vis two days ago (snowstorm); how much nicer
that would have been as a precision approach to the runway threshold. MWC is
never going to have an ILS. (Even though the cig was high, 1300 agl, the very
low vis (I think it was really more like 1/2 mile) made it rather challenging.
You still couldn't see a damn thing after breaking out.)
~P
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Bruce Gray
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
You don't need an IFR rated GPS to go direct. To go direct, even with the
approved GPS box requires you be in radar contact at all times.
So, you just ask the controller, "How about radar vectors, direct to HFD
(400 NM away)from our present position? It looks like 088 degrees (heading
from your hand held GPS) will do it."
The controller will answer "Cleared radar vectors, direct HFD, heading 088
until able."
All perfectly legal.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
<pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
Unfortunately you just can't legally fly direct w/out an IFR GPS and
WAAS approaches are the wave of the future as well, so the RV'll have to
have one.
do not archive
Message 64
| 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: IFR GPS INSTALLATION |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.5000 1.0000 0.0000
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to an email from Daniel Snow which is copied below.
11/05/2005
Hello Daniel, No need to apologize -- I welcome your questions and like your
cautious approach. Before I address your questions individually I invite
your attention to the article "Homebuilt In the Clouds" by Dick Koehler
starting on page 62 of the September 2005 issue of Sport Aviation magazine.
He gives some good insight into the fundamental problem faced by the FAA in
this regard. Simply stated in my words it is that:
1) The FAA recognizes that some amateur built experimental aircraft have
achieved the sophistication and utility level that permitting them to fly
IFR is warranted.
2) There are no published certification standards for amateur built
experimental aircraft.
3) Any attempt to create such standards, educate all of the builders and FAA
and DAR inspectors about those standards, and then create the administrative
structure to enforce those standards out in the field would be an
overwhelming task. In addition it would defeat much of what the amateur
built experimental aircraft program is all about by creating a stifling
bureaucratic blanket on the innovations that come from that community.
So the approach chosen by the FAA was to continue the administration of a
basic day VFR amateur built experimental aircraft program and create an
avenue that would allow the builder to pursue IFR capability on his own if
he adhered to certain requirements for his aircraft. That avenue is found in
the following two sentences in the aircraft's Operating Limitations:
"After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped
for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft
is to be operated under VFR, day only."
"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91.
Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
In essence the FAA or DAR inspector grants a Special Airworthiness
Certificate (which includes the Operating Limitations) for the aircraft to
fly day VFR. The aircraft must remain day VFR during its Phase I flight
testing. Upon completion of that flight testing if the builder decides that
he wants to fly IFR he must follow the requirements of his Operating
Limitations for equipping his aircraft to do so. No FAA administrative
structure exists to subsequently approve or inspect how he equips his
amateur built experimental aircraft for IFR operations.
<<You wrote: "Are you saying that I, as the builder, can install an IFR GPS
in my experimental without a shop or FAA involvement, and legally use it to
fly IFR?"
Yes.
<<You wrote: "Do you know if very many experimental builders do this?">>
Yes, many do, but consider this: Putting together an IFR capable panel is
not a trivial activity. (You may have heard the saying "Any one can build an
airplane, it takes a real man to build the instrument panel for it." So the
reality is that the majority of IFR capable panels are probably not built by
individual builders, but instead are built by companies specializing in
building such panels. Just look at the ads by panel building companies in
the magazines that cater to our community. And the FAA specifically permits
this in paragraph 6. b. of AC 20-139.
On the other end of the spectrum there are builders out there that are so
deeply into the electron flow within their airplane that the airframe is
just an adjunct device to haul around this magnificent avionics suite that
they labored over for xxx months or years.
You wrote: "I would read the FAR's before installing, and I would use best
practices and FAA guidance to install the unit.>>
Right on, and don't forget the AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual). It has
extensive information now on both GPS hardware, software (data base currency
and use) and flight operations.
You wrote: "I'm also assuming there is no continuing certification
requirements for an IFR GPS?>>
I am not sure that I understand what your question here. There is no
periodic testing of the IFR GPS hardware per FAA directives like there is
for the transponder, encoder, and altimeter. There are navigation database
currency requirements that have been chewed over in some detail in recent
postings.
<<You wrote: "Lastly, how confident are you of this interpretation? I don't
mean to question you, but just to establish the certainty of this
approach.>>
Hey, I am no authority -- Just a fellow builder who tries to understand the
bureaucratic bramble bushes and pass on what I can glean. I don't mind being
questioned at all -- many times I have learned something important when
somebody doubted me and I had to dig deeper.
You could query Joe Norris at EAA. jnorris@eaa.org. I'll send him a copy of
this email to make it easier for you. Be sure to let us all know if he has
some wrinkle that is not apparent to us. Thanks.
OC
PS: You may find out that the initial equippage of your aircraft for GPS IFR
flight is not the biggest hurdle. Becoming IFR proficient (not just
current), maintaining that currency / proficiency (got safety pilots
handy?), getting good in flight weather information (radar, XM satellite
weather?), and paying for the up keep of a legal IFR GPS navigation data
base, are all significant things to consider.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snow, Daniel A." <Daniel.Snow@wancdf.com>
Subject: IFR GPS INSTALLATION
I'm sorry to belabor this point, but I just want to make sure of what I
think you said, since you were answering a different but similar question.
I would like to have an IFR GPS, but I don't want to pay the price to have a
shop install/certify the unit. Are you saying that I, as the builder, can
install an IFR GPS in my experimental without a shop or FAA involvement, and
legally use it to fly IFR? Do you know if very many experimental builders
do this? I would read the FAR's before installing, and I would use best
practices and FAA guidance to install the unit. I'm also assuming there is
no continuing certification requirements for an IFR GPS?
Lastly, how confident are you of this interpretation? I don't mean to
question you, but just to establish the certainty of this approach.
Sorry again for prolonging the topic. Thanks.
BELOW IS A PREVIOUS POSTING WHICH TRIGGERED DANIEL'S QUERY ABOVE
12/2/2005
Hello John, Short answer first. No, your friend does not have to file any
additional IFR approval paperwork with the FAA for the installation of a
Garmin 430 GPS in his Glasair amateur built experimental airplane.
To explain:
1) Your friend did not need and did not have any specific ".....orginal
signoff for IFR in his operating limitations." He did not need, and should
not have attempted to obtain, any such subsequent FAA approved sign off.
2) His Operating Limitations, which were part of his original special
airworthiness certificate issued by either an FAA or DAR inspector, should
contain words like the following from the then current version of FAA Order
8130.2_:
"After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped
for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this
aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only."
"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
3) Those sentences are the grand sum total of IFR approval for his aircraft
equipment.
There are some other instructions in his Operating Limitations that would
apply when operating the aircraft IFR such as:
"In addition, this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable
air traffic and general operating rules of part 91and all additional
limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of 91.319(e)."
"When filing instrument flight rules (IFR), the experimental nature of this
aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."
As long as his aircraft is in compliance with his Operating Limitations and
the instructions in the current version of the AIM he is legal to fly IFR
with no further aircraft approval or paperwork from the FAA.
4) I might point out that included in the AIM for IFR GPS operations are the
requirements that the pilot comply with instructions in his AFM and AFM
supplement and pilot guides. Since your friend is in control of what is in,
or not in, his planes AFM and supplement that should present no problem.
Since the pilot guide for his Garmin GPS is published by Garmin, complying
with that guide should be no problem.
5) Common sense would require that the pilot follow some installation
guidance such as that provided in AC 20-138A and a perform a healthy dose of
VFR / VMC flight testing before attempting any IFR operations.
Please let me know if I can be of further help.
OC
Message 65
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
I highly respect your "NSHO," Kevin. I'm a complete newbie when it comes to IFR.
You are the esteemed test pilot. We will forgive you in this instance for
being Canadian ;-)
I have heard smarter pilots than me comment, however, that the presence of a good
autopilot makes single-pilot IFR in an RV something a reasonable person might
actually consider, vs. lunacy. Since many think it takes an A/P to tame the
RV as a workable IFR platform, I simply plan to install the best I can get if
I'm to venture there at all. Does that make sense?
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
> absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
> electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
> myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
> approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
> be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
> inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
> adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
> it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
> distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
> capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
> times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
> more dicey than forecast.
>
Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
Fly safe.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 66
| 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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
version=3.0.3
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net>
Kevin Horton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
>>I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
>>absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
>>electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
>>myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
>>approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
>>be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
>>inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
>>adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
>>it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
>>distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
>>capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
>>times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
>>more dicey than forecast.
>>
>
>
> Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
> in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
> requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
> cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
> a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
> cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
> reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
>
> Fly safe.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
Stormy, while what Kevin says is true, I think he missed a little hint
on your level of experience. You talk about adrenaline when you go in a
cloud, but when you have an instrument rating, and a little experience,
you know that you can handle it, and the fear/adrenaline is replace by a
sense of focus, and a quiet competence. The thing that you gain with a
capable autopilot is the ability to study a chart, or approach plate,
when solo. If ATC suddenly assigns a different approach, or the weather
at your destination goes below minimums, and you have to divert to
another airport, it is a wonderful thing to have an autopilot fly the
airplane while you go digging through your flight bag.
In the beginning, I would fly solo IFR without an autopilot, but now I
consider it indispensable.
John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 67
| 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: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
Here is my $.02. I currently fly a 152 IFR with no autopilot. It is a lot of
work at times, I mean it is high workload flying an approach, and I don't go to
mins by choice, but it's entirely doable when one is current. However, a single-axis
AP would reduce the workload to a quite managable level - if it didn't
cost a fortune for a certified ship I'd get one.
What does this have to do with your RV? I don't know what you're building, but
I'm building a 9 and IMO they're no less "stable" or sensitive than the 152 -
not at approach speeds, anyway. The RV at 90 knots feels dang close to the 152
at 90 knots!
So, my bird will have a single-axis TruTrak, which will give me great freedom and
comfort enroute, and a lot of help with approaches, but won't break the bank.
If money were no object I'd certainly have a 2-axis AP coupled to a full GRT
EFIS setup (I plan the Sport EFIS now) but I just don't think I need it for
the handful of real approaches I seem to be flying per year (only been at the
IFR stuff a about a year). And, heck, I WANT to fly the airplane! :-}
~P
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of sportav8r@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
I highly respect your "NSHO," Kevin. I'm a complete newbie when it comes to IFR.
You are the esteemed test pilot. We will forgive you in this instance for
being Canadian ;-)
I have heard smarter pilots than me comment, however, that the presence of a good
autopilot makes single-pilot IFR in an RV something a reasonable person might
actually consider, vs. lunacy. Since many think it takes an A/P to tame the
RV as a workable IFR platform, I simply plan to install the best I can get if
I'm to venture there at all. Does that make sense?
-Stormy
Message 68
| 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: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Old Bob,
Thanks for your kind, informative response. I'll check into the Zeftronics
Troubleshooting Guide.
Thanks also to Glen Matejcek for his detailed, offline response. Very
helpful.
Thanks,
Stan Sutterfield
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 12/05/05 3:02:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Again, my design goal:
---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's see ...
just
make it 24 sensors)
---where to locate the sensors to permit troubleshooting
---type of sensors to get the readings
Anyone?
Stan Sutterfield
Good Evening Stan,
Please don't assume that my commenting on your question means that I know
anything at all about the subject, but I was having some problems a year or so
ago with an alternator control circuit on a certificated airplane.
I wanted to be able to check the voltages in a manner similar to what you
want to do, so this is what I did.
I got the Zeftronics trouble shooting guide and looked to see what places
Zeftronics suggested using for measuring voltages while checking the system.
I
then attached a number twenty-two wire at each of those points and led those
wires to a DB nine plug which was positioned where it could be easily
reached from the right seat. That way, I could use a Fluke Meter to make the
checks Zeftronics wanted while the airplane was airborne.
Worked just fine for me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 69
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:19 PM 12/5/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Clark <jclarkmail@gmail.com>
>
>I think Bob describes this in his documentation somewhere in the
>AeroElectric Book but as a "subsciber" to Z-14 here is my take. <Bob correct
>me if I am wrong ..>
>
>1. You have two *independent* electrical systems with Z-14 whose
>2. Copmponents **can** be "shared" when needed such as ..
>3. Use of both batteries for cranking **IF** needed or
>4. Having things wired so one battery can CRANK and the other keep the EI
>happy or
>5. If one of the *4* sources of electricity dies, you have access to each of
>the other 3 to power anything you want in your all electric system and ..
>6. The ability to either leave the "crossfeed" switch always "on" or simply
>throw it "on" when some part dies (in the middle of the night while IFR in a
>storm, over the mountains, bkah, blah ....:-) ) and not have to worry about
>much else for quite some time.
>
>That's what I see in it and why I am using it. And quite frankly for those
>who say it is heavier, I really don't care.
It could be the heaviest of systems . . . unless you add a second battery
to Z-12. It doesn't need to be heavy . . . the aux battery can be a
non-cranking
battery and quite light. Your assessment is correct except for the
cross-feed contactor operation. Except for closing during cranking, normal
ops are conducted with cross-feed open. This allows a single failure of
alternator on one system to be immediately noted by low voltage warning.
Z-14 offers the multiple bus capability of any others having a main-bus
and e-bus. Z-14 is not recommended for anyone except those who perhaps
fly with dual glass and spend a lot of hours on long cross-country missions
where probability of crossing an unfriendly weather front is high.
I'd judge that perhaps 2% of the fleet can make good use of a Z-14
installation. I know that many more folks have installed it. However,
when compared with the old Prestolite starter, 24 or 32 a.h. battery
and 60A alternator found on many S.E. aircraft, there's nothing described
in the 'Connection that will approach such weights.
Bob. . .
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|